Trending Topics:

Pro-Israel Jews have ‘inexcusable prejudice’ against Obama — Sandy Berger

US Politics
on 93 Comments

The latest email release from Hillary Clinton’s server includes two substantive memos in 2010 on the peace process from Martin Indyk, then at the Brookings Center, and Sandy Berger, a former national security adviser to the Clintons.

First the juicy one. Berger wrote to Clinton about the Middle East in summer 2010, and he speaks a lot about the power of the Israel lobby. Berger advises sucking up to Netanyahu to pacify the lobby. All emphases are mine:

At a political level, the past year has clearly demonstrated the degree to which the U.S. has been hamstrung by its low ratings in Israel and among important segments of
the domestic Jewish constituency. This is a critical dimension not for electoral reasons, but because the U.S.’s best chance of influencing Bibi is to build support for
a deal in Israel and at home among those who care most. That capacity has been improved to some extent as a result of the successful July visit by Netanyahu and the
string of military/security deals between our two countries. But we must be honest: there sill is a long way to go. If anything, the recent Obama/Bibi illustrated a new,
potentially perverse dynamic: the U.S. president at this juncture needs the Israeli prime minister to validate his pro-Israeli credentials more than the Israeli prime minister needs the U.S. president to vouch for his pro-peace ones…

What a topsy-turvy world! The US President needs Netanyahu to make him look good to “important segments of the domestic Jewish constituency” more than Netanyahu needs Obama to bolster his alleged interest in peace! Think of the folks who got in trouble for saying that the lobby are Israel Firsters! So what a good thing that Obama and Netanyahu have gotten a divorce; and Obama is appealing to a broader constituency than just the lobby.

Then there’s this added comment about the lobby:

At the level of personalities….

The president faces a different but no less difficult problem. He is not trusted in Israel and, though the July meeting might have altered the situation somewhat, not
trusted by Bibi. Domestically, he faces a reservoir of skepticism on this issue which reflects many factors, including inexcusable prejudice, but which could obstruct his effectiveness both as an interlocutor and as a salesman. Besides, as we learned during WJC’s presidency, it would be a mistake for Obama to get too deeply invested..

So what Berger, who is Jewish, termed “the domestic Jewish constituency” has “inexcusable prejudice” against Obama. I wonder what that’s about– racism, xenophobia. They want a president they can trust. They trust Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush because they can be bought, or because they’re white?

Now here is Indyk’s email. It’s interesting because almost everything he says turned out in the end to be wrong. He casts Netanyahu as an outlier, in a reasonable polity. But Israeli society has turned more and more rightwing in recent years. Indyk:

Likud voters are to the left of their Knesset members when it comes to peacemaking
(70 percent support the two-state solution, vs only 50 percent of the leadership)

Netanyahu might be serious about peace:

According to Tzipi Livni, she can bring her party into the government now, and is willing to
do so without any demand for “rotation,” provided Bibi is serious about negotiating peace.

Indyk made prognostications about the next election: “recent internal polling which shows Kadima with 32 seats (up from 28 now), Likud slightly
down at 25, and Labor at only 5.”  It didn’t work out that way three years later. Livni’s new party got 6, Labor got 19, and Likud got 31.

Indyk saw Netanyahu as reasonable in the end:

In the end, under great pressure from all quarters, he will make the final concession, but only after wasting a lot of time,
making everybody furious with him,

Yes I know, hindsight is 20/20, but everything in this paragraph also turned out to be wrong:

The reason for dwelling on Bibi’s psychology rather than his politics is that the latter all point in the direction of making a
deal: the Israeli public is ready to get on with it; if Israel doesn’t make a serious move, it will further delegitimize its
standing internationally (something Bibi is deeply concerned about); Bibi needs President Obama in his corner to deal
with the threat from Iran and to avoid punishment by the voters for mishandling relations with the U.S.; and if he
doesn’t make the deal with Abu Mazen now, he will have helped to advance the future he is most concerned about – a
Hamas takeover of the Palestinian leadership.

So don’t blame Netanyahu, put your arm around him!

Put your arm around Bibi: he still thinks we are out to bring him down. There is no substitute for working with him,
even though he makes it such a frustrating process. But the purpose of embracing him is to nudge him forward, not to
buy into his exaggerated political fears or accept his inflated demands.

Because he’s got the right idea in the end:

Try to find a way to make him understand that his negotiating tactics are counterproductive to his own purposes.

He will come to the table:

Bibi, Abu Mazen, and the Arab states need negotiations and time is not on the side of any of them. They
will come back to the table sooner rather than later as long as we keep the door open.

 

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

93 Responses

  1. jayn0t
    September 2, 2015, 1:18 pm
    • Krauss
      September 2, 2015, 1:45 pm

      Pollak is just taking a page out of Rothkopf’s book. Because AIPAC doesn’t win 100% of the time it is now “dead”?

      I don’t think we would see this great rush to declare NRA dead after a big setback that they had. We would admit that while NRA isn’t immortal it is nevertheless extremely influential.

      So why do we see these rushes to declare the lobby dead – often from the same people who spent years denying it existed in the first place?

      Ethnic politics.

      • RobertHenryEller
        September 3, 2015, 9:19 am

        It would be convenient for AIPAC if many people believed it was dead. AIPAC would much prefer, and benefit from, a lower profile, and for people to perceive AIPAC as an underdog.

        Given it’s vampiric, zombie personality, I would characterize AIPAC as the un-Dead. Definitely not dead, and much more persistently dangerous than the Living, who are, ultimately mortal.

    • Kay24
      September 2, 2015, 2:09 pm

      Unfortunately this will not kill the lobby. They will, at the direction of Israel, regroup, refinance, and come back even stronger, to interfere, manipulate, and set one American against another.

    • eGuard
      September 3, 2015, 4:45 am

      Who Pollak, jayn0t? Out of the blue, he throws in the Most Irrelevant & Unrelated Statement of the week: AIPAC’s loss proves that the so-called “Israel lobby” was never as strong as antisemitic conspiracy theorists said it was. (Looks like Pollak has that extra key on his keyboard as a shortcut for this bird dropping.) Anyway, he says that it doesn’t exists and that is it less strong — at the same time. Why hasn’t he resolved this contradiction out before writing?

      The update note proves we should not have spend any time on this. Even Pollak hasn’t.

  2. Krauss
    September 2, 2015, 1:42 pm

    To be fair to Indyk, he seems to have drawn the same conclusions as you did after the last attempt of the moribound “peace process”, re: his leaks to Ynet essentially blaming it all on Israel(and correctly so).

  3. Annie Robbins
    September 2, 2015, 1:45 pm

    Indyk is so stunningly wrong wrong wrong one wonders why anyone would take his advice

    The reason for dwelling on Bibi’s psychology rather than his politics is that the latter all point in the direction of making a deal

    is he crazy? there’s nothing about “Bibi’s psychology ” that would indicate to a rational person he was serious about making a deal. ever.

    what’s the point of coddling netanyahu, handling him with kid gloves? and in 2010? netanyahu showed every indication of flattening obama with a tractor. and he’s being advised by indyk to, essential, lay off. insane.

    • echinococcus
      September 2, 2015, 1:56 pm

      Annie,

      Indyk is not wrong, not 4 times, not even once.
      Why does he hold that position?
      As a devoted and exclusively loyal subject of the Zionist entity (I don’t care if he has the paperwork, which we can’t really know) his #1 job is to use whatever guile he has to bring the US government to give everything all the time to the current government of the Zionist entity. Period.
      So he is really doing his job: ensure that the Yahoo is coddled.

      • JWalters
        September 2, 2015, 6:22 pm

        This makes the most sense to me.

    • hophmi
      September 2, 2015, 2:38 pm

      Indyk’s advice echoes other Middle East policymakers, like Aaron David Miller, who have argued that the United States needs the trust of both Israelis and Palestinians to make peace. He’s correct on this point. Antagonizing Netanyahu hasn’t led to more peace in the Middle East. It’s only empowered people on the right in Israel.

      As usual, you’re a little too blind to see the hypocrisy in your philosophy here. Because coddling, rather than antagonizing, is exactly the approach you would counsel for Iran, and it’s one defense of the Iran deal offered by the Administration, which argues that sanctioning the Iranians, far from leading to a diminishment of their nuclear capabilities, has only led them to further pursuit of nuclear protection.

      • Annie Robbins
        September 2, 2015, 3:15 pm

        Antagonizing Netanyahu hasn’t led to more peace

        did you think i wasn’t going to notice you moving the goalposts hops? i didn’t mention antagonization, nor did indyk.

        try addressing my argument rather than what i didn’t say. here it is again, paraphrased and simplified for you:

        ‘dwell on Bibi’s psychology for it all points in the direction of making a deal’

        iow, in the diplomatic process, when negotiating a deal, do not focus on politics — focus on psychological predisposition of a leader.

        try arguing for that position to the best of your ability. and not just for netanyahu but as a principle of diplomacy and problem solving between countries. including iran if you want.

        tag you’re it

      • hophmi
        September 2, 2015, 3:56 pm

        “i didn’t mention antagonization, nor did indyk.”

        Nobody’s moving goalposts. Israeli leaders generally don’t have the political space to move if they don’t feel like they have the support of the United States. You can use whatever word you want; I call it antagonization, but maybe we’ll just call it public disagreement.

        The bottom line is that Israeli political leaders are far more cautious about Israeli security than Americans are, and basically, that’s what the debate between Israel and America over the Iran deal is all about, and why, despite seemingly being destructive of the fabric of the relationship, Bibi continues to press his case. Understanding that psychology is important to devising a policy that brings Israel to the table to negotiate. Diplomacy and negotiation is often about understanding the psychology of the protagonists.

      • Annie Robbins
        September 2, 2015, 4:39 pm

        Israeli leaders generally don’t have the political space to move if they don’t feel like they have the support of the United States.

        they had a lot of support from the US over the peace process (the topic surrounding this articles and 2010 emails)

        that’s what the debate between Israel and America over the Iran deal is all about….Understanding that psychology is important to devising a policy that brings Israel to the table to negotiate.

        uh huh, netanyahu always did want to place iran in front of the peace process. i think, contrary to your allegations, you’re moving goalposts. all those trips to the region and handholding sessions between kerry and netanyahu in the middle of the night. they got the US no.where. no evidence whatsoever any coddling along worked 1 iota. so you think that same approach should have been used in the iran deal. got it. just do not agree.

        You can use whatever word you want; I call it antagonization

        got it. you think not catering to “Bibi’s psychology” wrt iran is an antagonizing approach. not noted. thanks for sharing.

        this could all be so much more simplified if we just centered everything around catering to netanyahu’s psychological predilections.

        HAHAHAHA

      • Mooser
        September 2, 2015, 5:52 pm

        “The bottom line is that Israeli political leaders are far more cautious about Israeli security”

        How do you square Israel’s 60 year occupation and expanding areas being colonized in terms of “security”? Doesn’t seem like Israel is concerned with “security”, seems more like they are concerned with expansion and intransigence.

        Very hard to talk about “security” when you’ve been operating outside your own declared borders since day one, Hoph. So cut the “security” bullshit.

      • traintosiberia
        September 2, 2015, 11:23 pm

        How one could avoid antagonizing Netanyahu? The very presence of the idea of the peace process in and around certain corners of America turns him into a raging angry bull ready to gore any banner with peace or Palestine or Oslo emblazoned on it.
        It is his nature from decades old upbringing in certain culture . He can’t help.
        Neither can Indyk. He has to create statistics to keep the 2 state solution alive from Likud perspective when the truth of the matter is 51% don’t want Arabs have any right or any state and believe Arabs don’t want peace and demands Hamas accept certain preconditions . Neither the Jewish power and voice in US believe in anything that is different from what Israelis believe . Periodically ,these forces create buzz words and talking points that substitute for real analysis and foreign policy .
        To protect this shameful saga, Israel has to maintain tension in the region by hook or crook so that America keeps on pumping Israel with money,arms,and diplomatic support on one side and on the other side ,America has to keep on piling up pressures on Arab countries.
        A real peace means a slow dissolution of Israel.

      • talknic
        September 3, 2015, 5:30 am

        @ hophmi
        “… coddling, rather than antagonizing, is exactly the approach you would counsel for Iran, and it’s one defense of the Iran deal offered by the Administration, which argues that sanctioning the Iranians, far from leading to a diminishment of their nuclear capabilities, has only led them to further pursuit of nuclear protection”

        WOW!!! hophmi knows something no-one else knows. C’mon, spill the beans

      • piotr
        September 3, 2015, 8:29 am

        “As usual, you’re a little too blind to see the hypocrisy in your philosophy here. Because coddling, rather than antagonizing, is exactly the approach you would counsel for Iran, and it’s one defense of the Iran deal offered by the Administration, which argues that sanctioning the Iranians, far from leading to a diminishment of their nuclear capabilities, has only led them to further pursuit of nuclear protection. ”

        I would really ask you to provide a citation for this claim. What member of the administration, where and when claimed that sanctioning Iran was wrong (perhaps it was, but you made a claim about some alleged statements)? Their claim basically is that sanctions are not something could and should be maintained forever regardless of the concessions that the sanctioned state offers. And the test for what concessions are sufficient does not lie in the halls in Washington, D.C. but in the international arena. I am all for applying a similar treatment to Israel, say, forbid all money transfers to and from Israel until it removes all settlements illegally created on the territory occupied after 1967 and lifts oppression of Palestinians, like prohibiting construction, movement of people and goods, etc. Foreign banks engaged in prohibited transactions could be fined, as we did in the case of Iran. And by all means, we should be ready to drop sanctions regime after negotiations.

        The chief reasons sanctions against Iran were criticized were that they were a response to alleged violations of NPT, in part on the basis of dubious and malicious intelligence.

        More on our topic, effective negotiations with Israel indeed require some form of embrace, but a headlock would be more effective than following the advice of Indyk and Miller.

      • hophmi
        September 3, 2015, 10:31 am

        “this could all be so much more simplified if we just centered everything around catering to netanyahu’s psychological predilections. ”

        Not what I said. Try to read next time. It’s fundamental.

      • hophmi
        September 3, 2015, 11:40 am

        “What member of the administration, where and when claimed that sanctioning Iran was wrong (perhaps it was, but you made a claim about some alleged statements)?”

        The Administration was not in favor of a tough sanctions regime.

        “I am all for applying a similar treatment to Israel, say, forbid all money transfers to and from Israel until it removes all settlements illegally created on the territory occupied after 1967 and lifts oppression of Palestinians, like prohibiting construction, movement of people and goods, etc. Foreign banks engaged in prohibited transactions could be fined, as we did in the case of Iran.”

        So you favored the sanctions policy vis-a-vis Iran?

        “The chief reasons sanctions against Iran were criticized were that they were a response to alleged violations of NPT, in part on the basis of dubious and malicious intelligence.”

        Criticized by whom? Other pro-Iran radical leftists who think the Iranian program is all peaceful and are happy with the Iran deal because they think it will lead to Israel’s destruction as a Jewish state?

      • Annie Robbins
        September 3, 2015, 1:29 pm

        Other pro-Iran radical leftists who think the Iranian program is all peaceful and are happy with the Iran deal because they think it will lead to Israel’s destruction as a Jewish state?

        lol, what’s the point of arguing with you hops. you don’t seek engagement.

  4. Marshall
    September 2, 2015, 1:58 pm

    Yeah, the wrongness on display here is monumental. Evidence of the actual, on-the-ground problems that go with politicizing a government department like State. Connected idiots like Indyk have the ear of the secretary, while (I’m sure) legions of lowly diplomats actually saw the shitification of (Jewish) Israeli society for what it was in real time.

    • Philip Weiss
      September 2, 2015, 4:07 pm

      shitification is a great word, Marshall; I’m going to steal it

      • RoHa
        September 2, 2015, 7:14 pm

        I’ve just checked. It’s not in the OED (and nor is “shitify”), but I hope we’ll see it there soon. It’s a fine coinage.

      • Marshall
        September 3, 2015, 10:50 am

        Oh I use it all the time at work, for what’s happened to the labor market and the economy generally in the Age of the Billionaire. It’s a technical term in Economics.

  5. Boomer
    September 2, 2015, 2:26 pm

    This comment may not be precisely on topic, but the theme of bias will be evident. Here in the hinterlands we are not spared the wisdom of Thomas Friedman, but it runs in the local paper a day or two after it appears in the NYT. So it is just today that I read about “Our radical Islamic BFF, Saudi Arabia.” The subhead explains that “Thomas Friedman says turning a blind eye to the nation’s attacks on its Muslim enemies because of our oil dependency is dangerous.”

    Now in fact there is truth in this. Surprising, but “a stopped clock is right twice a day.” But what occurred to me was how much sense the headline and subhead would make with a bit of editing: “Our radical Jewish BFF, Israel. Thomas Friedman says turning a blind eye to the nations’s attacks on its Muslim neighbors because of our politicians’ money dependency is dangerous.”

    I’m unlikely ever to see it, but it is a nice fantasy.

    • JWalters
      September 2, 2015, 6:26 pm

      Your re-write makes MORE sense than the original. It seems to me a standard tactic of political criminals (e.g. national Republicans) is to pre-emptively accuse their opponents of doing exactly what they themselves are doing. I think they do this to neutralize the charge against themselves in the public’s mind.

    • piotr
      September 3, 2015, 8:41 am

      To combine the logic of Friedman and Boomer, we should allow our politicians to make their own money to remove their dangerous dependency.

  6. hophmi
    September 2, 2015, 2:32 pm

    “So what Berger, who is Jewish, termed “the domestic Jewish constituency” has “inexcusable prejudice” against Obama.”

    I think you’re reading the statement incorrectly here. It’s not clear that Berger was referring to the Jewish community when he talked about “inexcusable prejudice” against Obama”; there’s no reference to the Jewish community in that paragraph. And if he were, it wouldn’t be remotely accurate, given that Obama got around 3/4 of the Jewish vote and that racism that was directed toward Obama during his first term came from elsewhere. Likely, Berger is referring to right-wingers in general, not the Jewish community. Clearly, you can admit that there are many other Americans who care about Israel other than those in the Jewish community.

    • Annie Robbins
      September 2, 2015, 3:34 pm

      reading it in context, i think you have a point. it’s a tad confusing because the preceding sentence references ‘not trusted in israel – not trusted by netanyahu -‘ and then ‘domestically faces skepticism.’ so i had read “domestically in israel”. but then he referenced clinton’s presidency which harkens domestic US. but, in the paragraph above he had referenced not different for ross and clinton in reference to israelis and palestinians — which takes us back to the region .
      but since you mentioned it, i read it the other way now too.

    • italian ex-pat
      September 2, 2015, 7:42 pm

      @ hophmi

      “Clearly, you can admit that there are many other Americans who care about Israel other than those in the Jewish community”.

      Yes: Evangelical Christians and Republican politicians – each group because of their own agenda, not because of love for Israel.

      And . . . I do wonder if President Obama would still get 3/4 of that Jewish vote if the election were held today – after he pushed for the Iran nuclear agreement.

      • hophmi
        September 3, 2015, 10:32 am

        I think he’d maybe lose ten points, but he’d still get an overwhelming majority. A very small percentage of Jewish Americans vote on the basis of a President’s position on Israel.

      • Kay24
        September 3, 2015, 10:49 am

        Most probably he would not. We can all clearly see that when it comes to priorities, many of them, especially in Congress decided to support Netanyahu and Israel (the only nation against this deal).

  7. funsdead
    September 2, 2015, 2:58 pm

    what i see is how the USA has become basically a corporation/satelite store of Israel.
    It should be rebranded “New Israel”.

    Make me understand how everything has become “Israel” here in New Israel 24/7.

    i would rather have everything Cajun

  8. piotr
    September 2, 2015, 3:33 pm

    As I skimmed some on-line newspaper, I have seen this talk-back in Wiadomosci.pl “the most offended [angry?] nation in the world”. The piece of news was that in Auschwitz-Birkenau the management installed a misty water curtain, to provide relief in sunny hot weather, and Israeli tourists were offended because gas in chambers was also sprayed.

    I checked ynetnews.com, and the anti-Semitic offense of the day was from Norway, another favorite culprit:

    Norwegian bank prints anti-Semitic portrait on credit card

    Offensive card showed a tallit-clad, long-nosed figure in front of a background of gold coins; bank claims it was the result of service allowing clients to design their own cards.
    Itamar Eichner
    Published: 09.02.15, 10:02 / Israel News

    DNB Bank, the largest financial institution in Norway, has issued a credit card featuring a blatant anti-Semitic portrait.

    Follow Ynetnews on Facebook and Twitter

    The card, featuring a long-nosed Jewish figure wearing a tallit, with gold coins in the background, caused uproar online.

    ====

    The design was supplied by the customer. As a proud owner of a long nose, I do not see depiction of such a feature as deregatory, and neither is tallit. Is association of Jews with money deregatory (or unfounded)? And few weeks earlier, there was a story on that theme from Poland, where you can buy paintings with somewhat similar design (I guess without the tallit, but the necessary feature is that the Jew must count the coins). Surprisingly, on that occasion there was an intelligent discussion, namely, the motivation for buying those picture is to have a “good luck” symbol. As putting a picture of a Jew on the wall for good luck anti-Semitic or not? Somehow, the conclusion in the report was that it is hasty to make a negative conclusion. It is totally clear to me that Australian customer also wanted to have a “good luck” pattern on his credit card.

    http://olx.pl/oferta/zyd-na-szczescie-liczacy-pieniadze-trzymajacy-monete-obraz-olejny-507-CID628-ID8rWMN.html

    The point is that a serious newspaper in Israel has a special section and a special team of reporters to regularly produce stories about any conceivable mistreatment of Jews or any possible crime thoughts concerning the Jews.

    • tokyobk
      September 2, 2015, 5:26 pm

      Yes, association between hook nose Jews and money as a “good luck” symbol is derogatory. Most people with black lawn jockeys and Native American mascots for their ball team think its cute and funny too.

      If you’re pointing out that blaming a stupid credit card design by an obnoxious customer can be made into an international incident and used as cover to justify stealing land and water from Palestinians, yes you may be right.

      But hook nosed Jew characters and Zwarte Piet and Chief Wahoo and Sasha Cohen’s Arabs are not funny or cute. Not in this world.

      I’m just going to file this in an obvious trend of, for some, there being no such thing as anti-semitism anywhere, ever. And yes, a good part of the blame for this situation is the exaggerations of pro-Israel factions and the use of the history anti Jewish bigotry as a carte blanche.

      • Mooser
        September 2, 2015, 5:39 pm

        “I’m just going to file this in an obvious trend of, for some, there being no such thing as anti-semitism anywhere, ever”

        That’s right, “tokyobk”, you can pull out the credit-card pogrom, and shame and shock them to the core!

        Jeez, “tokyobk” why sweat the small stuff? Go over to the “Obama and the Zionists” thread, and Hophmi’s listed a plethora of reported antisemitisms!

      • Kris
        September 2, 2015, 7:56 pm

        Tokyobk, on the “Jewish Community is Humpty-Dumpty” thread, you wrote:

        “It is clear, however, that there are several people here who are drawn to the increasingly visible/audible Jewish ID aspect of I/P.”

        I think that you are talking about anti-semitism, but really I’m not sure what you mean. I asked you to explain, but you’ve been gone for a few days and now that thread is old.

        Could you explain what “the increasingly visible/audible Jewish ID aspect of I/P” is?

        And also, is there a non-Jewish ID aspect of I/P?

      • tokyobk
        September 2, 2015, 8:03 pm

        Mooser —

        Yup, Hophmi et al will exaggerate and use anti-Semitism as a cover for Israel’s misdeeds.

        Did you look at the credit card in question? Did you read Piotr’s comment?

      • tokyobk
        September 2, 2015, 8:22 pm

        Kris —

        Sorry, I was not avoiding your question. I either missed it or got busy.

        The Jewish Identity aspect means looking at the extent to which Zionism is not just Jewish nationalism (like Arab or Asian nationalism) but in fact a true expression of the Jewish essence, a replacement of the Jewish religion etc..
        .
        If that’s the case, than I/P cannot be understood or undone without analysing The Jew as he has supposedly existed throughout time and geography.

        Is there an I/P conversation completely independent of Judaism, Jewish communities, Arab-Jewish relations etc… ? of course not. But that discussion also includes of the West, colonialism, Islam, Arab nationalism etc.

        Can I/P be solved by people of all backgrounds, including Jewish (and drawing Judaism as their inspiration even) within the framework of universal values and with the understanding that groups occupy different positions of power at various times in their history?

        That’s the only legitimate and lasting way, imo.

        If you made a list of 10 important things to secure Palestinian rights, which number would be proving that Jews are deviant interlopers (in some form, religion, culture, community)? Some people, and I stand by my comment some people here, seem to put finally getting to be able to tell the (alleged) truth about the Jews fairly high up.

        Now, those drawn to “The Jewish Question” are not necessarily racial anti-semites, though almost always have a particular aspect of what they see as Jewish culture that they dislike and mistrust. I used the term “Jew-hobbyist” to convey the idea that whatever subject comes up, someone with this predisposition (including philo-semitic braggarts) is going to tell you which Jew is at the root of it, but that term was rightly criticised here.

      • Mooser
        September 2, 2015, 9:15 pm

        “but in fact a true expression of the Jewish essence,”

        There’s a “Jewish essence”? Gee, if anybody except you said that, I’d call them an antisemite. But now that you have said it: Tell us, “tokyobk”, what is the “Jewish essence”

        Certainly you can answer that question, “tokyobk”, can’t you. Sure, I know the “jewish essence” is natch, a better and finer essence, but gee, “tokyobk” what is the “Jewish essence”.

        Oh, by-the-by, any other ‘essences’ (African, Asian, you name it) you want to explicate, feel free, I never did get that “essence” stuff. Maybe you could ‘splain it to me. What’s the ‘white essence’. Got a ‘Christian essence’ you want to tell us about?

        “Tokyobk” I see you have put “Jew Hobbyist” and “The Jewish Problem” in quotes. Who here are you quoting, besides yourself?

      • Mooser
        September 2, 2015, 9:24 pm

        “I used the term “Jew-hobbyist” to convey the idea that whatever subject comes up, someone with this predisposition (including philo-semitic braggarts) is going to tell you which Jew is at the root of it, but that term was rightly criticised here.”

        Oh please, that’s no reason to stop pushing it on us. You just keep telling us what a useful and exact term it is, and keep on changing the definition as you go. But whatever you do, don’t give it up. It adds soooo much to the discourse.

      • oldgeezer
        September 2, 2015, 9:47 pm

        @tokyobk

        I have looked at the card and would certainly consider it racist. Regardless Of the motives of the individual requesting it, it would be offensive to many people.

        That said lists or counts of incidents are not overly informative or instructive. They have values as lists and counts only. As you have agreed antisemitism does not provide cover for Israeli wrong doings.

      • Mooser
        September 2, 2015, 9:49 pm

        “If that’s the case, than I/P cannot be understood or undone without analysing The Jew as he has supposedly existed throughout time and geography.”

        Sounds like the beginning of an antisemitic tract! What on earth are you trying to do, tokyobk?

      • Mooser
        September 2, 2015, 9:53 pm

        “Did you look at the credit card in question?”

        I think he got the image from an Israeli bank ad.

      • RoHa
        September 2, 2015, 10:36 pm

        “without analysing The Jew as he has supposedly existed throughout time and geography.”

        I’d certainly like to analyse this guy, in order to find out how he has existed throughout time and geography.

        Who is he? Is it you, Mooser?

      • RoHa
        September 2, 2015, 10:42 pm

        “I never did get that “essence” stuff.”

        You can buy it on the internet. Dab a bit behind your ears.

        http://www.fragrantica.com/designers/essence.html

      • piotr
        September 2, 2015, 10:52 pm

        “But hook nosed Jew characters …”

        Why should I feel bad about being “hook nosed” (there are more polite expressions, by the way)? Why is it a negative stereotype that many Jews do not resemble Nordics? So are money a negative connotation? It is pure whining. And it is not particularly innocent whining, as you can see in pretty hateful comments. The general spirit is “everybody hates us, lets hate everybody”, including Obama, of course.

      • b.grand
        September 3, 2015, 1:12 am

        THANK YOU, TOKYO BEN KARP, FOR ENDORSING THE DISMANTLING OF ISRAEL !

        And thanks to Frankie P for posting the link to your comment from 3 years ago,

        “More random personal beliefs:
        Indeally one secular democratic state, practically twonstates but alas that might be indeed dead.
        Inwould live i. a secular Palestine before a religious Israel.”
        April 27, 2012, 6:18 am
        http://mondoweiss.net/2012/04/shmully-and-guilt

        Without typos, “IDEALLY ONE SECULAR DEMOCRATIC STATE…”

        Voila, ipso facto, the end of Israel (the Jewish State).

        Don’t mince with practicality. Focus on doing the right thing. Find the peaceful path.
        Here’s some inspiration-
        http://mondoweiss.net/2015/09/apartheid-ideology-contradictions

      • echinococcus
        September 3, 2015, 2:46 am

        RoHa,

        You tell us. Platonic realities and the Essence of the Jew are the philosopher’s thing.

      • RoHa
        September 4, 2015, 1:43 am

        OK, echinococcus.

        The essence in question is a universal, the quiddity that makes a Jew a Jew, rather than the haecceity which makes any particular Jew that Jew and not another.

        TBK’s reference to “The Jew” suggests a Platonic Form, an eternally existing, perfectly and completely Jewish Jew. Fortunately, we have very good reasons for rejecting the theory of Forms, so we do not need to contemplate the uncomfortable connotations of the “Eternal Jew”.

        If we shift to an Aristotelian perspective (and I’m sure that you recall that the word “essencia” was coined by the Latin translators of Aristotle) then we are looking for some set of necessary and sufficient properties. But the debates on “who is a Jew” suggest that no such set can be found.

        For example, the classic “child of a Jewish mother” is clearly inadequate. For that to suffice, then either Jews have always existed or there was at least one Jewish mother who was not the child of a Jewish mother. Our current ideas about the universe and the origins of the human race cast doubt on the first alternative, and if we accept the second we have to ask what made that first Jewish mother Jewish. And that means there has to be some other property which bestows Jewishness.

        Nor does Mooser’s auto-nominalism seem adequate. Very small children are deemed to be Jewish even though they do not have the concept or the ability to declare themselves Jews.

        It looks to me as though there is no “essence”. The concept seems to one of the type that Wittgenstein called a “family resemblance” concept. There is a set of properties that, in combination, bestow Jewishness. Not all Jews have all the properties, and probably none of them are necessary.

        I will leave it to others to decide what those properties are, and which combinations are sufficient.

        Aren’t you glad you asked?

      • Kris
        September 4, 2015, 10:28 am

        Thank you for replying, Tokyobk.

        And thank you for this explanation, RoHa.

      • Mooser
        September 4, 2015, 11:54 am

        “Nor does Mooser’s auto-nominalism seem adequate.”

        Ouch! Okay, you got me there. Maybe I will put a battery in the old VTR-1000 and start riding again.

      • Mooser
        September 4, 2015, 11:57 am

        “I will leave it to others to decide what those properties are, and which combinations are sufficient.”

        Yes, the real estate company “Re Max” seems to have extremely liberal views on the subject of Jewish properties. Make sure you read the cautions and disclaimers before investing.

      • RoHa
        September 4, 2015, 7:17 pm

        I hope you didn’t take that seriously, Kris.

      • echinococcus
        September 5, 2015, 12:29 am

        RoHa,

        Of course I’m glad I asked. Nothing like professional advice to set one right.

        Now that we know that not even the professional swallows the Platonic bait we can consider the case closed.

    • yonah fredman
      September 3, 2015, 12:50 am

      piotr- I have not read all of your comments on mw. but this comment is pure bushwa. this is not anti semitic?! you’re either nuts, in denial, or in agreement with Borat. I think you’re full of it. any attempt to get your mind straight with an analogy can only be vulgar. this is vulgarity to the max and you are just dismissing it. you’re full of it.

      if you feel that vulgar jew hatred is not a major issue because jews are only killed for being jews in france and belgium and shot at in kansas city, then you are still nuts and full of bushwa.

      • talknic
        September 3, 2015, 8:13 am

        @ yonah fredman “if you feel that vulgar jew hatred is not a major issue because jews are only killed for being jews in france and belgium and shot at in kansas city, then you are still nuts and full of bushwa”

        Jews are just as capable as any of humanity at being deservedly detestable rrrrrsouls, thieves, philanderers, pedophiles, bigamists, thugs, embezzlers, drug dealers, in fact the whole gamut of human stupidity, evil and insanity that might prompt their victims to give ’em a taste of what they deserve. But Jew hatred is apparently only because they’re Jews. Interesting theory. Real interesting

        —-

        ‘nother interesting thing is, I feel no hatred from anyone except from other Jews and other idiots who support the usurping of the Palestinians, hate Muslims and who’ll go to any lengths in their vain attempts to justify their stances

    • Annie Robbins
      September 3, 2015, 12:28 pm

      piotr,

      there was a story on that theme from Poland, where you can buy paintings with somewhat similar design (I guess without the tallit, but the necessary feature is that the Jew must count the coins). Surprisingly, on that occasion there was an intelligent discussion, namely, the motivation for buying those picture is to have a “good luck” symbol. As putting a picture of a Jew on the wall for good luck anti-Semitic or not? Somehow, the conclusion in the report was that it is hasty to make a negative conclusion. It is totally clear to me that Australian customer also wanted to have a “good luck” pattern on his credit card.

      first of all, the person who received the credit card in the mail claimed he did not order that card, so assuming he ordered it for “good luck”, considering he didn’t order it … seems beside the point.

      you said “As a proud owner of a long nose, I do not see depiction of such a feature as deregatory”, it would depend on the depiction and how it’s used in my opinion. for example, the very last link of yours, i don’t find the man’s face offensive in the least. he has a nice face. it is not offensive or mocking, the one given as a gift for good luck traditionally. and yes it’s a nice thing to give someone an oil painting for good luck to bring them wealth. but i translated the text under the photo and this is what it said (my bold)

      Dimensions: 27x37cm frame
      No. ZG0650 … There is a proverb “The Jew in the court, the money in your pocket.” This means that popular belief in Polish folklore saying that the image of the Jew counting money brings happiness. There are a number of quite amusing superstitions associated with the image of the Jew counting money. Now, the image of the Jew must hang upside down (preferably on New Years Eve or every Friday). Then the new year or week all his money fall out of his pocket and fall to the house where hangs a picture. The image to bring luck and wealth, it is best to get a gift. The image should be hung at the entrance to the house, preferably on the left side of the door and not in front of the door or window. … The image is hand-painted in oil on canvas. Durability and quality provides the use of paints of the highest quality – Italian and Dutch paints . The image has painted the sides. All of our paintings are hand-painted by certified artists. stretchers are made ​​of pine, and the picture frames of linden wood. We can make this image in a larger format. I invite SHOP MODURO

      so it seems like the premise here is that jews have all the money and it’s good luck to hang the painting upside down so the jew’s money can fall into your house. now, perhaps this folklore arose from a time people were poor and the impression was jews did have all the money. i’m not so sure how i would feel if i were a jewish person walking into someones house and seeing a painting of a jew hung upside down so all his money could fall into the house as good luck. i think i would be offended no matter how much the people believed this was a symbol of happiness or how nicely the painting was painted. i think the size or shape of the jew’s nose would be the least of my concerns. under this circumstance i do think “a picture of a Jew on the wall for good luck” is derogatory — unquestionably so whether it was intended as such or not. at least in this day and age. regardless if you’re a “proud owner of a long nose”. and i say that, again, as someone who didn’t really find the nose on the painting offensive at all. i thought he had a nice face. http://olx.pl/oferta/zyd-na-szczescie-liczacy-pieniadze-trzymajacy-monete-obraz-olejny-507-CID628-ID8rWMN.html

      • Mooser
        September 3, 2015, 4:32 pm

        ” i’m not so sure how i would feel if i were a jewish person walking into someones house and seeing a…”

        Annie, people can be so thoughtless. I still walk into houses, stores (especially ‘sporting’ goods) or uh, restaurant and see this! .

      • Annie Robbins
        September 5, 2015, 12:46 am

        cherry picker!!

      • Mooser
        September 5, 2015, 12:03 pm

        Holy Moley, what happens if you walk into somebody’s house, and there’s the upside-down Jew good-luck picture on the wall, and hanging next to it is a signed-and-numbered Andres Serrano print!
        Whattayou do then?

      • Annie Robbins
        September 5, 2015, 12:21 pm

        upside down feces? or right side up?

      • Mooser
        September 5, 2015, 12:30 pm

        Uh, I guess I was thinking of something which was half as scatological (going by the numbers).

      • Annie Robbins
        September 5, 2015, 12:33 pm

        let me consult my dictionary, i’ll be right back.

      • piotr
        September 6, 2015, 6:29 am

        The major point is that in Polish context, “good luck paintings” are just a weird superstition that even usually touchy Israelis decided to let it be. But in Norwegian context, it was worthy of official protestations and an article without any attempt of nuance. There are two actual reasons: Polish government is generally indifferent to whatever Israel is doing, unlike the Norwegian one, so there is a little industry, a dedicated website and so on, documenting moral iniquities of Norwegians. The second reason is that finding symptoms of anti-Semitism in Poland is terrifyingly easy*, and Poles are touchy on the subject, as the article that I cited actually shows (why THEY cared?), so overdoing protests could actually backfire quite badly.

        [By the way, you pasted Google translate which is weird in places, so the proverb is “Jew in the entrance, money in the pocket”, personally, I never heard about it]
        ====

        Easy way of finding “paleo-anti-Semitism” in Poland and general hatred of Arabs and Europeans in Israel: go to a news site and read comment sections. Although in the case of Israel, one can simply stick to reading articles, comments are not necessary.

      • W.Jones
        September 6, 2015, 4:33 pm

        I know a Chinese business lady who has lots of Jewish things in one of her conference rooms like a star of David and I think a menorah. However, she definitely isn’t Jewish, and the reason is because she says that she has business colleagues who are.

        Now is that anti-Semitic? There is no need for her, someone who isn’t Jewish, to be making over the top allusions to Jewish people and Jewish culture, and she is doing it all based on “business”, that is, making money, which ties into the stereotype about Jews being good business people. That’s what this discussion about Polish people with pictures of Jews for “luck” reminds me of, although of course if the Jews in the pictures are being made to look ugly like trolls or something then I would agree that it’s offensive. Do the Chinese lady and the Poles discriminate against Jews? What is the right way to think about this if you don’t want to get paranoid about both anti-Semitism AND unsubstantiated accusations of anti-Semitism?

    • echinococcus
      September 5, 2015, 3:37 am

      RoHa,

      [Wildly off-topic but hoping that it makes it through the lines: it’s not the first time I am told that “essentia” was created as a translation from Aristotle –hard to countenance, as it is not a calque of ουσία. Essentia, the act of being or the very being, is an ancient construct that almost mathematically must have been in use for a very long time already, happening to be handy to felicitously translate ουσία.]

      So we are off topic again but not as much as whoever it is who started discussing the essence of the Jew…

      • RoHa
        September 5, 2015, 5:38 am

        Have I been misled by my instructors (and the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy) on this?

        Quite possibly. I have, I admit, never investigated the origin of the term “essentia”. It is used as a translation of Aristotle’s phrase “τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι”, and I thought it was coined for that. But perhaps the Romans had the word before they corrupted themselves with Greek philosophy and their native hue of resolution was sicklied o’er (as the fellow says) with the pale cast of thought.

        Using it to translate Aristotle’s “οὐσία” is confusing, since οὐσία is substance, not essence. But such confusions happen when dealing with ancient philosophers who expressed themselves in languages other than English. We cannot blame them. They wrote long before Chaucer had invented the language, and so did their best with Chinese, Sanskrit, Greek, Arabic, Latin, Tibetan, etc..

        Modern philosophers have no such excuse. They should refrain from philosophising until they have mastered English. (And Frenchmen should probably refrain entirely.)

      • Mooser
        September 5, 2015, 11:49 am

        “They should refrain from philosophising until they have mastered English. (And Frenchmen should probably refrain entirely.)”

        Yes, but in France every Frenchman knows his language A to Zed! (The French never care what they do, actually, as long as they pronounce it properly. So why can’t the English learn to speak? )

        “So we are off topic again but not as much as whoever it is who started discussing the essence of the Jew…”

        Gee, let’s see:

        “… Zionism is not just Jewish nationalism (like Arab or Asian nationalism) but in fact a true expression of the Jewish essence, – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/09/inexcusable-prejudice-against#comment-153083

        “I/P cannot be understood or undone without analysing The Jew as he has supposedly existed throughout time and geography.” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/09/inexcusable-prejudice-against#comment-153083

        “Now, those drawn to “The Jewish Question” are not necessarily racial anti-semites, – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/09/inexcusable-prejudice-against#comment-153083

        And last, but hardly least:

        “I used the term “Jew-hobbyist” to convey the idea that whatever subject comes up, someone with this predisposition” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2015/09/inexcusable-prejudice-against/comment-page-1#comment-794798

        My bolding throughout.

        Somebody seems awful eager to introduce antisemitic tropes into the conversation. Don’t know why.

      • echinococcus
        September 5, 2015, 3:05 pm

        All right, it seems that the translator already had an existing (but as yet undocumented) word to translate exactly a whole phrase.
        Even half-Frenchmen should abstain, of course, as they confuse substantia and essentia, but the even more confused perfessors of advanced Jewishness peddling Essence of Jew should definitely keep away from this kind of ignoble bullshit.

      • Keith
        September 5, 2015, 6:39 pm

        MOOSER- “Somebody seems awful eager to introduce antisemitic tropes into the conversation.”

        Don’t be so quick to label something an anti-Semitic trope. For example, “The Jewish Question” could be a legitimate attempt to deal with the issue of the peculiar problems associated with the transition of society from a pre-modern order in which Jews as a group engaged in specialized functions into a modern society in which the peasants gave way to farmers, factory workers, technical people, administrators, etc. What happens to the Jews? Do they assimilate throughout society or attempt to maintain Jewish group cohesion and specialization? The early Zionists were very concerned about this and wrote about it extensively, frequently sounding like anti-Semites in the process. The problem arises when someone attempts to attribute certain essential characteristics to individual Jews rather than analyzing the situation from the perspective of group ideology and group strategy. Unfortunately, in my opinion, Tokyobk is uniquely unqualified to perform an honest analysis due to his strong ideological bias. How else to explain the nasty and dishonest things he has said about a sweet guy like me?

      • echinococcus
        September 5, 2015, 8:18 pm

        Keith,

        The early Zionists were very concerned about this and wrote about it extensively, frequently sounding like anti-Semites in the process

        Simply because they were (and remain) rabid antisemites if one is to accept any concept of antisemitism.

      • RoHa
        September 5, 2015, 8:48 pm

        “Even half-Frenchmen should abstain, of course, as they confuse substantia and essentia, ”

        This is easily done, since A’s writings are a bit confusing on the issue. (As an attempt to resolve the confusion, see
        http://m.oxfordscholarship.com/mobile/view/10.1093/0199253080.001.0001/acprof-9780199253081)

        What is pretty clear, though, is that, since Jews do not have an essence, they are not substances.

        This will be a surprise to many Jews who think they are men of substance. However, since their properties are accidental (acquired through ReMax) and not essential, they are, in fact, insubstantial.

      • RoHa
        September 5, 2015, 8:52 pm

        Mooser, I agree that TBK’s musings on Jewish Hobbits are odd, but I can see anything anti-Semitic about them. If he were to suggest that Sauron or the Nazgul were Jews, that might be anti-Semitic.

      • Mooser
        September 5, 2015, 9:13 pm

        “For example, “The Jewish Question” could be a legitimate attempt to deal with the issue of the peculiar problems associated …”

        Naturally, you didn’t mean “peculiar”, Keith. Of course, you meant “particular”.

        That’s right, RoHa. I find Nazgul-Jewish comparisons entirely unacceptable.

      • Keith
        September 6, 2015, 11:10 am

        MOOSER- “Naturally, you didn’t mean “peculiar”, Keith. Of course, you meant “particular”.

        No, I meant peculiar as in unusual. The transition from a pre-modern society to a modern society presented a rather unique situation in regards to traditional Jewish specialization in a pre-modern host society. Assimilation was one solution, maintaining Jewish separatism through Zionism was another. Or some combination of the two. The essence of the situation (dare I use that word?) was whether Jews would assimilate as individuals who happened to be Jewish, or would some or most Jews maintain a strong group identity with shared Jewish group objectives (support for Israel, Zionism, etc.). This constant emphasis on anti-Semitism is a manifestation of strong Jewish/Zionist cohesive identity, not a rational response to actual anti-Semitism which is relatively insignificant.

        I’m on the road now. When I get back I think that the question of the ideology of anti-Semitism may be a topic worth pursuing in more detail.

      • Mooser
        September 6, 2015, 11:48 am

        “I’m on the road now. When I get back I think that the question of the ideology of anti-Semitism may be a topic worth pursuing in more detail.”

        You bet, Keith! With a running start like you just got, there’s only one direction you can go in, and progress ought to be pretty quick. Maybe there’s a trampoline at the bottom.

  9. Bandolero
    September 2, 2015, 5:20 pm

    Philip

    So what Berger, who is Jewish, termed “the domestic Jewish constituency” has “inexcusable prejudice” against Obama. I wonder what that’s about– racism, xenophobia. They want a president they can trust. They trust Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush because they can be bought, or because they’re white?

    If I remember that time correctly, the prejudice is about his second name: Hussein as in Barack Hussein Obama. There were lot’s of posters and social media comments around in Israel saying that the name Hussein is proof that Barack Obama is a muslim and therefore an enemy of “the jews.” So, Israeli anti-muslem prejudice was and is in play against Obama. Of course, that he’s black didn’t make the issue better in the views of the Israeli right, quite the opposite.

    • JWalters
      September 2, 2015, 6:45 pm

      I think Israel’s problem with Obama began with his Cairo speech, in which he talked about Muslims as human beings deserving of respect. This contradicted Israelis’ view of Muslims as “beasts” and themselves as God’s Chosen people, destined to rule the world and justified in treating Muslims like animals. His personal experience with Muslims, and his middle name! both fit this picture of him as a heretic.

      That would have a short shelf life in a country with truly free media discussions. But the Big Money wants to maintain their war profits in the Middle East, so they pumped out the bigotry propaganda against Obama, both religious and racist.

      “War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror”

  10. yonah fredman
    September 2, 2015, 5:39 pm

    Not all pro Israel Jews have inexcusable racism and in fact Berger didn’t say that. But your headline appears to say that he said that.

    • Mooser
      September 2, 2015, 9:20 pm

      “Not all pro Israel Jews have inexcusable racism “

      Sure, Yonah, tell us all about ‘excusable racism’. Naturally I’m sure you feel the same about racism directed toward Jews, that a lot of it is excusable?

    • diasp0ra
      September 3, 2015, 5:30 am

      How can you support an ethnocracy without being racist?

      How can you support a state that needs to discriminate for its very survival and not be racist?

      How can you support a state that would collapse if all the people it governs were equal..and not be racist?

    • johneill
      September 3, 2015, 6:13 am

      Mooser & diaspora, why nitpick his fairly obvious point? The phrasing is unclear ( see Hophmi & Annie, above) about which group is ‘inexcusably racist’, and the headline forces an interpretation of a quote that can be read otherwise. Yonah raises a reasonable point.

      • Mooser
        September 5, 2015, 12:08 pm

        “Yonah raises a reasonable point.”

        His point that being pro-Israel involves an excusable racism? I’ve never seen anybody who couldn’t excuse their own racism, so what is his point? Of course, Zionism requires more than that! You have to excuse your own, and other people’s racism.

    • eljay
      September 3, 2015, 7:13 am

      || yonah fredman: Not all pro Israel Jews have inexcusable racism … ||

      …but all pro-“Jewish State” Jews have inexcusable supremacism.

  11. traintosiberia
    September 2, 2015, 11:02 pm

    How did we get here ?

    • Mooser
      September 6, 2015, 11:57 am

      “How did we get here ?”

      I been tryin’ to tell ya’: We should have taken a left at Albuquerque!

  12. RobertHenryEller
    September 3, 2015, 9:13 am

    Martin Indyk has his finger on the pulse – of his own manhood.

  13. Kay24
    September 3, 2015, 9:41 am

    So pathetic, Booby still thinks MOST Americans agree with him. Delusional?

    Netanyahu: Most Americans Side With Israel on Iran
    ‘An overwhelming majority of the American public sees eye-to-eye with Israel on the danger Iran poses,’ PM says after Obama successfully secures Iran deal votes.

    read more: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.674349

  14. hophmi
    September 3, 2015, 10:35 am

    Still waiting for Phil’s correction vis-a-vis his mistaken definition of Berger’s comment as referring to Jews.

    • eGuard
      September 5, 2015, 9:58 pm

      Your alternative reading is not a proven mistake.

      But let me tell why Phil did not react: it has to do with Pavlov’s wolf that yelled “anti-Semitism” too often, drooling.

      • Mooser
        September 6, 2015, 12:08 pm

        There, there, Hophmi, don’t get upset. After all, you yourself, made a shrewish estimate of Phil’s effect on events:

        “This analysis is nothing new. It is typical of Phil’s writing, which suggests, as it always does, the Phil has internalized anti-Jewish hatred, and like those secularist Jews in Europe who looked down upon their brethren or converted to Christianity to escape their Judaism, Phil adopts the classic tropes of the self-hater.”

        “American Jewry, and the American-Israel relationship will survive the Phils of this world. American Jews, long a positive force in American society, will continue to be, far into the future, and Israel will endure, far into the future. The Phils will fall away, as they always do.”

        “Self-hatred is a disease. It is a sad disease borne of many generations of persecution, but it is a disease. And Phil is afflicted with it, as many Jews have been in the past. And it is usually the self-haters who cause the worst damage to the Jewish community, precisely because of how small it is.”

        All from the same comment: – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/profile/hophmi?keyword=fall+away#sthash.5D0yqF2m.dpuf

        You ever apologize for any of that Hophmi?

      • hophmi
        September 8, 2015, 10:35 am

        Well Mooser, it’s a fact that Berger wasn’t referring to Jews only when he talked about right-wingers. My statement is an opinion. You can disagree with it. As for Phil’s take on Berger, it’s a blatant mischaracterization.

Leave a Reply