‘New York Times’ whitewashes poll showing Israeli support for expelling Palestinians

US Politics
on 70 Comments

This past week, the Pew Research Centre released the results of a massive poll of Israeli public opinion — focusing on their attitude towards religion, identity, values and political issues facing their country.

In the days that followed the release, a number of articles appeared in Israel and the US commenting on the study’s findings.

The strangest and most troubling of them was the piece titled “Deep Rifts Among Israeli Jews Are Found in Religion Survey”, printed in the New York Times on March 8, 2016.

Written by Isabel Kershner, the article was a transparent effort to combine straight reporting with tortured apologia.

Kershner began the piece with a simple recitation of a few of the poll’s findings: “A majority of Israeli Jews marry within their own religious or secular groups” and the different sub-groups “largely separate social worlds” and have “starkly contrasting positions on many public policy issues”, like whether West Bank settlements contribute to Israel’s security.

Kershner’s straightforward reporting ended, however, when she came to one of the poll’s more disturbing findings: “nearly half of Israeli Jews said that Arabs should be expelled of transferred from Israel”.

Unable to allow that result to stand on its own, in the same sentence, Kershner added “although Israeli pollsters found the wording of the question problematic”.

The addition of that phrase was a classic example of deflection — a device often used in New York Times’ articles to sow doubt or confusion among readers so as to soften the blow of facts that are damaging to Israel.

Here’s how it works: first the “fact” is stated; then it is quickly followed (usually in the same sentence) by an unsubstantiated remark that questions the “fact”.

The reader is then left confused.

Kershner did not get around to explaining exactly what was “problematic” about the wording of the poll question until she meandered for several paragraphs discussing other results from the poll.

Then she returned to the “transfer” issue, devoting the last full one-quarter of her piece to quotes from Israeli pollsters telling us that “the phrasing of the question is very blunt” or that it is possible that Israeli Jewish respondents may have understood the question to imply that Arabs would “voluntarily” leave or be compensated for leaving [as if that would somehow make it better!].

Kershner quoted another pollster who agonised over the transfer question, saying: “I would feel uncomfortable incriminating the Israeli public based on one question,” adding her fear that this “one question” would “be used as a weapon’ by Israel’s critics”.

Actually, the question was quite clear. And it was not the only question in the poll in which Israelis displayed troubling views.

And, while I might quibble with the term “weapon”, it would be irresponsible not to raise serious questions about what this poll reveals about racism in Israel.

First, let’s look at the “problematic” question and ask whether it was too vague, too blunt or too unclear.

Here is what Israelis were asked: do you agree or disagree with this statement “Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel?”

In response to this direct question, 48 per cent of Israeli Jews agreed, while 46 per cent disagreed.

Among Israelis who are religious and those who received a Jewish education, two-thirds agreed with the idea that Arabs should be expelled or transferred.

This is not the only disturbing finding in this poll.

Israeli Jews were also asked if they agreed with the statement “Jews deserve preferential treatment in Israel”; 79 per cent agreed — including well over 95 per cent of those who are religious and those who received a Jewish education.

The bottom line is that Israel’s political culture has become increasingly intolerant.

With eight in ten Israeli Jews supporting preferential treatment for themselves at the expense of the 20 per cent of the population that is Arab, and with almost one-half of Israeli Jews calling for Arab citizens to be expelled or transferred, one can only conclude that this is a society and a political culture that is in trouble.

This dangerous reality needs to be confronted honestly and directly. Whitewashing the situation only allows the danger to grow.

The Times has done Israelis, Palestinians and its readers a disservice.

A version of this article first appeared in The Jordan Times

About James Zogby

James Zogby is the author of Arab Voices and the founder and president of the Arab American Institute (AAI), a Washington, D.C.–based organization which serves as a political and policy research arm of the Arab-American community.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

70 Responses

  1. Ossinev
    March 16, 2016, 10:16 am

    By the time that they were entrenched in power Adolf @ Co were way past the point of wondering or worrying about the opinions of the German population. Nonetheless had they held a similar poll on the question of “expelling” Jews I expect the brainwashed German population would have produced similar reactions.

    Plus ca change.

    • rosross
      March 18, 2016, 12:26 am

      The denied Shadow is powerful and we become that which we condemn faster if we deny the Shadow effect.

  2. eljay
    March 16, 2016, 11:19 am

    Do you agree or disagree with these statements:
    – Jews should be expelled or transferred from America.
    – Women must accept the consequences of dressing in provocative clothing.
    – Societies should do all they can to help homosexuals become normal people.

    The wording of these “blunt” “one questions” is always so “problematic”, one feels “uncomfortable incriminating” the people who in the majority respond in agreement.

    • Steve C
      March 16, 2016, 3:03 pm

      I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. Your second and third questions are very different from your first. Terms like “consequences”, “provocative” and “normal” are so vague as to make the questions worthless without further explanation. There is comparatively little that is vague about your first question, and I doubt many here would feel uncomfortable in incriminating those who would agree with it. It is actually an excellent reformulation of the survey question that reveals just how far Israeli society is from ours.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 16, 2016, 3:19 pm

        Terms like “consequences”, “provocative” and “normal” are so vague

        what? none of those terms are vague.

        your first question, and I doubt many here would feel uncomfortable in incriminating those who would agree with it.

        are you kidding me? it would be completely outrageous to suggest american jews should be expelled or transferred from the US. you do realize a lot of people who comment here are jewish americans.

      • eljay
        March 16, 2016, 3:30 pm

        || Steve C @ March 16, 2016, 3:03 pm ||

        The point was to lampoon the NYT’s apologetics.

        IMO, all three statements are clear enough that if a majority of people in a society were to agree with them…
        – Get rid of Jews.
        – Women are to blame for what happens to them.
        – Homosexuals are “abnormal” and need fixing.
        …I would be worried.

      • eljay
        March 16, 2016, 3:34 pm

        || Annie Robbins: … your first question, and I doubt many here would feel uncomfortable in incriminating those who would agree with it.

        are you kidding me? it would be completely outrageous to suggest american jews should be expelled or transferred from the US. … ||

        I think you misread his comment. He appears to be saying that many here would feel comfortable incriminating those who support expelling Jews.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 16, 2016, 3:46 pm

        He appears to be saying that many here would feel comfortable incriminating those who support expelling Jews.

        hmm, no i think you misread. he said he doubted many here would feel uncomfortable incriminating people who agreed with your first statement, iow, agreed that “Jews should be expelled or transferred from America”

        personally speaking, i would not feel uncomfortable in the least incriminating someone suggesting that. i would find it quite difficult to keep my mouth shut!

      • tree
        March 16, 2016, 3:44 pm

        Whoa there annie. I think you totally misunderstood SteveC’s point.

        I doubt many here would feel uncomfortable in incriminating those who would agree with it .

        That means he recognizes that such a statement would be outrageous and “many here” would certainly “incriminate” any one who agreed with such an outrageous statement. In other words, he’s agreeing that stating “Jews should be expelled from America” is totally outrageous and not subject to “problematic” interpretation. And then he’s contrasting it with the Pew poll question, which the NYT is willing to obfuscate as “problematic” when an equivalent question is asked about “Arabs”.

        And I’ve got to agree that “provocative ” “normal” and “consequences” are all vague as formulated in eljay’s question. What behavior is or isn’t “provocative” or “normal” and what exact “consequences” is the question talking about? Thus they are subject to multiple interpretations whereas eljay’s first question is exact and not subject to such multiple interpretations.

      • Steve C
        March 16, 2016, 3:59 pm

        Thanks Tree. Your interpretation of my comment is what I had intended. I honestly didn’t understand what eljay was saying, and I was wondering if he was somehow suggesting that we shouldn’t be quick to judge Israeli society based on a poorly worded question. Glad that wasn’t the case.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 16, 2016, 5:41 pm

        ok sorry steve! i guess i read it wrong. my mistake. and that is in response to eljay tree above and below too.

    • tree
      March 16, 2016, 3:52 pm

      he said he doubted many here would feel uncomfortable incriminating people …

      is basically the same as saying

      many here would feel comfortable…

      Doubting that people would be uncomfortable is in essence the same as saying that people would be comfortable.

      personally speaking, i would not feel uncomfortable in the least incriminating someone suggesting that.

      So SteveC’s doubt was correct in your case, and mine, and eljays, and at the very least I would believe it to be correct for the majority of posters here, regardless of background, religion or ethnicity.

      • Mooser
        March 16, 2016, 4:54 pm

        “tree” I’m still aghast over allowing the exploitation of that “_” weakness (yup, it’s true!) for so many months. Hopefully that’s over.

      • klm90046
        March 18, 2016, 6:09 pm

        Steve C, next time please try to say things in simpler sentences. Thanks.

  3. ckg
    March 16, 2016, 11:48 am

    Mr Zogby writes

    Kershner’s straightforward reporting ended, however, when she came to one of the poll’s more disturbing findings – “that nearly half of Israeli Jews said that Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel”. Unable to allow that result to stand on its own, in the same sentence, Kershner added “although Israeli pollsters found the wording of the question problematic”.

    It turns out that the NYT article’s mitigating phrase (“although Israeli pollsters found the wording of the question problematic”) was not in the original press copy. Newsdiffs.org shows that the mitigating text was added 5-1/2 hours after the original copy. This leaves open the question of whether the update was added by copy editors or by Kershner herself. Regardless, the NYT has a history of making dubious editorial corrections to its I/P articles in response to external pro-Israel influence. In this case, during the 5-1/2 period, Haaretz published its own nine paragraph criticism of the wording of this question.

  4. Krauss
    March 16, 2016, 1:27 pm

    Haaretz and NYT are engaged in a pointless pursuit: to engage in wordfeuding when the stark reality of a Jim Crow state is staring them in the face, a fact both have tried to undercut and/or hide from their readers for years(esp. NYT).

    This latest shameful shilling for Jewish Apartheid should surprise absolutely nobody.

  5. dx
    March 16, 2016, 2:07 pm

    Expelling or transferring Arabs is a big deal. But doesn’t anybody have a problem with 79% of Israeli Jews agreeing that Jews deserve preferential treatment? That’s a very straight forward result to a very straight forward question that just slid by. And it shows that Israeli Jewish society does not believe in equal treatment for everyone. That is not a true free and fair democracy. And to me, that is the biggest problem. Everything stems from that notion: one group overwhelming believes it deserves –it is entitled to–preferential treatment. How can anyone outside of that group exist fairly in a society like that? Expulsion is the natural result of that.

    • rosross
      March 18, 2016, 12:54 am

      It is elitism and racism sourced in religious bigotry. If any other religion was doing this there would be outrage.

      • rugal_b
        March 19, 2016, 5:45 am

        But many religions are doing the same things. This is the issue with white people, you have absolutely zero self-awareness when criticizing other groups or cultures, and making it easier for the Zionist to hide behind the accusations of antisemitism. Well, it is antisemitic to see the Israeli Jews as uniquely capable of wrongdoings and evils that others are also equally capable of.

        Christians in America are afforded vastly more preferential treatment and privilege compared to for example, Muslims or Hindus. Many politicians proudly claim America as a Christian Nation, and are able to gain massive amount of supporters doing so. Many get filthy rich peddling Christian theology and values in the US, something that you can never do if you are Jewish or Muslim or of any other faith. You white people need to sit down with labelling and judgement, seriously.

      • Mooser
        March 19, 2016, 11:38 am

        “This is the issue with white people, you have absolutely zero self-awareness…”

        Well, I’ll tell ya’ “rugal_b”. If it’s between “absolutely zero self awareness” and your brand of exquisite social sensitivity, it gets hard to blame them. (Whoever these “white people” are, never have gotten that straight, have we?)

    • Fritz
      March 18, 2016, 2:37 pm

      This idea of “preferential treatment” of Jewish Israeli is the logic (and racist) consequence of the demand to recognize “Israel as a Jewish state”. I can’t understand why in the US mainstream the demand for recognizing the Jewishness of Israel is broadly accepted, but the racist results are denied, even everybody who points to this fact is demonized and ostracized.

      • Peter in SF
        March 19, 2016, 2:44 am

        I’d like to see the results of a poll of Jews in the US that asks the same two questions about (a) whether Arabs should be expelled/transferred from Israel, and (b) whether Jews should have preferential treatment in Israel. Maybe James Zogby could ask his pollster brother to run it.

    • Stephen Shenfield
      March 18, 2016, 6:52 pm

      dx: A belief in preferential entitlement doesn’t automatically involve a desire to expel. Consider white landowners in the South after the Civil War. They certainly didn’t believe in equal treatment for blacks, but neither did they want to expel them. On the contrary, they went to great lengths to impede their migration — because they wanted to exploit their labor.

      So we have a three-way division of Israeli Jewish opinion regarding Palestinians: (1) in favor of expulsion (50%); (2) Jewish supremacist but against expulsion (30%); (3) apparently in favor of equal rights (20%).

  6. James Canning
    March 17, 2016, 1:09 pm

    The game plan of fanatical Zionists in my view obviously includes expectations of expelling Muslims from areas annexed by Israel (or within the 1967 borders). NYT should not try to hide this fact.

  7. justice48
    March 18, 2016, 5:58 am

    As if the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes is a future or anticipated event !
    This has been going on since 1948. The difference is that Israelis denied it before or concealed it especially when massacres were a weapon of ethnic cleansing. Ben Gurion waved his hand indicating to Rabin to expel Lydda people along the Death March. The story was at first deleted from Rabin’s memoirs.
    Now Israelis are publicly advocating it. Is that a failure of Zionist hasbara or coming to the open with a hitherto secret policy?

    • YoniFalic
      March 18, 2016, 2:02 pm

      Zionists began massacring of Palestinians in their homes in 1947.

      Here are massacres of December 1947.

      Al-Tira December 1947

      Haifa Oil Refinery December 1947

      Balad el-Sheikh December 1947

      Yehiday Massacre December 1947

      Khisas Massacre December 1947

      Qazaza Massacre December 1947

      Zionist leaders advocate expulsion of the natives since the 1800s.

      • Mooser
        March 21, 2016, 2:22 pm

        Hey, “Yoni”, my man! All my best to you.
        I’ve got a new twist on an old prayer. Every morning, I thank God for not making me a Zionist or Israeli. Or, for that matter, an ex-Israeli.

        There doesn’t seem to be a good way out of Israel for a Jew.

  8. Citizen
    March 18, 2016, 1:14 pm

    Objective media Allgemeiner clears up the Pew poll for you all–it was a sneaky goy question to smear Israeli Jews: http://www.algemeiner.com/2016/03/09/mideast-analyst-punches-holes-in-pew-survey-indicating-half-of-all-israeli-jews-favor-expulsion-transfer-of-arabs/

    • Steve C
      March 18, 2016, 3:06 pm

      Is there any truth to the suggestion that “the absence of the article before the word “Arabs”” in the Hebrew version of the question makes it unclear whether it means all Arabs or not? Haaretz made much of this too. It seems to me if you want people removed on the basis of their ethnicity, it doesn’t matter that much if you just mean the non-citizens or not, it’s still straight-up racism.

    • oldgeezer
      March 18, 2016, 3:31 pm

      @Citizen

      That is actually an interesting article. Not for the article itself but for the comments posted to it. The posters reject the excuse that is being given for the poll and actually support expelling the Palestinians.

      For once I agree with them that there is no excuse for those results. What the poll shows is the true naked depravity of Israeli society.

      • Marnie
        March 19, 2016, 3:50 am

        There’s been so many examples of the naked depravity of israeli society and I’m not talking about the unquenchable thirst to spill Palestinian blood, but the everyday goings on.

        +972 By Mairav Zonszein
        |Published September 8, 2015
        Israeli hotels warn Jewish guests that Arabs will also be there

        Israeli Jews trying to book hotel rooms for the upcoming holidays being informed of far more than the price and terms, Channel 2 reveals. The latest hotel courtesy.

        and this –

    • Mooser
      March 18, 2016, 4:18 pm

      “–it was a sneaky goy question to smear Israeli Jews”

      I laughed lightly, and told myself that “Citizen” must be missing the satire, then clicked…
      Nope, not going near the comments.

    • Thalwen
      March 18, 2016, 10:31 pm

      And the comments on that piece make it clear that the voices of Algemeiner 1) think expelling all Palestinians is a great idea and 2) those that oppose it are deluded fools. Gotta love the way hasbara always shoots itself in the foot with its own racist hate.

  9. NickJOCW
    March 19, 2016, 3:24 am

    Surely it is common knowledge that some Israeli Jews would like all non Jews, particularly Palestinians. to leave. That has frequently been expressed in interviews recorded on film. The question exposes not the existence of such an attitude but the extent to which it is embedded in Israeli society. I imagine, it appeared ‘problematic’ to Israeli pollsters for precisely that reason, not for any linguistic ambiguity. It’s more like moving an uncovered corpse down a crowded corridor; people know what’s on the trolley but they don’t want to be so graphically reminded of it.

  10. Qualtrough
    March 20, 2016, 12:36 am

    @Mooser – Please, I beg of you, don’t feed the troll!

    • Mooser
      March 20, 2016, 12:29 pm

      “@Mooser – Please, I beg of you, don’t feed the troll!”

      Okay, with pleasure. Thanks for reminding me, happy to comply. Must have forgot myself for a minute. No further feeding will ensue.

  11. Danaa
    March 20, 2016, 6:39 am

    Actually, one of the things I found shocking but not surprising is the seeming unanimity of the religiously affiliated Israelis, who by large majorities supported expulsion of the non-Jews as well as keeping Israel preferentially Jewish (ie, a jim Crow-like state). Somewhere in the poll, there was a question on political affiliation. Again, shockingly but unsurprisingly, fewer than 10% identified as “leftists”.

    The hand wringers and apologists seem rather uninterested in these factoids. may be they are too embarrassed to call attention to the all-too-obvious facts that the more jewishly educated are correlated with the more bigotted, prejudiced, and indeed undemocratic.

    Why does no one comment on the vaunted Jewish “values’ in this connection? what does it mean when Judaism becomes synonymous with intolerance and xenophobia? how do the great jewish pontificators in the US (the Bill krystols, brookses, friedmans etc) deal with the Israeli version of “Jewish values”?

    If anyone has seen some interesting commentary on this – from the US especially – I would like to read it. Am always interested in innovative apologetica (it’s a relatively unknown field now but is expected to grow explosively in the coming years, I hear).

    • Keith
      March 20, 2016, 5:40 pm

      DANAA- “If anyone has seen some interesting commentary on this – from the US especially – I would like to read it.”

      Have you ever read “Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years,” by Israel Shahak? If not, you should. One of his points is that both Orthodox Judaism and Zionism are the modern versions of Classical Judaism which appears around 1000 AD until about 1800 AD when the enlightenment and Gentile Kings caused Judaism to splinter between Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and secular Jews. One characteristic of Classical Judaism was hostility to the surrounding Gentile host community. The Jews tended to serve the Gentile monarch and nobility in administering the Gentile peasants who were exploited. Classical Judaism’s ideology reflected that perspective.

      • Mooser
        March 20, 2016, 8:50 pm

        “Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years,” by Israel Shahak? “

        Pulled into Nazareth feeling bout half-past dead.

      • Danaa
        March 21, 2016, 1:57 am

        Thanks Keith. Yes, I have Shahak’s book and have been reading through it (not in order. I never read in order because, well, I am not sure…). Very interesting points and observations. What i read I have annotated carefully. The chapter you mention is actually one of the ones I haven’t read through fully yet but have every intention to do so. I can certainly see why he was so villified. I have read a couple of other books (one by maxim Robinson called “cult, Ghetto and State”) that address the same historical facts, though without the analysis of Classical Judaism that Shahak brought up.

  12. Sibiriak
    March 22, 2016, 12:14 am

    rugal_b: This is the issue with white people, you have absolutely zero self-awareness when criticizing other groups or culture

    ———————

    I’m curious. How did you, a white person and a Jew, manage to break the chains of self-ignorance? Was it primarily a matter of self-education? Powerful experiences? A spiritual miracle?

    • rugal_b
      March 22, 2016, 4:34 am

      @Sibiriak,

      Assigning a identity to a person without consent is violence, something you should educate yourself about if you are serious about fighting for justice and against oppression. As a progressive Marxist, I vehemently reject forms of identity based on arbitrary political design such as white, and any form of organized religion such as Jew. White identity was manufactured for the convenience of Western European ruling class to establish a sociopolitical hegemony in colonized land. It is a badge you wear to signal your allegiance to capitalism, genocide of native populations, the Church of Christiany, white supremacy and anti-blackness.

      As for my religion, I see no reason to partake in such silliness which would greatly limit my spiritual development and force me into entangling alliances on completely irrational, immaterial and unnatural basis. Organized religion is the drug that one should be fortunate not to be exposed to, especially when the fragile mind is still in development. It is the opium of the masses, a sign of corrupt society and dysfunctional governance. I bow down to the God within us all, in the living and in the dead, in the small and in the mighty, in the rocks and in the water.

      • Sibiriak
        March 22, 2016, 8:58 am

        rugal: I vehemently reject forms of identity based on arbitrary political design such as white, and any form of organized religion such as Jew.
        ———–

        I understand, based on your posts, that you are an ex-white, possibly ex-Jew–I’m just wondering how you made the transition, if you made one.

        You may have been born white, not a POC, but never self-identified as as “white” (“allegiance to capitalism” etc.), like many others.

        (By “Jew” I didn’t necessarily mean a religious Jew.)

      • rugal_b
        March 22, 2016, 11:53 am

        @Sibiriak

        I would like to give you an advise. Do not ever try to presume somebody’s identity, whether it’s racial, ethnic or religious. Like I said before, you guessing I am white or Jewish or whatever, I don’t take pleasure in that sort of entitlement and paternalism. Call me white in person, and trust, you will regret it instantaneously.

        I ain’t white, I was never white and I will never allow for my mind and my soul to be white. I am a human being whose sociopolitical and economic loyalties are to my parents, to my sisters and brothers, to my children and to those I consider as friends. I don’t [..] with this racist, misogynist, heteronormative, antifeminist, colonialist of an identity. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who identifies as white are no neutral persons, they’re actively working to uphold white supremacy, and they are no different to me as Zionists are to the folks in Gaza.

      • Mooser
        March 22, 2016, 12:17 pm

        “Assigning a identity to a person without consent is violence”

        Yeah, yeah “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”

      • Mooser
        March 22, 2016, 12:21 pm

        “I ain’t white, I was never white and I will never allow for my mind and my soul to be white.”

        Gosh, that’s too bad, “rugal_b”. Maybe if you were, you’d have a right to sing the blues.

        “I ain’t”

        G’nossen tsum emess!

      • Sibiriak
        March 22, 2016, 12:32 pm

        rugal_b: I would like to give you an advise. Do not ever try to presume somebody’s identity,
        ————–

        Let me give you some advice. Don’t assume a false identity. Don’t lie.

        I’m not presuming anything. I’m making a reasonable–if not obvious– assessment based on your many posts.

        You are not Marxist. There is nothing Marxist in your posts. Nor are you a progressive. You’re just posing as one.

        [my sociopolitical and economic ] loyalties are to my parents, to my sisters and brothers, to my children and to those I consider as friends.

        Not much of a universalist are you? Is there a word for that kind of limited loyalty?

      • Annie Robbins
        March 22, 2016, 4:36 pm

        sibiriak, and the hypocrisy of addressing others as “If you white people would just”.. by the same poster giving advise on how not to presume somebody’s identity.

      • Sibiriak
        March 22, 2016, 12:47 pm

        rugal: anyone who identifies as white
        ————–

        I didn’t say you identified as white, I said you were white.

        You are a proven serial liar– lying about Phil, about Annie, about a number of other posters. Proven. Beyond a shadow of a doubt.

        Why wouldn’t you lie about yourself, then?

      • rugal_b
        March 22, 2016, 12:53 pm

        @Sibiriak,

        When you are loyal to everyone, you’re loyal to no one. Everybody got their own set of feet and hands, no need for me to come play savior and pledge my loyalty for them to carve themselves a piece of the pie. If you white people would just learn to stop [..]ing with other people and start caring for your own damn selves, 99% of the world’s problems would vanish overnight.

        BTW, you just can’t stop this white [..] can’t you? Who the hell are you to question my commitment to Marxism and progressive ideals?

      • Sibiriak
        March 22, 2016, 1:08 pm

        rugal: “[Annie Robbins] once tried to claim that Jews were responsible for the chattel slavery practiced by the whites in America. “

        Lie.

        ————–

        “…Phil’s many articles that positively glorify Trump as the non antisemitic American leader who will finally free the country rom the evil clutches of the Zionists/Neocons/foreign lobbyist”

        Lie.

        ————

        “I ain’t white, I was never white…”

        Yeah, sure…

      • Mooser
        March 22, 2016, 1:16 pm

        “I understand, based on your posts, that you are an ex-white, possibly ex-Jew–I’m just wondering how you made the transition, if you made one.”

        Me, too. All I ever do is burn, and heck, I’m afraid of the dentist, I’m not having some un-board-certified operation. I can hardly squabble. Is there an easier way? Lay it on me, “rugal_b”.

      • rugal_b
        March 22, 2016, 1:47 pm

        @Sibiriak, how does those quotes make me a liar? Sure the first one was not accurate in repeating what Annie actually said about Jews and slavery, but thats a given since I wrote it from memory. Also, Annie has yet to provide any sort of references to back up her highly controversial, inflammatory claim of Jews contributing to the chattel slavery of blacks in America.

        As for Phil supporting Trump, well that’s what any normal person would conclude after reading many of the articles he wrote on Trump and his presidential campaign.

        In saying that Phil is a Trump supporter, I’m making a reasonable–if not obvious– assessment based on his many writings that overwhelmingly project a positive potrayal of Trump.

      • Sibiriak
        March 22, 2016, 2:20 pm

        rugal: As for Phil supporting Trump…
        ——————–

        “Supporting Trump” positively glorifying Trump

        “Supporting Trump” Trump finally freeing the country from the evil clutches of the Zionists…

        Not to mention the fact that Phil never expressed support for Trump as a candidate.

        He only wrote about how Trump’s “neutral” toward Israel/Palestine rhetoric may have been an indication of a positive change in political realities. (I don’t think it was, personally.)

      • Mooser
        March 22, 2016, 3:01 pm

        “but thats a given since I wrote it from memory.”

        Why take that kind of a chance, “rugal_b”, sir? Simply go to your archive and select the exact quote. as I have done here

      • Mooser
        March 22, 2016, 3:29 pm

        “Who the hell are you to question my commitment to Marxism and progressive ideals?”

        Yup, cause if there’s one thing Progressive Marxist progressiveness is concerned about, it’s Phil Weiss’ “Jewish self-hatred” and “internalized antisemitism”. Bothers them day and night.

        Ever think about taking the underscore out of your user name?

        “BTW, you just can’t stop this white [..] can’t you?”

        “rugal_b” give it up. Look, let me be plain: even if you got the answer you wanted, the site probably won’t print it. So stop casting that white bread upon the waters, hoping it’ll come back to you as cupcakes.

      • Mooser
        March 22, 2016, 3:46 pm

        “In the two selections from Mezzrow’s autobiography included here, we can see his ambiguous relation to black culture, the ways he mixed genuine admiration with crude stereotypes.”

        Acouple of days ago, if I am not mistaken, “Annie Robbins” mentioned that Mondo could not endorse a candidate. I guess “rugal_b” read it too.

      • gamal
        March 22, 2016, 4:01 pm

        ” Annie has yet to provide any sort of references to back up her highly controversial, inflammatory claim of Jews contributing to the chattel slavery of blacks in America. ”

        as Annie is probably a bit busy you yourself could consult the writings of

        Lee M Freeman

        Marcus Arkin

        Herbert I Bloom

        Cecil Roth

        Wilfred Samuels

        Isaac and Susan Emmanuel

        Seymour B Liebman

        Moshe Kahan

        Arnold Wiznitzer

      • Mooser
        March 22, 2016, 5:27 pm

        “[…]”

        Thanks.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 23, 2016, 12:05 am

        So stop casting that white bread upon the waters, hoping it’ll come back to you as cupcakes….

        “[…]”

        Thanks.

        he gets more and more inflammatory assuming we’ll chomp. so boring for a bot. remember the so called muslim zionist we had here who taxi tore to shreds by going to the village in lebanon he alleged to have grown up in and no one had ever heard of him or his family? the guy swore up and down he was who he said he was but his entire agenda was thrashing palestine and supporting zionism anonymously as a poser.

        yep..walks like duck talks like duck = duck. dime a dozen just more ‘creative’ bios and angles of attack.

      • rugal_b
        March 23, 2016, 3:30 am

        “Not to mention the fact that Phil never expressed support for Trump as a candidate.

        He only wrote about how Trump’s “neutral” toward Israel/Palestine rhetoric may have been an indication of a positive change in political realities. (I don’t think it was, personally.)” – Sibiriak

        Phil can’t outright express his support for Trump for various professional and personal reasons, do not be so naive.

        However, his preference for the racist bigot being president can easily be inferred through his writings.

      • Mooser
        March 23, 2016, 11:31 am

        “hoping it’ll come back to you as cupcakes….”

        No, I shoulda tried “race-cakes” (‘rice-cakes’)? ‘Cast your bread upon the waters, and it will come back to you as cupcakes?’ Where’d I get that? Return as a hoagie sandwich, I could see that, maybe.

        “the guy swore up and down he was who he said he was”

        “rugal_b” has certainly avoided that problem. He/she (apologies to the fairer species) only says who we are. And who they are!

      • Sibiriak
        March 24, 2016, 10:19 am

        “Supporting Trump” ≠ positively glorifying Trump
        “Supporting Trump” ≠ Trump finally freeing the country from the evil clutches of the Zionists…
        ———————-

        Rugal, you did not respond to that point. Not surprising, since there is no justification for such blatant, malicious distortion.
        ————————-

        [Sibiriak:] …Phil never expressed support for Trump as a candidate.

        [Rugal: …his preference for the racist bigot being president can easily be inferred through his writings.

        No it cannot. You cannot infer that — if by infer you mean to logically derive a conclusion from facts or premises. .

        The only fact here is that Phil W. has viewed somewhat positively Trump’s promised “neutral” I/P stance/ non-neo Con rhetoric, and what that implies about changing political realities.

        You cannot conclude from that fact that Phil W. supports Trump as a candidate.

        It is perfectly possible and normal to see something potentially positive in one specific aspect of a candidate yet nevertheless hold an overall negative view of that candidate.

        It’s a simple, blatant logical fallacy to jump from part to whole.

        So when you repeatedly claim that Phil W. has endorsed Trump as a candidate you are lying.

      • rugal_b
        March 24, 2016, 11:18 am

        @Sibiriak, you are trying to put forward an argument based on what your interpretations of what I wrote, and then you claim I am lying. Excuse me, just because you disagree with my opinion due to whatever biases you have in your head, it doesn’t mean the expression of my opinion constitute as a lie.

        Also, it is you who are being fallacious in accusing me of lying because until Phil has actually materialized his support for a candidate through his vote, no one can correctly infer which of the candidates he supports.

      • Sibiriak
        March 24, 2016, 2:15 pm

        Rugal:

        1) {Phil’s] preference for the racist bigot being president can easily be inferred through his writings

        2) no one can correctly infer which of the candidates he supports. [emphasis added]

        ——————

        #2 means #1 was false. Thank you.

      • rugal_b
        March 24, 2016, 3:03 pm

        @Sibiriak

        By writing these articles, and publishing them on the left-leaning MW, I think it’s highly reasonable to say Phil supports Trump based on his actions.

      • Mooser
        March 24, 2016, 10:05 pm

        “I think it’s highly reasonable to say Phil supports Trump”

        Of course you do! You read that the terms of some of Mondo’s support requires not endorsing a candidate. So you’re going to turn yourself inside out to say that Mondo has endorsed a candidate. Give it up.

Leave a Reply