Zionism is finally in the news, as officials seek to conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism

Activism
on 198 Comments

As someone who has long urged the media to openly discuss the competing claims of Zionism and anti-Zionism, I am gratified that those words are breaking into the mainstream at last. Though right now the discussion chiefly centers on the assertion that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.

Many officials have lately charged that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism; even Bernie Sanders, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have echoed that claim. In doing so, they have accepted the idea that Judaism now entails a commitment to the idea of a Jewish state in historical Palestine. Many of us disagree, and we are ready to make our own case here– see Rachel Sandalow-Ash of Open Hillel, whose comments end this article. But let’s look at the official voices first.

Yesterday both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders were critical of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions campaign (BDS) against Israel, a campaign many anti-Zionists support.

At the AIPAC conference, Clinton said BDS is inherently anti-semitic because it seeks to “undermine.. the Jewish people.” To wit:

Many of the young people here today are on the front lines of the battle to oppose the alarming boycott, divestment and sanctions movement known as BDS. Particularly at a time when anti-Semitism is on the rise across the world, especially in Europe, we must repudiate all efforts to malign, isolate and undermine Israel and the Jewish people. I’ve been sounding the alarm for a while now. As I wrote last year in a letter to the heads of major American Jewish organizations, we have to be united in fighting back against BDS. Many of its proponents have demonized Israeli scientists and intellectuals, even students. To all the college students who may have encountered this on campus, I hope you stay strong.

Here’s what Bernie Sanders said when Chris Hayes of MSNBC asked him last night if BDS is anti-semitic.

Not to see that there is some level of anti-Semitism involved in that [movement] would be a mistake.

The argument is raging on campuses of course. Last month the Vassar College administration all-but equated anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. And a new proposed regulation from the University of California equates anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism and says it has no place at the university. From the California regents working group on intolerance:

[H]istoric manifestations of anti-Semitism have changed and… expressions of anti-Semitism are more coded and difficult to identify. Opposition to Zionism often is expressed in ways that are not simply statements of disagreement over politics and policy, but also assertions of prejudice and intolerance toward Jewish people and culture. Anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and other forms of discrimination have no place at the University of California.

Teresa Watanabe in the LA Times summarizes the response:

The inclusion [of the intolerance provision] immediately drew sharply divergent reactions, with pro-Israel groups hailing it as a needed step to protect Jewish students from hostility and those supporting Palestinian rights criticizing it as a naked attempt to suppress criticism of the Jewish state.

Scholars were similarly divided over whether a statement meant to express the UC regents’ principles against intolerance should include Zionism — historically an international movement to establish a Jewish homeland and now viewed as the belief in Israel’s right to exist.

One letter signed by more than 130 UC faculty members supported naming anti-Zionism as an expression of anti-Semitism, saying students need guidance on “when healthy political debate crosses the line into anti-Jewish hatred, bigotry and discrimination, and when legitimate criticism of Israel devolves into denying Israel’s right to exist.”

Thankfully, the Los Angeles Times has run an editorial stating that UC’s “intolerance policy goes dangerously astray on anti-Semitism.” It urges the university to prune any statement conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism because it’s an effort to suppress support for Palestinian rights.

in one crucial respect the report goes dangerously astray: It conflates anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism and says both are forms of discrimination that “have no place at the University of California.” It’s difficult to read that as anything other than a warning to those students or faculty members who have fundamental disagreements with the state of Israel. It apparently rules out of bounds an assertion by, say, a Palestinian professor that Israel’s creation was unfair and unjustifiable, or by a Jewish student that Israel should be replaced by a nonsectarian state. Both are ideas that this page opposes but they are fully entitled to protection at a public university under the 1st Amendment.

The equation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism might also make it easier to stigmatize protests against Israeli policies — particularly the treatment of Palestinians — even if they don’t actually oppose the idea of a Jewish state. Pro-Palestinian activists on campus are right to fear that such a statement would target their advocacy…

the report’s linkage of “anti-Semitism” and “anti-Zionism” blurs an important distinction. It is no doubt true that there are anti-Zionists who are also anti-Semites. But it is certainly possible to oppose Israel and not harbor or express prejudice against Jews. Some critics of Zionism are themselves Jewish. No doubt many Jewish students at UC strongly identify with Israel and are deeply offended by criticism of its policies or attacks on its legitimacy. But that doesn’t justify equating those opinions with bigotry or stifling their expression.

The Times then ran letters from Israel supporters saying that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. But there was this calm and eloquent statement from Sherna Berger Gluck, a feminist oral historian:

The UC regents must understand that Judaism does not equal Zionism, and anti-Zionism does not equal anti-Semitism. Zionism is the belief in a Jewish state; in other words, a state that eschews the basic concept of a secular democracy, just as the Islamic State of Iran does.

Jewish Americans like me who are anti-Zionists support a secular, democratic state where all citizens have equal rights. We are neither anti-Semites nor “self-hating Jews,” but rather advocates of democracy and social justice.

Sherna Berger Gluck, Topanga

The AP story on California also quoted a Jew who isn’t bewitched by Zionism.

“As a student who considers my work advocating for Palestinian human rights as an expression of my Jewish values, I am surprised to see that criticism of a modern nation-state that regularly violates international law is so centered in a report against intolerance,” said Eitan Peled, a UCLA student and campus leader for Jewish Voice for Peace

Eugene Volokh at the Washington Post also faults the California regents. While he claims that “a good deal of anti-Zionism is indeed anti-Semitic,” he says people have a right to dispute whether Jews need a nation state.

Whether the Jewish people should have an independent state in Israel is a perfectly legitimate question to discuss — just as it’s perfectly legitimate to discuss whether Basques, Kurds, Taiwanese, Tibetans, Northern Cypriots, Flemish Belgians, Walloon Belgians, Faroese…  should have a right to have independent states.

Sometimes the answer might be “yes.” Sometimes it might be “no.” Sometimes the answer might be “it depends.” But there’s no uncontroversial principle on which these questions can be decided. They have to be constantly up for inquiry and debate, especially in places that are set up for inquiry and debate: universities. Whether Israel is entitled to exist as an independent Jewish state is just as fitting a subject for discussion as whether Kosovo or Northern Cyprus or Kurdistan or Tawain or Tibet.

Notice that Volokh, a rightwinger, is ahead of President Obama in this discussion. Here is President Obama’s statement re anti-Zionism. Jeffrey Goldberg asked him last year to draw the line “between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.”

You know, I think a good baseline is: Do you think that Israel has a right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people, and are you aware of the particular circumstances of Jewish history that might prompt that need and desire? And if your answer is no, if your notion is somehow that that history doesn’t matter, then that’s a problem, in my mind. If, on the other hand, you acknowledge the justness of the Jewish homeland, you acknowledge the active presence of anti-Semitism—that it’s not just something in the past, but it is current—if you acknowledge that there are people and nations that, if convenient, would do the Jewish people harm because of a warped ideology. If you acknowledge those things, then you should be able to align yourself with Israel where its security is at stake, you should be able to align yourself with Israel when it comes to making sure that it is not held to a double standard in international fora, you should align yourself with Israel when it comes to making sure that it is not isolated.

Again, it’s great news that this conversation is breaking out, even if it is in a prejudicial form at the moment. It’s a discussion that will be continuing on our pages and hopefully too on op-ed pages throughout the country in months to come.

In that spirit, three other viewpoints. When I saw him in D.C. last weekend, Scott McConnell deprecated the word anti-Zionist, saying that it signaled to Israelis that you want to eliminate institutions built by Zionists, which is not a good signal when a peaceful future is likely to be a binational one.

Also in D.C. I saw Tzvia Thier, a former Hebrew school teacher who lost her brother in the 1982 war. Thier said that she has come to call Israel “the Zionist entity” because even the name Israel represents an effort by the country to exploit the Jewish religion so as to justify militarism and racial discrimination.

And last week, Rachel Sandalow-Ash of Open Hillel addressed the issue in a forum at Temple Israel in New Rochelle, N.Y. She said:

It’s sort of easy to call anything we don’t like anti-Semitism, but  that’s  sort of to diminish what real anti-Semitism is. And I think it’s very important to call that out when and where it exists but not to use anti-semitism, and the fear of it, as as a way of shutting down voices that challenge accepted viewpoints in our community.

 

 

 

 

 

 

About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

198 Responses

  1. hophmi
    March 22, 2016, 12:32 pm

    There’s one main reason people equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism, even though the two can technically be distinguished intellectually. It’s because there is a tremendous amount of antisemitism in the anti-Zionist community, which that community does little or nothing to address. Your constant Jew-baiting through conspiracy theories about Jews causing the Iraq War and controlling American foreign policy, the repetition here of lists of Jewish billionaires, the denialist posture you take toward the growing antisemitism problem in Europe and on campus, and your growing presence on the web because of the promotion of these antisemitic theories, and not in spite of them, are all part of why people view anti-Zionism and antisemitism as two sides of the same coin.

    When you add all of that to the selective obsession anti-Zionists have with bashing Israel in a world full of real human rights violators and in a region where hundreds of thousands of people are dying in genocides and civil wars, people sense that there’s more to this than just “criticism of the nation-state.”

    • eljay
      March 22, 2016, 1:17 pm

      || hophmi: There’s one main reason people equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism, even though the two can technically be distinguished intellectually. It’s because there is a tremendous amount of antisemitism in the anti-Zionist community … ||

      An even more straightforward reason why people equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is because hateful and immoral Zio-supremacists like you consistently and persistently go to great lengths to:
      – conflate Zionism and Israel (the “Jewish State”) with all Jews; and then
      – conflate valid criticism of Zionism and Israel (the “Jewish State”) with anti-Semitism.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 22, 2016, 1:27 pm

        i think the primary reason anyone would equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism (and most people don’t)is because there’s a major pr campaign to convince everyone it’s true. it’s essentially the ad hominem argument of “my ideological opponents are bad people” (or haters or whatever). so whether the amount of anti zionists who are anti semites is 1% or 2% or 5% etc or 95% it wouldn’t matter one iota to the accusers because they would say the same thing anyway as they have been saying it forever.

        but, since there’s no inherent connection between anti zionism and anti semitism, this is a way to NOT have a serious conversation about the impact/effect of zionism. it’s primary motive is diversion.

      • Shmuel
        March 22, 2016, 4:27 pm

        i think the primary reason anyone would equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism (and most people don’t)is because there’s a major pr campaign to convince everyone it’s true.

        It goes far deeper than that. Zionism practically is Judaism, today (Jewish anti-Zionism is, at best, a heresy). From there, it’s just a matter of getting the logic straight:
        If Zionism = Judaism, anti-Zionism = anti-Judaism.

        On a more practical level, opposing Zionism really does mean opposing an awful lot of Jews “as Jews” — in the sense of opposing a core element of their individual and collective Jewish identities. Not hard to see why that would be perceived by so many (Jews and non-Jews) as anti-Semitism.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 22, 2016, 7:17 pm

        Zionism practically is Judaism, today…. From there, it’s just a matter of getting the logic straight:
        If Zionism = Judaism, anti-Zionism = anti-Judaism.

        except conversely, zionism is not a religion, it is a political nationalist ideology. ideologies are similar to religions in that people choose to make them core elements of their identities. but since zionism is not judaism, it is illogical (not “straight”) to conclude anti-Zionism = anti-Judaism.

        as i would with any religion, i would be anti-judaism if it was imposed on me but it’s not so i am not. if a person did believe Zionism = Judaism then they logically would think anti-Zionism was = anti-Judaism. i feel the same way about political ideologies i don’t like as i do religions i don’t like, to the extent it is imposed on me it becomes my (moral) responsibility to reject it. but if i disagree with a persons politics or the imposition of it on my culture — i don’t think that makes me a bigot.

        if someone worships a hateful destructive ideology — say the kkk — and that identity is “a core element of their individual and collective” christian community, does that make me anti christian? not unless i believe it’s an inherent feature of christianity… which i do not.

        don’t impose it on others and i don’t care. i’ve already said that about zionism numerous times. i would have no problem with it if jews wanted to go to some island or uninhabited land and live with each other there but they didn’t do that. my problem w/zionism is they used it to colonize palestine and violated other peoples lives. i also have no problem with scientology if the people practicing it are not abusing children or imprisoning members of their group and i have no problem with catholicism as long as priests are not raping children.

        but either way there are many jews with no religion and anti semitism is hatred towards jews — regardless of politics or religion or anything, just for being jewish (as an ethnic qualifier). once you start imposing your way of thinking on others then it becomes your responsibility when they reject you or your religion or your politics.

        On a more practical level, opposing Zionism really does mean opposing an awful lot of Jews “as Jews” — in the sense of opposing a core element of their individual and collective Jewish identities.

        only if you believe what makes a person jewish (“as jews”) is zionism. if an awful lot of jews “as jews” believe they are god’s chosen people, it makes no difference to me unless that thought is imposed on me. you wouldn’t consider calling a jewish person a bigot if they didn’t believe jesus was the messiah. you wouldn’t claim that jewish person was denying the christian the right of self determination because you didn’t go along with it. as long as the act of zionism requires (is inherently part of) imposition on others, zionists (and their supporters) become the violator. not the people who resist the imposition.

        Not hard to see why that would be perceived by so many (Jews and non-Jews) as anti-Semitism.

        no it is not. that is because (as i mentioned before) a concerted effort has been made to conflate zionism as co-joined with judaism — and to change not just the identities of jews and the meaning of what it means to be jewish for a jewish person, but for everyone else (non jews alike) too. but it only applies to those who believe it. if you try flipping this same theory on any people, that they are special and have a right to colonize land other people live on, and this becomes so embedded in their identity they think they are victimized if they can’t do it — then it makes perfect sense they would accuse others who do not go along as discriminating against them. but only a brainwashed person would believe that.

      • Mooser
        March 22, 2016, 5:47 pm

        “On a more practical level, opposing Zionism really does mean opposing an awful lot of Jews “as Jews” — in the sense of opposing a core element of their individual and collective Jewish identities.”

        That’s their problem. Not gonna make it mine. Guess they will have to adjust their thinking. Or perhaps they will decide that Judaism without material and political gain isn’t worth the trouble. Good riddance.

      • MHughes976
        March 22, 2016, 6:06 pm

        I take anti-Semitism to involve prejudice, so I don’t think that reasoned objection to Zionism, even if Zionism is indeed implied by Judaism, is anti-Semitic. And it is in part ‘as Jews’ (and Inreally think as authentic Jews) that I respect persons like Mooser and yourself and many others here.

      • Mooser
        March 22, 2016, 6:38 pm

        “that I respect persons like…”

        MHughes976, please, don’t set yourself up to be proven wrong. I am not an authentic Jew. I’m about as phony as they come. Sorry.

      • Shmuel
        March 22, 2016, 6:57 pm

        MHughes,

        I certainly don’t think that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism (in part because that would make me a “self-hating self-hater”, and I’m not sure that’s even possible) or that Zionism is Judaism, but was explaining why the trap is so easy to fall into — and understanding why it’s so easy might help us make it a little harder.

      • Mooser
        March 22, 2016, 7:05 pm

        “— and understanding why it’s so easy

        Cause it got them and keeps them a stolen country?

        ” might help us make it a little harder.”

        Ahh, poor little Zionists, falling into such an easy error. You’re going to make it “little harder”, when it’s working for them every day?

        Say “Shmuel” why don’t you go explain it to “benedict” at 5:23 on this page. He seems to have much more Jewish knowledge than I. ever will, should be an easy engagement.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 23, 2016, 1:44 am

        was explaining why the trap is so easy to fall into — and understanding why it’s so easy might help us make it a little harder.

        mooser, the trap is set for us. i think shmuel’s intention was to make it harder for us to fall into it by understanding it. i know the traps, (i wrote an article called “the trap”). they are designed by professionals to make them very easy to fall into. they are hidden in plain site but not complicated. you just have to stand back and look with a clear mind.

      • Marnie
        March 23, 2016, 1:48 am

        I think that the zionists had a pretty good idea this would be the end result and from the get go formulated a plan to confront opponents of the zionist movement. If they hadn’t come up with a game plan at the beginning for the obvious blow back they’d receive (from going into Palestine and removing as many of the indigenous people as possible and claiming that land for their ‘state’ by pograms of ethnic cleansing, murder, various atrocities), they had to have a backup plan to deal with the outrage from the neighboring Arab countries and the west. The NYT did a story about the massacre at Deir Yassin, but that was on April 12, 1948. I’m not sure what they’d call that now, as they didn’t have too much to say about the massacre in Gaza in 2014 except to blame it all on Hamas. It becomes an even more effective tool to squelch dissent by conflating zionism with Judaism. These folks are endangering Jews more because they’re attempting to create a situation, and have largely succeeded btw, where any critical discussion of israel or zionists is virtually impossible because of a word – antisemite – which has become the most overworked and exploited word in the world and it seems like an awful lot of Jews, israeli and otherwise, have been conditioned to respond to any criticism as if it is a threat to their own survival, like its a personal death threat. That’s some very powerful brainwashing going on, imho and it starts very, very young, by necessity of course. That Reverend Moon has nothing on the zionists playbook. Young minds are easy to corrupt and shape for the good of whatever.

      • Annie Robbins
        March 23, 2016, 2:01 am

        marnie, accusations of anti semitism are the primary defense of the state. it’s always been like that. and it’s coupled with brainwashing jews that everyone wants to kill them which is absurd. especially in the US where droves of millennials are followers of sanders, like they care if he’s jewish? i don’t think so, or if they do they like him for it. but this constant harping on anti semitism — you just have to not let it penetrate. it’s a fact like thunderstorms are a fact but it’s nothing like what muslims have to endure in the US w/presidential candidates openly expounding islamophobic policies to get votes. i mean please!

        a word – antisemite – which has become the most overworked and exploited word in the world

        we’re supposed to be brainwashed to fear the accusation. but it doesn’t scare me. the tool is only a weapon to the extent that it applies.

      • Shmuel
        March 23, 2016, 3:15 am

        Ahh, poor little Zionists, falling into such an easy error. You’re going to make it “little harder”, when it’s working for them every day?

        Mooser, you’re acting like a troll.

        The conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism makes Palestinians suffer. That the two are distinct (and when rooted in a fundamental opposition to racism and discrimination, antithetical) should be a no-brainer, but it’s not. Why not? Why do so many people who should know better not know better? And most importantly, how can that be changed?

        How can Obama get away with the kind of statements cited above? What are the premises that make such unreasonable statements sound so reasonable to so many people? Concerted PR is only a part of the answer. Why does the PR resonate?

      • Shmuel
        March 23, 2016, 3:27 am

        I think that the zionists had a pretty good idea this would be the end result and from the get go formulated a plan to confront opponents of the zionist movement.

        Marnie,

        The conflation of Zionism and Judaism (and anti-Zionism with anti-Judaism) was a part of the battle between Jewish Zionists and anti-Zionists from the very beginning. It is reflected in the very choice of the name “Zion” — including the fact that anti-Semitism, in Yiddish, was often referred to (long before “Zionism”) as “sinas tsiyon” — “hatred of Zion”.

        As Aharon Shmuel Tamares wrote, in the early days of the Zionist movement:

        “We must first liberate ourselves from the censorship that weighs on the mouths of your critics, by your wonderful ploy … calling yourselves ‘Zionists’…. Thus, anyone who dares to criticise your movement in the slightest is immediately branded a Hater of Zion [=anti-Semite] – vilified and forever disgraced. Who, then, will risk confronting you?”

        –Aharon Shmuel Tamares, Yahadut ve-herut [Judaism and Freedom], Odessa, 1905

      • Marnie
        March 23, 2016, 3:40 am

        I guess you missed my point Annie and I know I lack some finesse in that area but yeah, antisemitism is the bullshit end of the argument, or even beginning and its a lot of manipulation. “it’s a fact like thunderstorms are a fact but it’s nothing like what muslims have to endure in the “US w/presidential candidates openly expounding islamophobic policies to get votes. i mean please!” You’ve got no argument from me; I think we’re on the same page here. Maybe I overstated the obvious – sorry, don’t think its the first time.

      • yonah fredman
        March 23, 2016, 6:22 am

        annie robbins- some widen the definition of anti semitism and others narrow it.

        you wrote: “but either way there are many jews with no religion and anti semitism is hatred towards jews — regardless of politics or religion or anything, just for being jewish (as an ethnic qualifier). once you start imposing your way of thinking on others then it becomes your responsibility when they reject you or your religion or your politics.” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/03/zionism-is-finally-in-the-news-as-officials-seek-to-conflate-anti-zionism-with-anti-semitism/#comment-163872

        (leaving aside the political point of the last half of that quote:)

        this means that anti semitism has nothing to do with judaism. that is: if you hate someone just because they are jewish, even though they don’t believe in that vile antiquated stuff anymore, then you are an antisemite. but if you hate people because they believe in that vile antiquated stuff, then you aren’t an antisemite.

        i think that antisemitism is a bit deeper than that and those who hate judaism are antisemites. which puts critics of judaism or those alienated from the strict observance of their parents wishing to water down judaism in the boat of being slightly antisemitic. this is reflected in the woody allen joke regarding his reform rabbi, “he was very reform. he was so reform he was nazi.”

      • echinococcus
        March 23, 2016, 7:09 am

        Reb Fredman at it again.
        At muddying the waters, that is.
        Nobody outside tribals cares about “antisemitism”. Not a universal concept.
        What people outside your tent care about are racism, or for some others “freedom of religion”.

        Racism, according to the usage consensus in civilized countries, is wholesale prejudice against a group because of perceived characteristics acquired at birth, like mother tongue, place of birth, supposed religion of ancestors, etc. Not religion, which is acquired and can be reasoned against, or any political affiliations.

        If you manage to find a case of damaging prejudice against you that clearly falls within the above definition of racism, I suppose you’d be justified in complaining (though not carrying on endlessly as you do.)

        If your problem is with anyone who objects to your religion on reasoned grounds, I don’t think you can count with the support of many among the readers here.

      • yonah fredman
        March 23, 2016, 7:23 am

        Shmuel- A crisis in Judaism or a crisis in Jewishness was inherent in enlightenment. Once the Jews rejected Torah there was bound to be a crisis. If the awkward period between Spinoza and say New York 2016 (strictly from the acceptance of outsiders of Jews as individuals as citizens) could be folded in together like a piece of paper, skipping the rejection of European nationalism of 1880 to 1945, and instead going straight from Eureka! rationalism is superior to Torah, then the line from skepticism to disappearance (from Torah Judaism to deli Judaism to nothing Judaism in three generations) would have been smooth. Of course the politics was not folded in like a piece of paper.

        The trauma of the churban was extreme in the first thirty or so years after the event and today it is more, “we must remind the children” rather than the natural trauma that it was in the immediate aftermath. Thus the natural dissolution of a religious identity was complicated by some very unique dynamics of guilt and poison. Those of say, Leonard Cohen’s generation, developed a connection to Zionism that was very connected to that trauma. (others like Allen Ginsberg and Abbie Hoffman were not so sentimental and viewed Jewishness as just one aspect of their alienation from corporate America conformist capitalist mind numbing society. others still like woody allen though sympathetic to the general survival instinct of the group that they were born into, view particularism as one of the negatives that must be overcome in order to build a better world. but leonard cohen with his romanticism and his deep chords and cords of connection, naturally went from trauma to connection).

        norman mailer, someone who never denied his jewish roots, but someone who said about jewishness, i left that behind when i left crown heights, when explaining to that murderer jack henry abbot about Israel, that you have to understand how the holocaust froze the heart of every jew, or words to that effect. and i think that has a real ring of truth to it, moreso thirty years ago rather than today and a dwindling effect today mostly artificially kept alive, because the most natural thing is for the jews to disband and call it a day.

        a friend of mine once observed (not a unique insight, but easier to put in someone else’s mouth), that two strategies of jewish survival have proved themselves in the 20th century: orthodoxy and zionism.

        Appelfeld Aharon observed once that the Jews who interest him the most are those who seek to assimilate, because they are on the razor’s edge of the outside world and the inside world and that is where the essence of what is a jew is revealed. i think he is still living in 1939 europe with this concept. I think franz kafka was very jewish and to be blunt those who read franz kafka today and stake their jewishness on reading him or i.b. singer are really former jews who are saved from baptizing (that they would have done in an appelfeld novel) only by the accident of birth in the latter 20th century rather than the latter 19th century. assimilated jews have diluted their jewishness from knowing the words of the song, to knowing the tune, to knowing the place where the song was sung, to knowing the story of the forgetting, to really nothing at all, other than: abbie hoffman and ginsberg and woody allen and kafka, or bellow or roth or nora ephron or howard stern and adam sandler and sara silverman and ilana glazer.

        what i’m saying is that the paucity of alternatives to zionism, the poverty of jewish content in the lives of the great grandchildren of those jews who threw their tefilin into the bay in front of the statue of liberty, the emptiness of their judaism does not create any alternative to zionism as a viable part of their lives, to make judaism into something real rather than trivial.

      • Shmuel
        March 23, 2016, 7:51 am

        Racism, according to the usage consensus in civilized countries, is wholesale prejudice against a group because of perceived characteristics acquired at birth, like mother tongue, place of birth, supposed religion of ancestors, etc. Not religion, which is acquired and can be reasoned against, or any political affiliations.

        Echinococcus,

        In the real world, things are not so clear cut. For example, you may oppose the construction of minarets in your country on aesthetic grounds, ritual slaughter (Jewish or Muslim) for reasons of cruelty to animals, the treatment of women (in ultra-Orthodox Judaism or Islam) on the basis of gender equality — but you may just be acting (to one degree or another) on prejudices that have nothing to do with the specific issues at hand.

        The argument that certain people or groups are suddenly interested in women’s rights (especially when they don’t seem to give a damn about them in any other context) merely to further an Islamophobic or anti-immigrant agenda is very easily extended to criticism of Israel and Zionism (how many times have we heard “You don’t really care about human rights or Palestinians; you just hate Jews”). The “singling out” argument is essential to such attempts to undermine support for Palestinians, just as pointing out that opposing ritual slaughter but not factory farming, or focusing on “honour killings” or FGM while ignoring rampant “normal” violence against women in our own societies may be indications of ulterior (and not so noble) motives.

      • echinococcus
        March 23, 2016, 8:27 am

        Of course, Shmuel. At that point it becomes a matter of unmasking the speaker, or checking the consistency of adduced principle across the board. I am pitiless with the anti-FGM people who tolerate male circumcision.

        As for singling out one religion in one’s criticism of religion, it’s all the same ridiculous hogwash for me but I’d be slightly more guarded –we know that the religious are more than a little irrational and defend their own against all comers, so if they say it is a reasoned opposition to one particular religion one may want to cut them some slack. If, that is, one is inclined to patience with any religious people. Not my problem.

      • Shmuel
        March 23, 2016, 9:06 am

        Yonah, neither the trauma of the Churban nor the impact of modernity on “traditional” ideas of Jewish identity are lost on me. Both have deeply influenced my own life. Of course I’ve heard the “only two successful strategies of Jewish survival in the 20th centuries” argument many times. Apart from its extreme simplification of modern Jewish history, thought and life, it also fails to examine the strategies themselves, their respective benefits and costs, advantages and disadvantages, or even prospects for the future – beyond the simple fact of having “survived” so far. Such an argument is about as valid as an argument in favour of capitalism based on the fact that it’s the only economic system “still standing”.

        what i’m saying is that the paucity of alternatives to zionism, the poverty of jewish content in the lives of the great grandchildren of those jews who threw their tefilin into the bay in front of the statue of liberty, the emptiness of their judaism does not create any alternative to zionism as a viable part of their lives, to make judaism into something real rather than trivial.

        What you’re saying is crucial, but continuing to support Zionism cannot be the answer, for two interrelated reasons: 1) It is wrong. It causes injustice and inflicts suffering; 2) It has created and perpetuates a profoundly unethical Judaism – a Judaism of cruelty and indifference to suffering; a Judaism that has sacrificed its universal values on the altar of nationalism and chauvinism.

        Such an argument in favour of continued support for Zionism also brings to mind the famous line about the parricide who begs for the court’s mercy because he is an orphan. Zionism, throughout its history has actively and aggressively opposed every possible Jewish alternative to itself. To come now and claim that there is simply no other way of being Jewish can only be described as chutzpe.

        At this point, I would say the Jewish way forward is סור מרע ועשה טוב (Ps. 34:15), which roughly translates (according to Rabbinic homiletic tradition) “First stop doing evil; then strive to do good.”

      • rugal_b
        March 23, 2016, 9:16 am

        @Shmuel,

        In this instance I think I agree with Mooser. The traps being set by the Zionists are irrelevant to the pursuit of justice and freedom for the Palestinians. If you were to engage directly with the Zionist, you are falling into their ultimate trap which involves legitimizing them as an opponent. Furthermore, direct engagement will only lead to more traps, more attacks, more destabilization by the Zionist because that’s what they are good for.

        In turn, all we will end with would be a waste of time, and resources that could’ve been spent elsewhere in the pursuit of justice for Palestine. Let’s not get ourselves dragged into unnecessary games and let us focus on continuing the struggle for peace and justice through education, raising awareness, empowering marginalized voices and through our political participation.

      • Mooser
        March 23, 2016, 11:58 am

        “they are designed by professionals to make them very easy to fall into.”

        Isn’t “Shmuel” talking about what magic words we can say to Zionists to make them take up the “traps”? There aren’t any, such things.
        They will just just keep making new ones. Eventually, they might have stuff taken away from them, and everybody can think of a thousand traps, a minefield, to put in front of that.

        “you are falling into their ultimate trap which involves legitimizing them as an opponent.”

        Spun right off your bearings again and got it dead wrong. “rugal_b”

      • Mooser
        March 23, 2016, 12:12 pm

        “was a part of the battle between Jewish Zionists and anti-Zionists”

        ROTFLMSJAO!! WHAT BATTLE??

        C’mon “Shmuel” there was no “battle”. The Zionists did what they wanted, didn’t have to ask anybody’s permission.

      • Mooser
        March 23, 2016, 12:18 pm

        “At this point, I would say the Jewish way forward is.”

        The Jewish way forward”? And then you write something in a language the biggest majority of Jews in the world don’t understand?

      • slandau
        March 23, 2016, 1:03 pm

        Shmuel, the real logival chain that we should all be pondering: if zionism = racism, and if Judaism = zionism, then does Judaism = Racism?

      • Mooser
        March 23, 2016, 1:21 pm

        “this is reflected in the woody allen joke regarding his reform rabbi, “he was very reform. he was so reform he was nazi.”

        Good lord, I Googled Woody Allen, (with an ‘e’ “Yonah”) and he did make such an awful joke!

        Sometimes, he did better, tho.

      • Mooser
        March 23, 2016, 1:32 pm

        “and those who hate judaism are antisemites. which puts critics of judaism or those alienated from the strict observance of their parents wishing to water down judaism in the boat of being slightly antisemitic.”

        Now, that’s the kind of Tribal Unity upon which a great global nation and a modern democracy can be predicated! I ask you, how can Zionism and Judaism, together again for the first time, possibly lose?

        How did this happen to us, “Yonah”? How did so many Jews, the great majority of them in the world, become “slightly antisemitic”? Well, at any rate, they deserve less Jewish and less Israel than you, I’ll grant that. Gotta keep the standards up!

      • Annie Robbins
        March 23, 2016, 2:37 pm

        but if you hate people because they believe in that vile antiquated stuff, then you aren’t an antisemite.

        i didn’t say this. but in general — if you do not like someone because of their politics or religious ideas (for example i don’t like james dobson because of his beliefs, and i don’t like the rabbis that wrote the gentile baby killing book — the kings torah — either) then technically this is not the same as being bigoted because ones animosity targets the ideas and not the person holding them. another example might be neoconservatives. for me it doesn’t matter if it’s cheney or bill kristol or hillary clinton, i don’t like the interventionalists. however, if i only disliked (or blamed) the jewish neoconservatives, that would be bigoted.

        i think not liking a religion or religious people in general is likely a sign of bigotry (big red flag), however, not liking someone’s interpretation of a religion is not the same thing. every religion has extremists so if you hate someone because they believe in vile antiquated stuff (including killing innocents or chopping off their heads etc), then you are not likely to be racist.

      • Shmuel
        March 23, 2016, 2:59 pm

        the real logival chain that we should all be pondering: if zionism = racism, and if Judaism = zionism, then does Judaism = Racism?

        That was the point of my comment, in the sense that if someone believes that Zionism and Judaism are equivalent, when you assert that “Zionism is racism”, they will hear “Judaism is racism”. And working backwards (because all of these equivalences work both ways), since they know that anti-Semitism is bad, they will conclude that anti-Zionism is bad.

      • Mooser
        March 23, 2016, 3:10 pm

        “since they know that anti-Semitism is bad,”

        What if you “know” that no matter what you think of Judaism, good or bad, it doesn’t have the resources to solve the Zionism problem, however and whoever it got created by? How would you rate that thought? Good or bad?

      • Mooser
        March 23, 2016, 6:31 pm

        ” because ones animosity targets the ideas and not the person holding them.”

        That works as long as we are talking about ideas. Or actions which take place strictly within the group.
        Once they start taking those abhorrent ideas and acting on them on others, it gets hard to be so compartmental.

      • jon s
        March 24, 2016, 8:11 am

        I would like to add the point that not all anti-Zionism is the same. Zionism was opposed in the Jewish world, from wildly different directions: assimilationists and ultra-orthodox, Reform Jews, Communists and Bundists. So, too, in the world at large, there was opposition to Zionism from various quarters, with different motivations.
        Zionism is also not of one flavor: the Zionism of Meretz and JStreet is a far cry from Lieberman and Bennet and Netanyahu. The crucial debates , in Israel and most of the Jewish world are not between Zionists and anti-Zionists, (though the right-wing loves to portray it as such..). It’s “inside the tent”, over the struggle for peace, for democracy, for social justice, for religious freedom. That’s the relevant battleground.
        And I agree that we should try to adhere to the words quoted by Shmuel : Shun evil and do good, seek peace and pursue it. (Psalms, 34:15)

      • eljay
        March 24, 2016, 8:18 am

        || jon s: … Zionism is also not of one flavor … ||

        Zionism may have different flavours, but all flavours of Zionism – even yours – are made of the same stuff: Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine.

      • jon s
        March 24, 2016, 9:47 am

        And to all those celebrating: a happy and fun-filled Purim!
        (as much as possible these days…)

      • eljay
        March 24, 2016, 10:33 am

        || jon s: And to all those celebrating: a happy and fun-filled Purim! … ||

        Book of Esther:

        … Now in the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, on the thirteenth day of the same … the Jews gathered themselves together in their cities throughout all the provinces of the king Ahasuerus … And the Jews smote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, and with slaughter and destruction …

        And the king said unto Esther the queen: ‘The Jews have slain and destroyed five hundred men in Shushan the castle, and the ten sons of Haman; … Now whatever thy petition, it shall be granted thee; and whatever thy request further, it shall be done.’

        Then said Esther: ‘If it please the king, let it be granted to the Jews that are in Shushan to do to-morrow also according unto this day’s decree, and let Haman’s ten sons be hanged upon the gallows.’ And the king commanded it so to be done; and a decree was given out in Shushan; and they hanged Haman’s ten sons.

        And the Jews that were in Shushan gathered themselves together on the fourteenth day also of the month Adar, and slew three hundred men in Shushan … And the other Jews that were in the king’s provinces gathered themselves together … and slew seventy and five thousand …

        on the thirteenth day of the month Adar, and on the fourteenth day of the same they rested, and made it a day of feasting and gladness. …

        And the Jews took upon them to do as they had begun … because Haman … had devised against the Jews to destroy them, and had cast pur, that is, the lot, to discomfit them, and to destroy them …

        Wherefore they called these days Purim, after the name of pur.

      • jon s
        March 24, 2016, 12:05 pm

        eljay,
        Thanks for the link to the Book of Esther. Highly recommended.

      • eljay
        March 24, 2016, 12:08 pm

        || jon s: eljay, Thanks for the link to the Book of Esther. Highly recommended. ||

        You are one creepy dude.

      • Steve Grover
        March 24, 2016, 12:14 pm

        In response to eljay quoting from Megillat Esther. The strength of the softest sounding grogger drowns out your hatred of Judaism and Israel.

        https://youtu.be/kgJInVvJSZg

      • amigo
        March 24, 2016, 12:42 pm

        “And to all those celebrating: a happy and fun-filled Purim!
        (as much as possible these days…)” Jon S

        Palestinians,
        Under
        Repressive
        Israeli
        Monsters.

        I am sure your so called most moral army will keep the untermenschen suitably imprisoned while you zionist ubermenschen enjoy your holiday without a care in the world for those you oppress and ethnically cleanse.

        Jews celebrating their saving as they murder,oppress,imprison,starve and generally treat Palestinians as sub humans.

        Disgusting.

      • eljay
        March 24, 2016, 12:43 pm

        || Steve Grover: In response to eljay quoting from Megillat Esther. The strength of the softest sounding grogger drowns out your hatred of Judaism and Israel. ||

        I see you’ve been hitting the grog[ger] harder than usual.

        1. I dislike all religions.
        – No victimhood points for you there. :-(

        2. I have nothing against a secular and democratic Israel – a state of and for all of its Israeli citizens, immigrants, expats and refugees, equally – but I do oppose the existence of Israel as a colonialist and religion-supremacist “Jewish State” because I don’t believe any state has a right to exist as any sort of colonialist and supremacist state.
        – No victimhood points for you there, either. :-(

      • yonah fredman
        March 24, 2016, 1:06 pm

        To Jons and Steve grover-happy purim. Freiliche is a Yiddish word meaning joyous. So hope you have/had a Freiliche purim.

        Purim is a holiday of masks, candy, drinking, dancing, singing and feasting. The Purim story is quite thorny if one wishes to focus on its negativity especially rather than the perfect screenplay narrative complete with snidely whiplash, haman, a marquee villain if there ever was one. Jewish history is not one unending vale of tears, but the story of haman, plus the violence of history can easily add up to, Oy! Vey!

        Nonetheless, and not without keeping in mind current travails and an unclear future, it’s a time to rejoice, dress up and overeat and maybe sing a song or two. So happy Purim!

      • eljay
        March 24, 2016, 1:23 pm

        || yonah fredman: … The Purim story is quite thorny if one wishes to focus on its negativity … ||

        I completely agree that a sanctioned slaughter of almost 76,000 people is a pretty “thorny” bit of “negativity”.

      • echinococcus
        March 24, 2016, 3:57 pm

        Jon S,

        Go light on the bullshit, Proppagallo! Seen from the business end, Zionism is all the same flavor –I mean the same stench. Nobody cares about your incestuous mixings and unmixings within that tribal tent.

      • Mooser
        March 24, 2016, 6:25 pm

        “The crucial debates , in Israel and most of the Jewish world are not between Zionists and anti-Zionists, (though the right-wing loves to portray it as such..). It’s “inside the tent”, over the struggle for peace, for democracy, for social justice, for religious freedom. That’s the relevant battleground.
        And I agree that we should try to adhere to the words quoted by Shmuel : Shun evil and do good, seek peace and pursue it. (Psalms, 34:15)

        Well, there you go, “Shmuel”, right back at you with the quote, and no mention of the word “Palestinian” (or even “Arab”). That “engaged” enough for you?

      • Mooser
        March 24, 2016, 6:57 pm

        “Zionism may have different flavours, but all flavours of Zionism – even yours – are made of the same stuff: Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine.”

        And at the expense, and to the shame and detriment of the rest of the Jews in the world.

        I have a funny feeling that “Destroyers of the Palestinians” is not going to be international honorific Zionists think it will be. I don’t think we will be dining out on it.

      • Mooser
        March 24, 2016, 7:57 pm

        “And the Jews smote all their enemies with the stroke of the sword, and with slaughter and destruction and bullets, feet and metal chairs … “

        Ah, no wonder the holiday Purim is so special to “Jon s”. It recalls that special smotin’ Beersheba gave the Eritrean asylum-seeking terrorist!

      • eljay
        March 24, 2016, 8:21 pm

        || Mooser: … I have a funny feeling that “Destroyers of the Palestinians” is not going to be international honorific Zionists think it will be. I don’t think we will be dining out on it. ||

        I destroyed the Palestinians
                      and all I got
              was this lousy t-shirt

      • Mooser
        March 24, 2016, 9:41 pm

        “The strength of the softest sounding grogger drowns out your hatred of Judaism and Israel”

        But what if Mondo wasn’t here and willing to post your powerful video ripostes, “Grover”?
        There would be no way for you to drown out the hatred of Judaism and Israel!
        “Grover” , Say “thank you, Mondoweiss”!

      • Mooser
        March 24, 2016, 9:57 pm

        “Purim is a holiday of masks…”

        Like the kind the IDF and “Israeli security forces” wear? We’ll let the rest go, but isn’t “Purim in Israel” usually just a bit more than that?
        Doesn’t “Purim in Israel” have an added piquancy, another facet, a feeling of authenticity?

      • jon s
        March 25, 2016, 2:05 am

        eljay,
        I’ve been called so many things on this forum, “creepy” is almost a compliment…
        I was serious: I think that reading the book of Esther (which I assume that you did, since you posted the link) , reading it carefully and attentively, enriched by some of the commentaries, is a worthwhile enterprise. The story is of the Jews avoiding a planned genocide, turning the tables on their would-be killers. We find a narrative written by a master story-teller, with a talent for suspense and drama, an eye for details and character-portraits. In many ways it’s unique in the Bible: the feminist angle; being a story reflecting the experience of the diaspora; the Jews are saved thanks to an intermarriage; the absence of God …and more.

      • eljay
        March 25, 2016, 8:44 am

        || jon s: eljay,
        I’ve been called so many things on this forum, “creepy” is almost a compliment… ||

        It figures.

        || … I was serious: I think that reading the book of Esther (which I assume that you did, since you posted the link) , reading it carefully and attentively, enriched by some of the commentaries, is a worthwhile enterprise. … ||

        If you read it carefully and attentively, you’ll notice that while no Jews were killed:
        – the man who plotted to kill Jews was killed;
        – his ten sons were killed; and
        – almost 76,000 other non-Jews were killed whether they were guilty or not (we don’t know for certain).

        If you read it carefully and attentively, you’ll notice that while no Jews were killed by non-Jews, Jews massacred almost 76,000 non-Jews, after which those Jews “primarily celebrated” (as Zio-supremacists no doubt did after the Nakba).

        The lesson is one of murderous vengeance – just *think* of trying to f*ck with Jews and we will slaughter your ass! – not justice or morality. (And the “feminist angle” is no more wise or moral than the usual testosterone-fuelled “masculine angle”.)

        The hypocrisy of your love affair with this story is that if non-Jews were to slaughter 76,000 Jews in response to a failed plot by Jews which resulted in the death of no non-Jews, you would rightly be horrified and offended not just by the gross injustice and indecency of the event, but by the subsequent celebration of – and veneration of – the event.

        But, hey, enjoy your sweets. :-)

      • Mooser
        March 25, 2016, 11:44 am

        “The story is of the Jews avoiding a planned genocide, turning the tables on their would-be killers.” “Jon s” on Purim.

        Well, so much for that Psalm!

        “Jon s” first of all, you are a sick, sick man.

        Second, you’ve got to stop seeing the Mondo comment section as a bunch of ignorant Israeli children you can fill with Zio-poop! You simply can’t expect other people non-Israelis, to celebrate because “the Jews” (which Jews?) successfully committed a genocide, and deflected blame.

        Do you sit down each day, say a brocha, shoot your cuffs, and tell yourself : “Today is my day! Today, all those commentors will see what a nice, kind and historical-homeland kinda guy I am!”?

      • MHughes976
        March 25, 2016, 12:17 pm

        I have to face the fact that though we Christians do not celebrate Purim we do regard Esther as a sacred book. I have a thought that Ms. Clinton, feminist and Christian as she is, has spoken warmly of it.

      • Shmuel
        March 25, 2016, 12:41 pm

        I have to face the fact that though we Christians do not celebrate Purim we do regard Esther as a sacred book. I have a thought that Ms. Clinton, feminist and Christian as she is, has spoken warmly of it.

        MHghes,

        According to a passage in the Talmud (BT, Megillah 7a; see also gloss by S. E. Edels [Maharsha]), there was some doubt about Esther’s inclusion in the Jewish canon — although more likely simply an expression of Rabbinic ambivalence toward the book, because it “arouses hatred among the nations”.

        As you well know, there are many ways of approaching Scripture (as well as Scripture-based ritual), and learning what not to do and why not, is certainly one of them.

        Regarding the “feminist” angle, I know there are feminist readings of Esther, but the “plain meaning” of the text would seem to be about as far away from feminism as one can get — except, again, in the “do not do” sense. It is certainly offers a good basis for a discussion of patriarchy and the exploitation of women.

      • Mooser
        March 25, 2016, 12:55 pm

        “the “plain meaning” of the text would seem to be about as far away from feminism as one can get — except, again, in the “do not do” sense. It is certainly offers a good basis for a discussion of patriarchy and the exploitation of women.”

        I don’t know, “Shmuel”, there’s a working “Israeli history teacher” and ‘classic Israeli Left’ guy up-thread who says different.

        And he sure swallowed that Psalm you fed him, and spit it back at you, too.

      • yonah fredman
        March 25, 2016, 1:50 pm

        eljay- if I were designing a religion from scratch, I would definitely want to have a holiday of masks and probably it would be in early spring or late winter and it would not depend upon history or mythical history especially if that history is bloody. But few people are positioned in time place and temperament and fate to create new religions. Most of us have to make do with the religions that our parents handed to us. Those who take purim too seriously regarding the enmity of haman and his crew and regarding the violence that was his payback for his plans of genocide are killjoys. There is only one Jewish holiday of masks and it arrives precisely one month before passover and it comes with an ugly history lesson attached and since I do not advocate disbanding the Jewish religion and culture and it’s holidays, I accept the holiday as given, with the hope that the generations in the future will be living in nonviolent times which will give them the ability and the will to disown violent means and view the violence of the book of Esther with a skeptical eye and view it as part of the unfortunate past, something to outgrow and attribute to our people’s beginnings, but not our destination and hopes.

        Those who wish to condemn the book of Esther but who instead venerate the book of Matthew ought to check out the plank in their own eyes before criticizing the books of the Hebrew bible. “His blood be on us and our children” from that book has an awfully bloody history and so much of religion has unfortunate verses and consequences.

        When you start mourning the execution of haman himself I have to wonder where you are coming from. If we are taking the Bible at its word the enterprise to kill the Jews would have been a major enterprise and haman was it’s leader. This is no David duke with a blog, or some holocaust denier on a street corner, but a man planning mass murder/genocide and you wanted what to happen as a reaction? Rewriting of the educational curriculum of Persian empire. I think you are not serious. Don’ t you think there was a complex and organized killing machine prepared by haman and how was he to be defeated, by putting flowers into the barrels of guns. No, that’s not how the world works. The way to battle haman’ s war party was through war. Your assumption that there were zero casualties among the Jews is an overly literal reading of the text. Haman and his crew had genocide in mind and they needed to be defeated. I am not privy to the precise politics of that moment in history. But neither are you, but somehow you know that all that was needed was a campaign of love by mordy and Esther and that would have been sufficient to defeat any danger. Your assumptions are based on nothing but your anachronistic speculations.

        That being said, it is to be hoped that sometime soon jews who keep our customs can feel secure enough to view the violence of the last chapters of Esther as something from the past. and that the path to the future lies through peace rather than through war. Then the yehudim will still make merry on purim, but will read the latter chapters of Esther as history, part of the past, not part of the future.

      • eljay
        March 25, 2016, 2:55 pm

        || yonah fredman: eljay- if I were designing a religion from scratch, I would definitely want to have a holiday of masks and probably it would be in early spring or late winter and it would not depend upon history or mythical history especially if that history is bloody. … ||

        Cool. :-)

        || … Those who take purim too seriously regarding the enmity of haman and his crew and regarding the violence that was his payback for his plans of genocide are killjoys. … ||

        You make it sound like he and a few co-collectivists got roughed up by a mob and tossed in prison for their plot. The story states that despite the plot having been foiled, he, a few of his co-collectivists, his ten sons and almost 76,000 other people were slaughtered in a murderous rampage of vengeance. But, yeah, that’s rather “killjoy” so I can see why you’d rather eat sweets and “primarily celebrate”.

        || … When you start mourning the execution of haman himself I have to wonder where you are coming from. … ||

        When did I start mourning the execution of Haman?

        || … If we are taking the Bible at its word the enterprise to kill the Jews would have been a major enterprise and haman was it’s leader. This is … a man planning mass murder/genocide and you wanted what to happen as a reaction? … Don’ t you think there was a complex and organized killing machine prepared by haman and how was he to be defeated, by putting flowers into the barrels of guns. No, that’s not how the world works. The way to battle haman’ s war party was through war. … ||

        If we are taking the Bible at its word, the plot was foiled, the king sanctioned retribution and Jews massacred 76,000 non-Jews.

        || … Your assumption that there were zero casualties among the Jews is an overly literal reading of the text. … ||

        We’re taking the Bible at its word, remember? My assumption is based on what the Bible says.

        || … Haman and his crew had genocide in mind and they needed to be defeated. I am not privy to the precise politics of that moment in history. But neither are you, but somehow you know that all that was needed was a campaign of love by mordy and Esther and that would have been sufficient to defeat any danger. … ||

        Please indicate where I stated that a “campaign of love” is what was required. I said “The lesson is one of murderous vengeance … not justice or morality.” Why do you despise the notions of justice and morality (and accountability and equality) so much?

        Anyway, you know very well that if this were a story about Jews being slaughtered in the aftermath of a FAILED plot by Jews to kill non-Jews, you wouldn’t be dismissing the related celebration and veneration of the event.

        Enjoy your sweets.

      • yonah fredman
        March 25, 2016, 9:23 pm

        Eljay- the individual has the advantage over the tribal member. The book and the ritual are a package deal. The internal critic attempting to mold a better future while keeping hold of a present tense is by circumstance forced to both attack and defend. There is only one Jewish holiday of masks and purim is it. Any yehudi with a strong constitution can push his own personal redacted bible, this is the kosher essence and the rest I suggest we assign to the ashheap of history. This is very fine. And to those who desire to send the old testament onto the ashheap the devotion of yehudim to their traditions is antithetical to their essence.

        But here’s the thing: when I see yehudim in costumes on purim I hear that song, “I’m still standing” and it gladden ed my heart three years ago to walk on Rothschild Boulevard and to see the young ‘uns in costumes celebrating purim. And you are telling me not just your opposition to the locale of falastin but to the very fact of jews celebrating purim. Halloween and mardy grad those are the good holidays, but purim is treif because of the .book of Esther and I say to that I say no, this is our holiday of masks and you want us to stop being g jews. The sooner we drop out of purim and join Halloween and mardi gras, the happier you’ll be and critique of the cruelty of the plagues against poor victim Pharoah which is natural and any yehudi who sits at a seder and has never questioned the cruelty of yahweh in the battles of exodus has never threatened his own brain cells with questions seems Kool ade like, I concur. But I value purim and passover and I include the questioning as a value as well, but your objective is the disappearance of Jewish traditions. The cruelty of the old testament is clearly valid in a war of ideas, but fess up, you want Jewish traditions to disappear.

      • jon s
        March 26, 2016, 8:25 am

        Reading the Book of Esther and appreciating it does not mean agreeing with and identifying with all the actions described and sentiments expressed, same as any book we read.

        That said, the megillah does not describe a slaughter of innocents. Those who are killed are the would-be perpetrators of genocide: Haman and his sons and the men he had recruited as killers. Incidentally, even regarding Haman’s offspring, the Talmud astonishingly tells us that his descendants “studied Torah in Bnei Beraq ” (Bavli Gittin 57b). Tikkun is always possible.

        As to the feminist angle, I definitely see it in the narrative: in Vashti’s defiant refusal in the first chapter, and , primarily , in Esther’s transformation . At the outset she’s the meek, subservient girl, doing Mordecai’s bidding, (chapter 2:10) who emerges as a smart , strong-willed character in her own right, , turns the tables on their relationship and starts giving orders to him and to the entire community.(chapter 4, 15-17).

      • eljay
        March 26, 2016, 8:44 am

        || yonah fredman: … There is only one Jewish holiday of masks and purim is it. Any yehudi with a strong constitution can push his own personal redacted bible, this is the kosher essence and the rest I suggest we assign to the ashheap of history. This is very fine. … ||

        Fair enough.

        || … And you are telling me not just your opposition to the locale of falastin but to the very fact of jews celebrating purim. … ||

        I’m “telling you” no such thing.

        || … The sooner we drop out of purim and join Halloween and mardi gras, the happier you’ll be … ||

        As usual, you’re wrong about me. Just how much time each day do you spend sitting around and making up victimhood scenarios for yourself?

        || … But I value purim and passover and I include the questioning as a value as well … ||

        Fair enough.

        || … but your objective is the disappearance of Jewish traditions. … ||

        There you go again.

        || … but fess up, you want Jewish traditions to disappear. ||

        Wrong again. I do not want that. Your turn: Fess up, you’d love me to admit that I do want that because it would validate your sense of eternal victimhood and give your self-righteous indignation a good workout.

      • Mooser
        March 26, 2016, 12:26 pm

        “You want Jewish traditions to disappear…”

        I better call a cab. With all these fine, aged Jewish whines, vintage Jewish whines, on every thread, I don’t dare drive home. Here, somebody take my keys.

        And “Yonah” if you’re driving hack tonite, remember, your tip will be inversely proportional to how much you talk during the trip.

    • amigo
      March 22, 2016, 1:48 pm

      “When you add all of that to the selective obsession anti-Zionists have with bashing Israel in a world full of real human rights violators and in a region where hundreds of thousands of people are dying in genocides and civil wars, people sense that there’s more to this than just “criticism of the nation-state.” ” Hopknee.

      Maybe when you stop claiming to be the so called “Light unto the Nations ” and home of the most Moral Army and only democracy in the ME and saviour of life to the rest of the planet through your selfless inventions in the medical and hi tech field , then maybe , just maybe we might be a little less weary of your self serving bs. Squeaky wheel and all that.

      • MHughes976
        March 26, 2016, 4:56 am

        I too shudder at the Purim ritual but I accept that Esther makes some serious points, almost instantly embarrassing to the Jewish leadership because the characters have faith not in God but in themselves – so that an ‘improved’ version, ‘the Greek Esther’, was conveyed with much ceremony from Jerusalem to Alexandia around 115 BCE.
        The Hebrew Esther coukd be regarded as heretical because it features wild excess over the Mosaic principle of Talio, like for like, when it comes to revenge, even in the absence of a specific divine command. The massacre is justified by a plot device – in this rather fairytale kingdom there is no power to revoke decrees. If the King had tried simply to revoke the planned genocide of the Jews he would have been overruled in a minute by the Persian Supreme Court. All he can do is have the genocidaires massacred before the genocide. The moral might be that irrevocable decisions can lead not to certainty of outcome but to reverses and unpredictable things – let’s not forget that when we celebrate our irreversible triumphs. Moreover, Jews cannot be entirely themselves when they live among outsiders and when it is the outsiders who make the basic rules. Sometimes we just have to look on the bright side and have a wild party.
        Yonah makes the comparison with the masked festivities of Halloween and M gras. These too are about confronting death, allowing ourselves some excess and a bit of a party.
        There is also a message for the outsiders – the last words of the book emphasise not Jewish success but Persian success with Jewish cooperation. King Ahasuerus never has reason to regret his decision, even though he was prevailed upon in a moment of weakness after his wife had left him. The Jews are faithful friends as well as implacable enemies. But is there something a bit sinister about friendship on these terms? Many questions and paradoxes arise.

    • eljay
      March 22, 2016, 2:11 pm

      || hophmi: … When you add all of that to the selective obsession anti-Zionists have with bashing Israel … ||

      Proud and staunch defenders of ISIS, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Mali and African “hell-holes” feel your pain.

      || … in a world full of real human rights violators and in a region where hundreds of thousands of people are dying in genocides and civil wars, people sense that there’s more to this than just “criticism of the nation-state.” ||

      I wonder if you Zio-supremacists will ever understand that:
      – striving to be less bad than the worst is not the same as striving to be good; and
      – “murderers exist, so it’s OK to rape” does not constitute a valid defense of an indefensible act.

      • Atlantaiconoclast
        March 22, 2016, 8:58 pm

        Plus, there are no constituencies for subsidizing any of those other nations and groups like there is for Israel.

      • Donald
        March 22, 2016, 11:07 pm

        Hophmi is echoing a venerable tradition among white racists. They used to defend apartheid South Africa by pointing to Idi Amin or other African dictators with a massive bodycount. They’d also do it to justify white racism in the US.

      • hophmi
        March 23, 2016, 9:51 am

        Oh please, Donald. I can easily articulate a positive case for Israel and do all the time. You’re responding to a straw man, as usual.

      • eljay
        March 23, 2016, 10:09 am

        || hophmi: … I can easily articulate a positive case for Israel and do all the time. … ||

        Sure you can, and I can easily articulate a positive case for an abusive husband. But neither “positive case” addresses the injustices, inequalities and lack of accountability inherent in its subject.

      • Donald
        March 23, 2016, 4:05 pm

        Eljay answered for me, but being something of a blabbermouth I’ll add to it. Sure, I can construct a positive case for Israel myself–as a refuge for Jews when persecuted (though these days I would suggest that the US or various other places will do as well) and there are many positive things one could say besides that. But none of it justifies what was done nd is being done to the Palestinians. It doesn’t mean the positive things aren’t there–it just means that you can’t justify crimes by doing good things.

        Anyway, you used the standard diversionary tactic to defend Israel. I agree that Syria is a much larger humanitarian problem, but that is like saying that under Idi Amin the death toll was much higher than it was under apartheid South Africa. True, but no reason at all to ignore apartheid, especially when we Americans are helping to prop it up.

      • MHughes976
        March 23, 2016, 5:25 pm

        These equivalences can only be approximate. Even if it’s true that Zionism is racism it doesn’t follow that the two are identical – it would be strange indeed to say that one cannot be a racist without being a Zionist. And one can be a declared Zionist, like David Cameron, without being Jewish in any normal sense.

      • gamal
        March 23, 2016, 8:01 pm

        ” I agree that Syria is a much larger humanitarian problem, but that is like saying that under Idi Amin the death toll was much higher than it was under apartheid South Africa. True, but no reason at all to ignore apartheid, especially when we Americans are helping to prop it up.”

        your position re Amin Vs South Africa apart from being incoherent (page 77/78 of link) are you implying that Amin and the killing he was involved in was emerging from something that is opposed by the west, what would that be?

        Amin and Aparhteid South Africa were both controlled and deeply penetrated by the bystander western powers, all these atrocities are linked to the same powers. 1.5 million are reported to have died in the “border wars” (invasions of her northern neibghours by SA, US cheering on as it was in pursuit of US objectives)

        Syria of course is just happening because of Islam or it could be that all the crimes you keep balancing one against the other all emanate from the policies of the US government, are US government policy, Eric Ikenna Nwokedi from his “Africa must be rescued from the West” linked below,

        Apart from the irrelevance of your assessment as to what is a worse humanitarian crisis and who is to blame you are a) plain wrong in terms of fact Idi Amin was put in place by the UK and US overthrowing the elected government of MIlton Obote ( how can you not know that?) as a bastion against socially orientated policy in Africa b) whose crimes do you think you can put in the balance against those of the US government, who is the enemy who justifies western crimes? ( all the crimes you are comparing belong to you, the US was propping up all of them, check out Zaire, Pierre Mulele is someone for whom i entertain deep respect, you are guilty of all that as well)

        https://books.google.ie/books?id=6c8iG_5VDsUC&pg=PT77&lpg=PT77&dq=idi+amin+the+wests+puppet&source=bl&ots=cS1me4df_G&sig=loaRrOEJ7OE4cE52CiBdl0XrsAw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwidjd6v-9fLAhUH7BQKHSmlCVMQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=idi%20amin%20the%20wests%20puppet&f=false

        “I can construct a positive case for Israel myself–as a refuge for Jews when persecuted (though these days I would suggest that the US or various other places will do as well) and there are many positive things one could say besides that”

        Make the case list these positives, ( refuge is a non starter invasion is not seeking refuge, when did Palestinians ever turn away Jews or anyone else seeking refuge)

    • Mooser
      March 22, 2016, 2:30 pm

      “It’s because there is a tremendous amount of antisemitism in the anti-Zionist community, which that community does little or nothing to address.”

      C’mon folks, get it straight. No option, from the most political to the most violent is out-of-bounds for Zionism.
      But antizionism must pass all of its actions by Zionism for review?
      Get real “Hophmi”. Not gonna happen,
      ‘It’s because there is a tremendous amount of …….. in the Zionist community, which that community does little or nothing to address.’

      • hophmi
        March 23, 2016, 9:52 am

        If it’s not gonna happen, then I guess there’s no real difference between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.

      • Mooser
        March 23, 2016, 4:56 pm

        “If it’s not gonna happen, then I guess there’s no real difference between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.”

        Ah, unless antizionism runs all its rhetoric by Zionists for approval, it must be antisemitic?
        Next you’ll be telling us that if we don’t start mailing you money, we are antisemitic, too?

        I know this is a shocking idea, “Hophmi” but you don’t think maybe self-interest sorta recuses us from being able to judge?
        Won’t it be obvious that whatever might impede or even inconvenience or embarrass Zionism must be antisemitism?
        How dumb do you think people are, “Hophmi”? Don’t add insult to injury.

        And remember “Hophmi” I am here, the guardian of our race! If anybody shows the slightest bit more antisemitism than the amount of Islamophobia and anti-Gentilism exhibited here, I’ll scream like a pig slapped on the other cheek with a beam in his eye.

      • Steve Grover
        March 23, 2016, 10:23 pm

        Mooser rants:

        “And remember “Hophmi” I am here, the guardian of our race!”

        The Amaleks must be glad you are their guardians…

        http://youtu.be/IDguUZEG8ZA

        Happy Purim Mooser!

      • Mooser
        March 24, 2016, 6:27 pm

        “The Amaleks must be glad you are their guardians…”

        Purim comes early for “Grover” and stays late.

    • Emory Riddle
      March 22, 2016, 2:48 pm

      Zionism is indeed racism. And we should all oppose racism. There is really no need for further discussion.

      • Atlantaiconoclast
        March 22, 2016, 8:55 pm

        If it had meant starting a Jewish nation on land not populated by another people, then I would disagree. Racism means support for the oppression and domination of another people based on their assumed racial inferiority. But one can think another race is in general inferior, and not wish harm on that different race, and not wish to dominate that other people. I would call those people racialists, not racist as it has come to be understood. But Zionists were more than willing to dominate another people.

      • Mooser
        March 23, 2016, 11:10 am

        But one can think another race is in general inferior, and not wish harm on that different race, and not wish to dominate that other people.”

        And of course, there’s no “harm” in thinking “another race” (whatever that is, these days) is “in general inferior”.

        No “harm” in that at all. And who wants to “dominate” No. the “inferior” “race” must be protected. (From its own inferiority, of course)

      • Mooser
        March 23, 2016, 4:45 pm

        O BTW, where’s the “iconoclasm”? All the icons seem pretty firmly in place. Not a scratch on ’em. The old shrines seems to be holding up, just fine.

      • gamal
        March 23, 2016, 11:35 pm

        “But one can think another race is in general inferior, and not wish harm on that different race”

        yes you’d be happy when your daughter married one, all those little nearly as goods,

        if you had one in your class I am sure his/her inferiority would be amply displayed under your impartial guidance, no complaints when they get affirmatively actioned past you, despite their better qualifications and obvious higher intelligence and moral worth, that old inferior race who doesn’t love it.

        a friend of mine in the 70’s a white English girl had a kid with a black guy when her father came to the hospital he sat for a while contemplating the brown baby and then exclaimed vehemently “another fucking N#gger” we escorted him respectfully but firmly to the car park, his daughter was angry and revolted and you sir are talking nonsense.

      • rugal_b
        March 24, 2016, 2:18 am

        @gamal

        I don’t believe in everyone being equal and there are no one inferior or superior to each other. This is categorically not sure. In every measurable trait of human behavior and ability, whether its intelligence, emotional IQ, physical strength, agility, dexterity etc, there are objective winners and losers. I don’t see why we are so desperate in ignoring this fact of life, that we are not equal, we were never equal and there is absolutely nothing wrong or bad about that. What’s wrong is expending huge amount of effort and mental gymnastics to create this alternate reality of equality, that goes against the law of nature which all of us are bound to.

        Now, I personally believe white people, as a group, are indeed inferior to others, not because of simplistic prejudice or hatred, but through examining their collective behaviors and mentality, and the shape of their society they create and maintain. Misogyny, racism, capitalism and materialism, patriarchy, homophobia, Islamophobia, and other inferior traits from the core of white identity and culture. As such, I don’t see how is it possible but not to call out their inferiority, when its right there in the open like a teratoma on someone’s face.Metaphorically, White people, having liven all their lives with a tumor on their face, among other white people with the same exact affliction, are tragically unable to comprehend the flawed state of their existence. It’s obvious to us normal folks, but to them, it’s us without no abnormal growth on our face are the flawed ones.

      • Sibiriak
        March 24, 2016, 11:00 am

        rugal; I personally believe white people, as a group, are indeed inferior…
        ———————-

        As a person of white ancestry who has vehemently renounced all white identity, and possibly Jewish identity as well, (although a certain devious Zionism does seem to inform your preposterous rhetoric), you certainly do speak with power and authority.

        White people, as a group…inferior“. Marxism at its very best!

      • Mooser
        March 24, 2016, 6:03 pm

        ‘Now, I personally believe white people, as a group, are indeed inferior to others, not because of simplistic prejudice or hatred, but through examining their naughty bits…

        But “rugal_b”! By now people are of every possible shade. How can we possibly calculate who is the right shade to be in either group? At what PMS (Pantone Matching System) number does superiority begin? And what is the whiter shade of fail?

    • Keith
      March 22, 2016, 4:41 pm

      HOPHMI- “There’s one main reason people equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism….”

      Yes, because they think it will be an effective tactic.

      • hophmi
        March 23, 2016, 9:53 am

        Just like supporting terrorism is an effective tactic for BDS supporters, right?

      • Keith
        March 23, 2016, 12:42 pm

        HOPHMI- “Just like supporting terrorism is an effective tactic for BDS supporters, right?”

        Supporting terrorism? You mean like “mowing the lawn” in the Gaza concentration camp? Or Obama’s drone assassinations? No, BDS doesn’t support any of that.

      • oldgeezer
        March 23, 2016, 2:22 pm

        @yonah

        “e when a jew stops believing in the torah he must disassociate himself from the term Jewish or anything called Jewish and to call himself Jewish is to be racist: that is arrogance, historical ignorance and hatred. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/recent-comments/#sthash.hsv5zgap.dpuf

        Perhaps you need to do some outreach within your own community and even the state ofIsrael.

        It is more than a little obvious that right wing zionists have nothing but bigotry and hatred in their hearts. Given that they deny that the Palestinian people exist or ever existed that would seem to be in line with what you have stated.

    • yonah fredman
      March 22, 2016, 7:56 pm

      self determination when it impinges on the rights of the other can be denied based upon moral grounds. but self identification, which is a different thought, cannot be denied on anything other than the grounds that my ideas are better than your ideas. those who assert that jews are merely a religious group and therefore when a jew stops believing in the torah he must disassociate himself from the term Jewish or anything called Jewish and to call himself Jewish is to be racist: that is arrogance, historical ignorance and hatred. a little humility regarding what you define for another person’s identity would be different than those who assert: Jews are a religion and that’s it. that statement is anti Jewish.

      it used to be in the “good old days” the only way to stop being Jewish was to go to the baptismal fount and take on a belief in Christ. (even though most of those who baptised themselves did so for reasons of social improvement and nothing to do with an assertion of any belief system). today’s equivalent is to say, Jews are a religion and nothing else, not a culture, not an ethnicity, and any identification other than “human being” is tribal and backward. well folks, that’s an arrogant ideology that will lead us nowhere but deeper into the hole.

      the practical application of those who embrace identity is totally up to question. Einstein and Arendt identified as Jews, as non religious Jews, and despite such identification and despite their valuing the zionist movement for its attempts to solidify positive achievements and identity and preparation for the storm that was coming their way, they did not favor statehood or certainly not statehood that involved expulsion. but to listen to some of the gang over here, einstein and arendt were tribalistic hate mongerers and racists. I reject that. They may have been creatures of their time: certainly coming of age or being aware of politics in early adulthood in post WWI germany certainly provided a different environment than growing up in post WWII 1960’s optimistic America. if the soul of Einstein and Arendt had been born on Long Island in 1955 with parents as atheistic as their parents in fact were, they would not have had the same impetus to view Jewishness as an identity worthy of embracing and they might have been as universalist as Phil Weiss, for example. but in fact they were not born on long island in 55 and were born earlier in Germany and their views were formed by their environment.

      it is fine to divorce oneself from an identity that one discovers does not coincide with one’s inner compass. it is not fine to assert that those who do embrace identity are racists. those who assert the racism of those different themselves are narrow minded ideological bigots.

      if one wishes to convince those with identity complexes that those complexes need to be dismantled, i wish you good luck and i would send you to brussels to talk to those who blew up the airport and subway today. the world would be more peaceful if we were as homogenized as the future star trek humans. but we do not start with a blank slate and when confronted with humans who view the world differently it is fine to say: your right to self definition ends at the point where it treads on me or another human. it is not fine to say, your right to self definition only exists if it conforms to the truth that i perceive and that you in your blindness do not perceive. that is a narrow minded path that will lead nowhere.

      • eljay
        March 23, 2016, 7:57 am

        || yonah fredman: self determination when it impinges on the rights of the other can be denied based upon moral grounds. but self identification, which is a different thought, cannot be denied on anything … ||

        As far as I know, not a single person here at MW has denied to any person who chooses to self-identify as Jewish the right to self-identify as Jewish.

        (If anything, (religious) Jewish people are the ones who can and do deny to people the right to self-identify as Jewish.)

        But every Zio-supremacist here – including you – insists that this right of self-identification comprises a right to “self-determination”, which translates into a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine.

        And even though this form of “self-determination” has from Day One “impinged on the rights of the other”, you steadfastly refuse to deny it based upon moral grounds AND you attack and accuse of anti-Semitism and “Jew-hatred” those who do deny it based upon moral grounds.

      • echinococcus
        March 23, 2016, 9:24 am

        Eljay

        As far as I know, not a single person here at MW has denied to any person who chooses to self-identify as Jewish the right to self-identify as Jewish.

        I have. To anyone not religious.

      • eljay
        March 23, 2016, 9:37 am

        || echinococcus: Eljay … I have. To anyone not religious. ||

        Although the correction doesn’t invalidate the remainder of my comment to y.f., I stand corrected.

    • lyn117
      March 22, 2016, 11:42 pm

      “On a more practical level, opposing Zionism really does mean opposing an awful lot of Jews “as Jews” — in the sense of opposing a core element of their individual and collective Jewish identities. Not hard to see why that would be perceived by so many (Jews and non-Jews) as anti-Semitism.”

      For a lot of white people, it may be that support of Aryan nationalism is a core element of the individual and collective white identity. Does that make being anti-Aryan nationalism the same as being anti-white person?

    • Boo
      March 23, 2016, 9:11 am

      While protesting Drumpf’s AIPAC speech two days ago, I was approached by a (self-identified) American Jew who asked me whether I was “anti-Trump but pro-Israel”. I answered, “I’m pro-Judaism and pro-the Jewish people, but I’m against the current Israeli government and its policies vis-a-vis Palestine, and I’m anti-Zionist.”

      He replied, “If you’re anti-Zionist, you’re anti-Semitic.”

      I told him, “No, that’s precisely why I’m making such a clear distinction. Anti-Semitism has traditionally meant religious or ethnic bigotry against Semites; the term means exactly what it says. The philosophy of Zionism is secular and political. Nor is it ethnically based, any more than Jews are all of the same ethnicity. Therefore it’s incorrect to conflate the two.”

      I reminded him that furthermore, those who inhabited Palestine prior to 1948 were largely ethnically Semitic, so that particular sword cuts both ways — one can make a case that Israel’s current policies are themselves anti-Semitic.

      I might as well have been talking to a stump. But we’re not living in Wonderland where words mean whatever we choose them to mean on a given day. Quit trying to move the goalposts.

    • Misterioso
      March 23, 2016, 10:44 am

      Prophetic comments by five eminent Jews:

      Then Secretary of State for India and the British cabinet’s only Jewish member, Lord Edwin Montagu’s response to Prime Minister Lloyd George following issuance of the 1917 Balfour Declaration: “All my life I have been trying to get out of the ghetto. You want to force me back there.”

      Senator Henry Morgenthau Sr., renowned Jewish American and U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, 1919: “Zionism is the most stupendous fallacy in Jewish history….The very fervour of my feeling for the oppressed of every race and every land, especially for the Jews, those of my own blood and faith, to whom I am bound by every tender tie, impels me to fight with all the greater force against this scheme, which my intelligence tells me can only lead them deeper into the mire of the past, while it professes to be leading them to the heights. Zionism is… a retrogression into the blackest error, and not progress toward the light.”

      Asked to sign a petition supporting settlement of Jews in Palestine, Sigmund Freud declined: “I cannot…I do not think that Palestine could ever become a Jewish state….It would have seemed more sensible to me to establish a Jewish homeland on a less historically-burdened land….I can raise no sympathy at all for the misdirected piety which transforms a piece of a Herodian wall into a national relic, thereby offending the feelings of the natives.” (Letter to Dr. Chaim Koffler Keren HaYassod, Vienna: 2/26/30)

      Albert Einstein, 1939: “There could be no greater calamity than a permanent discord between us and the Arab people…. Let us recall that in former times no people lived in greater friendship with us than the ancestors of these Arabs.”

      Lessing J. Rosenwald, president of the American Council for Judaism, 1944: “The concept of a racial state – the Hitlerian concept- is repugnant to the civilized world, as witness the fearful global war in which we are involved. . . , I urge that we do nothing to set us back on the road to the past. To project at this time the creation of a Jewish state or commonwealth is to launch a singular innovation in world affairs which might well have incalculable consequences.”

      • Marnie
        March 25, 2016, 3:17 am

        Wow – thank you for that – especially Freud and Einstein’s opinions .

    • NorthCascadian
      March 23, 2016, 12:42 pm

      These cleverly designed words “antisemitism” what does it really mean? Are we talking about Jews? It seems there is an obvious authority on this question. What do the Rabbi’s say? Are there Synagogues where the worship of Israel is forbidden? And for the non-religious “Jews” aren’t they more correctly termed ex-Jews, or more in the keeping of America, ‘recovering Jews’.

      If religious Jews think that Israel is their be-all end-all; then opposing the Jewish religion as being out of step with the modern idea that God is really everywhere, and there are no chosen people, seems quite justified.

      I think that’s why they put a Harem on Benedict Spinoza (and other really cool recovering Jews)

  2. pabelmont
    March 22, 2016, 1:08 pm

    A religion may have all sorts of tenets. One asks its adherents to use peyote, another tells them “Next year in Jerusalem”. For 2000 years, “Next year in Jerusalem” was not regarded by anyone as a recipe for political or military action. It was just religion. And the peyote users probably stopped using it wherever it was banned (as the USA may well have done — the USA is hard on what it considers “narcotics”).

    Assuming that the USA may have arrested folks for using peyote, I much doubt they arrested anyone for espousing a religion that called for the use of peyote. (Or human sacrifice, for that matter.)

    Religion is a matter of beliefs together with recipes for behavior, but people are punished for bad behavior, not for bad beliefs.

    Israel sprang into existence by acts of politics and terror and war. And it severely affected the Palestinian people in doing so. Anti-Zionists are reacting to and opposing acts, not beliefs. Not even the belief that “Israel has a right to exist” which is a cock-a-mamie idea since the idea itself, as so expressed, sets no territorial boundaries and doesn’t tell us if Israel has a right to exclusive possession of the whole world, of the entire Middle East, of all of Palestine, of Israel-48, or of something smaller or something else. Either does that idea say anything about the rights of the proper inhabitants of whatever territory Israel “has a right to exist” upon.

    For 2000 years, almost no Jews lived near Jerusalem, and few wanted to. Thus the Jewish religion — as it was before it began worshipping Israel — had no Israel fixation at all. Anti-Zionism therefore does not oppose ANY tenet of Judaism, but opposes only a vastly destructive political-terrorist-military enterprise.

    • benedict
      March 22, 2016, 5:23 pm

      Pabel-
      The land of Israel is a central and important tenet of Judaism. Just look up genesis 17/8: “And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land of thy sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.’ This is the basis of the famous Midrash: “one who lives in the land of israel has a god; one who lives out of israel is like he has no god”. In other words, just as there is no judaism without monotheism so there is no judaism without Israel. And just as god is everlasting so is the land of Israel. Indeed even after being exiled the Torah promises an eventual restoration of jewish sovereignty in Israel.
      When observant jews say “next year in Jerusalem” they mean it quit literally. The methods differ: haredi jews will say that the restoration will be affected by spiritual/mystical means, others will say that the restoration will be assisted by practical efforts, but even the most fervently ultra-orthodox jew believes in an eventual return to Zion. That part and parcel of basic Judaism.
      As long as was feasible jews tried to achieve restoration by practical means – the Bar Kochba revolt, the jewish-persian collaboration in the 6th century, the early jewish-arab colabration etc. once practical means stopped being feasible (because of demographic changes in the land, and because the shift in geopolitics following the Arab conquest) the pendulum turned to achieving restoration thru mystical means (the sabatean movement, the pupils of the gaon of vilna etc).
      in the early 19th century practical restoration seemed to become feasible gain leading to numerous waves of immigration to Israel, the hovivei zion movement and eventually political Zionism.

      • Mooser
        March 22, 2016, 6:44 pm

        Wow, benedict, you didn’t mince any words, you trashed Zionism and Judaism in no uncertain terms.

        Buncha murderous nutters who tried to turn Judaism into an engine for their personal and political gain. And most shamefully, to dispossess others.
        Did you have to make it seem that bad “benedict” ?

        “When observant jews say “next year in Jerusalem” they mean it quit literally. The methods differ:”

        Wow, thanks for warning us. It almost sounds antisemitic to hear it, but I guess if you say it, “benedict” it must be true.

      • eljay
        March 22, 2016, 7:05 pm

        || benedict: The land of Israel is a central and important tenet of Judaism. … ||

        That’s nice. But it doesn’t entitle the people who choose to hold the religion-based identity of “Jewish” to a religion-supremacist state in Palestine.

        || … This is the basis of the famous Midrash: “one who lives in the land of israel has a god; one who lives out of israel is like he has no god”. … ||

        So…over the centuries, the famous Midrash has condemned millions of non-“land of Israel” Jews to godlessness. Huh. That seems mighty unkind of the famous Midrash. :-(

        || … In other words, just as there is no judaism without monotheism so there is no judaism without Israel. … ||

        And yet Judaism has managed to do just fine for centuries without an Israel. Go figure. Israel, on the other hand, doesn’t appear to do quite as well without Judaism.

        || … And just as god is everlasting so is the land of Israel. … ||

        The “land of Israel” is eternal…except when it’s not. This should cause “god” some concern about his eternal self.

        || … Indeed even after being exiled the Torah promises an eventual restoration of jewish sovereignty in Israel. … ||

        That’s nice. But it doesn’t entitle the people who choose to hold the religion-based identity of “Jewish” to a religion-supremacist state in Palestine.

        || … When observant jews say “next year in Jerusalem” they mean it quit literally. … ||

        That’s nice. But it doesn’t entitle the people who choose to hold the religion-based identity of “Jewish” to a religion-supremacist state in Palestine.ents/#sthash.yDapbtTb.dpuf

      • benedict
        March 22, 2016, 7:06 pm

        “mooser” – i don’t have the slightest idea what you are trying to say.

      • Mooser
        March 22, 2016, 7:08 pm

        Oh, BTW “benedict”, just wanted to ask, when we say “observant Jews” about how many people are we talking about? Maybe oh, between 1 and 2 million people in the world? And falling fast, isn’t it?

      • Mooser
        March 22, 2016, 9:22 pm

        “mooser” – i don’t have the slightest idea what you are trying to say. “

        I’m sorry, you weren’t trying to make Zionism look as bad as possible? You did a good job. And the way you made it a two-backed beast with Judaism. Right up there with the belief in monotheism. One God, One Land, One People!

        “in the early 19th century practical restoration seemed to become feasible gain leading to numerous waves of immigration to Israel, the hovivei zion movement and eventually political Zionism”

        Good thing there was nobody else except the Zionists to be considered. If there were already people in Israel, they might have gotten in the way.

        Now, about the number of “observant Jews”…

      • Marnie
        March 23, 2016, 3:52 am

        You say there’s no judaism without israel. Don’t you mean there is no judaism without God? Why the idolatry? Land is nothing, zionists have made it their idol and insist it is theirs because of this book and this God they don’t give a shit about. If anything is going to be restored, which sounds like ‘divine intervention’, it isn’t going to be done by filthy human hands or demands.

      • benedict
        March 23, 2016, 8:06 am

        “mooser”

        i was referring to pabls claim that the jewish religion has no “israel fixation”. well it does.

        by observant i mean in the widest definition – anybody who feels a connection and commitment to the jewish people not in the sense of keeping all mitzvot. i would guestimate that includes most israeli jews and about half non israeli jews. that’s about 8-9 million people or about 70% of jews.

        oh, and they’re not falling. in fact they happen to be the fastest growing segment of the jewish people.

      • benedict
        March 23, 2016, 8:09 am

        marnie-

        i’m not saying it. i’m just quoting what the Torah says in describing the covenant between god and abraham. it talks about 3 points: montheism, abraham and descendents being chosen. the land of israel. all of them immutable.

        perhaps you don’t like it but that’s what judaism says.

      • Marnie
        March 23, 2016, 8:40 am

        “Perhaps you don’t like it but that’s what Judaism says”.

        The torah says many things and specifics about how we are supposed to treat one another, the stranger, the orphan, the widow; about justice, about truth, fairness, kindness, compassion and being HUMBLE. You may not like that, but that’s what the Torah says. Don’t care about the talmud.

      • benedict
        March 23, 2016, 10:41 am

        marnie-

        all the mitzvot you mention are part of the Torah, but so is the land of israel.

        obviously the Torah does not consider the connection to a particular piece of land as being idolatry.

        of course being a free person you can choose to not observe the Torah. in fact, from my experience that is what most anti-zionists usually do. but that does not give you the right to distort judaism.

        as for not caring about talmud classical judaism does not differentiate between them. obe is the written torah the other the oral torah. both are equally binding.

      • Marnie
        March 23, 2016, 11:24 am

        I’ve “distorted” Judaism? You sure about that? “obe is the written torah the other the oral torah. both are equally binding.” FFS!

      • Mooser
        March 23, 2016, 12:23 pm

        was referring to pabls claim that the jewish religion has no “israel fixation”. well it does.”
        “by observant i mean in the widest definition – anybody who feels a connection and commitment to the jewish people”

        So wholeheartedly supporting a an illegal, violent colonial settlement scheme is a condition of my religion. Well, God don’t tell no lies, I’m in! What do I get, how many acres, how much cash?

        You’re doing great “benedict”! But I’m not the guy you need to talk to.
        You need to talk to “Shmuel”, he knows more about this stuff than I ever will, and he speaka da language, too. Go get ‘im!

        . “in fact they happen to be the fastest growing segment of the jewish people.”

        Gosh, wonder why? But wow, 70% as many as 8-9 million? That’s a lot! And the other 30%? Just along for the ride?

      • lyn117
        March 23, 2016, 5:26 pm

        If a central part of any religion includes supporting mass murder and acquisition at gunpoint of the property of any other people, I guess I can say I’m centrally against that religion, and if the people of that religion who practice mass murder and acquisition at gunpoint of the property of any other people, I’m against those people.

        Well, anyone can say God told them something belongs to them and then take it. Like, say, that bank over there or some jewelry in a local department store. Does it give them a right to practice their religious beliefs?

        Whether or not acquisition of Palestine is a Jewish religious belief, it gave the zionists no right to acquire it by means of mass murder or force of arms.

      • Mooser
        March 23, 2016, 8:58 pm

        “Whether or not acquisition of Palestine is a Jewish religious belief, it gave the zionists no right to acquire it by means of mass murder or force of arms.”

        Well, “lynn117” this is about where the Zionists try drowning us out with a rendition of their favorite hymn: ‘The Holocaust Paid for it All’

      • Marnie
        March 24, 2016, 7:06 am

        benedict March 23, 2016, 8:06 am
        “mooser” i was referring to pabls claim that the jewish religion has no “israel fixation”. well it does. by observant i mean in the widest definition – anybody who feels a connection and commitment to the jewish people not in the sense of keeping all mitzvot. i would guestimate that includes most israeli jews and about half non israeli jews. that’s about 8-9 million people or about 70% of jews.”

        to Marnie “of course being a free person you can choose to not observe the Torah. in fact, from my experience that is what most anti-zionists usually do.”

        So ‘your experience’ tells you most antizionists do not observe the Torah. That’s a lot of Jews btw. So where are you getting your numbers from? You are counting evangelical christians are you Benedict? That wouldn’t be kosher y’know.

  3. Annie Robbins
    March 22, 2016, 1:10 pm

    http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Reports/2015/12/04-american-public-opinion-israel-middle-east-telhami/2015-Poll-Key-Findings-Final.pdf?la=en

    Public Support for A Two-State Solution vs. One-State Solution to the IsraeliPalestinian Conflict

    • Overall, the American public’s preferences for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have not changed much since 2014, with most categories remaining within the margin of error of last year’s poll. Those who advocate a one-state solution, 31%, are now comparable to those who advocate a two-state solution, 35%. The most notable change is that Republicans this year equally support a two-state solution vs. one-state solution (29% each), and support for both one state and two states among Independents has diminished from last year, while the percentage of Independents who support Israeli annexation of the West Bank increased from 6% to 14% in 2015.

    • Among those who advocate a two-state solution as their preferred solution, 73% say they would support a one-state solution if the first option were no longer possible (in comparison to only 66% in 2014). The most noticeable change is among Republicans: 68% now say they would then support a one-state solution, in comparison to only 51% in 2014.

    Strong American majorities continue to favor Israel’s democracy over its Jewishness in the absence of a two-state solution (72% in 2015, compared with 71% in 2014). The most noticeable change is the decline of those who favor Jewishness over democracy among Republicans and Independents (37% to 31%; and 25% to 17% respectively).

    i think it’s interesting they say “American public’s preferences for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have not changed much since 2014″

    because i think a 7% difference in one year, of people who would support a one-state solution if two was unavailable (66% vs 73%), is significant. i think it’s natural for an american to support one state with equality for all since it’s the model of our country.

    • benedict
      March 22, 2016, 5:27 pm

      what works for the USA doesn’t necessarily work for other countries.

      a 1ss would lead to disaster and won’t solve anything.

      just look how the 1SS is working out in Syria or Iraq.

      • Mooser
        March 22, 2016, 6:49 pm

        “a 1ss would lead to disaster and won’t solve anything.”

        You mean that Zionist may not get to keep what they have stolen, or may be held accountable for some of their crimes? That’s the usual definition of “disaster” in this case.

      • amigo
        March 23, 2016, 1:10 pm

        Ben-a-dic-to-us

        “what works for the USA doesn’t necessarily work for other countries. “.

        It works in democratic nations.You have a problem with Israel becoming a democracy??>

      • echinococcus
        March 23, 2016, 1:24 pm

        Benedict,

        just look how the 1SS is working out in Syria or Iraq.

        Wow, that’s the most fancy Zionist threat I heard until now:

        don’t start with a single state, because otherwise I’ll send the US in and tear apart every stone and litter the streets with corpses!

      • Mooser
        March 23, 2016, 2:41 pm

        Perhaps there is no solution for Zionism which is within the capabilities of Judaism, as it now is.
        Religions often create, or are part of problems they can’t solve, it’s not all that unusual.

      • benedict
        March 23, 2016, 8:16 pm

        am-ee-goz-

        attempting to have two different people share the same country didn’t work out in middle east. hell. its not working in belgium.

        i suggest a 1SS based on annexing parts of the west bang and galil, including the bedouin of the naqab to the “kingdom” of “jordan” which is in practice a palestinian state. in return israel is recognized as the nation-state of the jewish people and gets to keep area C and the golan.

        fair enough.

      • Mooser
        March 23, 2016, 8:30 pm

        “fair enough.”

        Oh no, another Zionist-parody troll. Another bitter ex-Zionist or Israeli, using everything he knows about Zionism and Judaism to make it look as bad as possible. This one is big on the implacable “Gott-min-us” shtik.

        You gotta watch guys like “benedict” he’ll say anything in his desire to put the worst possible light on Judaism and Zionism.

      • echinococcus
        March 23, 2016, 10:08 pm

        Benedict,

        Why complicate things? You illegal interlopers just get out of Palestine or ask for the Palestinian citizenship and everything is solved with a maximum of justice and minimum upset. Don’t forget to pay the reparations, of course. Where is the problem, anyway?

      • WH
        March 24, 2016, 4:07 am

        If you look at the history of slavery and anti-black racism in the USA, there would have been every reason to believe that blacks and whites could not live together. There was even a small black movement in favour of resettling in Africa. That racism is still alive and well, both systemically and privately, but who except white supremacists would advocate separate states today?

      • eljay
        March 24, 2016, 7:18 am

        || benedict: … israel is recognized as the nation-state of the jewish people … ||

        Israel is – and should be recognized only as – the nation-state of all Jewish and non-Jewish Israelis.

        It is not – and should not be recognized as – a religion-supremacist “Jewish State”, the nation-state of Jewish Israelis and non-Israeli Jews.

      • benedict
        March 24, 2016, 9:40 am

        wh-

        the differences are enormous. USA is not a nation state. the blacks were not attempting to change or replace the character of the state, and even if they would be attempting to do so they were numerically too small to effect such a change, therefore they were not perceived as a threat by most white americans.

        so, yes, under these very unique and limited circumstances the american white majority was willing to accept the small black minority on a second degree citizenship basis for the next 100 years in a process of integration that is far from being a success story even today.

        if this is the best you can come up with, then the 1SS for palestine/israel doesn’t solve anything.

        if i would be you i wouldn’t use this example ase proof of ISS efficiency when there is a raging national/ethnic/religous conflict with conflicting national desires.

        but why bring an example from the 19th century? look at the ME or africa honestly and point out a convincing case were 1SS did not end in bloodshed or dysfunctional states.

      • benedict
        March 24, 2016, 9:54 am

        echinococcus,

        since you are aiming for minimum disruption and maximum justice i have a better one:

        everybody gets to stay where they are today.

        the lines are redrawn so that “jordan”, parts of palestine, parts of south “syria” with palestinian population and parts of lebanon with the same become the nation state of the arab palestinian people. most of israel+area c and golan become the nation state of the jewish palestinian people.

        compensations are paid by all sides to all sides based on international arbitration.

        considering the current ME situation my plan (the B plan) is much more feasible them an imaginary and disruptive 1SS.

        are you in?

      • rugal_b
        March 24, 2016, 10:42 am

        “If you look at the history of slavery and anti-black racism in the USA, there would have been every reason to believe that blacks and whites could not live together. There was even a small black movement in favour of resettling in Africa. That racism is still alive and well, both systemically and privately, but who except white supremacists would advocate separate states today?” – WH

        It is not about having a state for yourselves, it is about not wanting to be dominated by a state that does not have your interests at heart. America might be a de jure egalitarian, pluralistic state but in reality it is far from it. White men still occupy almost all of the positions of power, politically and economically. White men interests are for white men, not black men, not black women, not Asians, not Hispanics, not even white women, and as such, the current arrangement of wealth and political power leaves many non-whites hopelessly disenfranchised. This is not a sustainable arrangement, and I would argue for many POC, is worse than being left to your own devices in your own state.

        Why do black / POC children have to be forced to learn about Greek and Roman history in the state educational system, not history of their ancestors? Why do they have to learn English and Spanish, and not their mother tongues? Why do black men have to compete with white men for food and shelter, in an economy that was rigged to help the whites AND put down blacks? Why do black people forced to waste their vote in a political system that is dominated by overwhelmingly white interests? It is always Democrats vs Republicans, and regardless of which party wins, black people lose, always.

        I mean yeah, I don’t know if all these issues will be magically fixed if the US were to separate into little countries with a more homogenous population, but the status quo simply cannot continue.

      • oldgeezer
        March 24, 2016, 10:43 am

        @benedict

        Redrawing those lines and transferring the population without their consent would be a war crime. Considering the polls trumpeted by zionists show that their non Jewish citizens prefer to remain as part of Israel it is likely a non starter as a sokution.

        Why is it that criminal scum bag zionists need to always resort to crimes as solutions. Most likely because it is an ideology that is rooted in crime and crimes against humanity. A purely racist ideology akin to white supremacy. Zionists and the KKK should hold joint conferences to share admin costs.

      • eljay
        March 24, 2016, 11:03 am

        || benedict: … lines are redrawn so … become the nation state of the arab palestinian people … become the nation state of the jewish palestinian people. … ||

        Since all the people are Palestinian, let them live together as Palestinians in a single Palestinian state. No need for separate “Arab” and “Jewish” states.

      • echinococcus
        March 24, 2016, 3:45 pm

        All right, Benito, you really want to be kicked out screaming. You asked for it.

      • Mooser
        March 24, 2016, 7:23 pm

        “everybody gets to stay where they are today.” “benedict”

        Don’t you see, “Echin”, we’ve got to have this, to be able to keep what we have stolen, and have amnesty for the atrocities and crimes, and avoid reparations! See, if we can do that, we will ‘make our bones’ and be a normal nation, don’tcha see?
        If we have to give an honest accounting or (G-d forbid!) take responsibility fort any of it we’ll never be able to hold up our heads in the world again!
        I mean, you can see that, right? We need this, we deserve this, damn it, you owe us this!

      • Mooser
        March 24, 2016, 8:18 pm

        ” but the status quo simply cannot continue.” “rugal_b”

        That’s right! Low-status quo people refuse to stay in the closet any longer, accepting their low status quo meekly. From now on, we cry in a united voice “We’re Quo! So?” and “Don’t be low-quo on the down-low! and “We’re quo, now you know, so don’t get all emo.”
        High-status is the place you oughta be, so load up the truck, and move to Beverley.
        Hills, that is.

    • Atlantaiconoclast
      March 22, 2016, 8:49 pm

      The only caution to your argument is that the one state solution is something certain hard core Zionists like Carolynn Glick now support. She even wrote a book about it, which was favorably reviewed in neocon media. But of course, in her one state solution, Gaza is excluded, and no Jewish settlements will be demolished, thus making it much easier for Israel to remain majority Jewish.

      • echinococcus
        March 23, 2016, 1:32 pm

        Atlanta iconoclast,

        Depends which forces realize that one-state.

        If it’s the Zionists, it’s already there, at a stage where the owners of the land have not been entirely eliminated yet, or reduced to the 15% Weitz quota. No need to make it what it is already.

        If it’s the Palestinians redoing Palestine, nobody would expect the remaining Zionists to be more than a Weitz quota.

  4. Sally Parker
    March 22, 2016, 1:23 pm

    I think that peacenik Jews need to chime in on accusations antisemitism. They are just as Jewish as the government of Israel–perhaps more so since they are compassionate.
    If it’s antisemitic to disagree with the government of Israel, isn’t it also antisemitic to disagree with Einstein or JVP? If I am being antisemitic by disagreeing with the IDF, what if I agree with the IDF, then I’m being antisemitic toward Dr. Einstein. That’s really scary. Wouldn’t want to be accused of antisemitism by a modern day follower of Einstein.
    If you disagree with me, you’ve just committed a hate crime against atheists and really promoting a plan to burn atheists at the stake.

    • Emory Riddle
      March 22, 2016, 2:50 pm

      Sally. You are an anti-Semite.

      Everyone who is not Jewish automatically is, along with Jews who oppose Zionism.

      What you think or say is not important because you are born an anti-Semite.

      It is our original sin apparently.

  5. yourstruly
    March 22, 2016, 1:31 pm

    cause and effect –

    Zionism and Nazism
    same hatred
    different targets
    as believers run amok
    violence
    unleashed

    Gaza and the Warsaw Ghetto
    same place
    different times
    while the world stands by
    genocide
    live

  6. amigo
    March 22, 2016, 1:39 pm

    The problem with your average (sorry , all ) anti zionists and by default , antisemites is they do not understand that they are forbidden to condemn the home of the chosen people but are free to condemn , indeed are expected to condemn any and all other groups of people who commit crimes against humanity.

    They are expected to give the chosen people a free pass .Of course this would not be antisemitism.Zionist logic at it,s very finest.

    • Mooser
      March 22, 2016, 2:36 pm

      “They are expected to give the chosen people a free pass”

      “Jeff B” said it best, and I’m thinkin’, most honestly. With that chilling “completely” at the end, too. Leaving plenty of room.

  7. HarryLaw
    March 22, 2016, 2:37 pm

    President Obama said, “You know, I think a good baseline is: Do you think that Israel has a right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people,” This question has already been decided when the United Nations recognized the state of Israel on borders which both the UN and Israeli’s leaders agreed to in 1948. To the extent that most people recognize that state within the borders agreed to in 1948, it could be said that most people are Zionists i.e, a homeland for people of Jewish origin in Palestine. Unfortunately many Zionists regard this homeland as being Eretz [greater] Israel including the whole of Palestine, something never envisaged in the Balfour declaration nor agreed to at the UN in 1948. Therefore Zionists who believe the Jewish homeland comprises the whole of Palestine also the Golan Heights and other parts of other peoples established states in the region, are plainly arguing against International law. Political disagreement by anti Zionists of the illegal appropriation of all of Palestine, or even if only slightly more than agreed to in 1948, has nothing to do with antisemitism and everything to do with upholding International law.

  8. Kris
    March 22, 2016, 3:33 pm

    From the article:

    Here’s what Bernie Sanders said when Chris Hayes of MSNBC asked him last night if BDS is anti-semitic.

    Not to see that there is some level of anti-Semitism involved in that [movement] would be a mistake.

    This is what Bernie Sanders actually said, after Chris Hayes asked him if he thought it was fair for Hillary Clinton to link BDS with antisemitism:

    “There is some of that, absolutely. Israel has done some very bad things. So has every other country on earth. I think if people want to attack Israel for their policies, I think that is fair game. But not to appreciate that there is some level of antisemitism around the world involved in that, I think, would be a mistake.” http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/the-bernie-sanders-interview-649590339698

    It seems to me that Bernie Sanders is saying “there is some level of antisemitism around the world” involved in attacking “Israel for their policies,” though attacking Israel for their policies is “fair game.”

    • Atlantaiconoclast
      March 22, 2016, 8:42 pm

      But why not ask him if there is a certain amount of anti Gentile and anti Arab sentiment inherent in Zionism?

      • Kris
        March 23, 2016, 10:55 pm

        This is a wonderful question, but I don’t think it would ever occur to anyone in the mainstream media.

  9. Ossinev
    March 22, 2016, 3:49 pm

    @Hophmi

    “When you add all of that to the selective obsession anti-Zionists have with bashing Israel in a world full of real human rights violators and in a region where hundreds of thousands of people are dying in genocides and civil wars, people sense that there’s more to this than just “criticism of the nation-state.”

    Total and utter bollocks and naked anti -Ossinevism. Won`t give you the pleasure of hearing that “some of my best friends are Jewish” shit because it feeds your script. If a Catholic is a thieving lying murderous lying bastard then I am anti HIM or HER, if a Muslim is a thieving lying murderous bastard then I am anti HIM or HER , if a Hindu is a thieving lying murderous
    bastard then I am anti – HIM or HER. If I meet members of any faith who I find to be moral , honest and humane then I am for them.

    Like millions of other reasonably educated and reasonably intelligent people I am getting sick and tired and frankly increasingly bored with the flogging of the dead Anti – Semitic horse and the bulldozing attempts to conflate Anti- Zionism or Anti- Israelism with Anti – Semitism are likewise becoming predictable and tiresome.

    There are people in the world who hate blacks,whites,Asians,Catholics,Scientologists,Buddhists,Irish,Baptists,Welsh,Americans,Mormons,Scots etcetcetcetc as well as Jews,Israelis,Syrians,Palestinians.

    Same old same old only victims in history crap just doesn`t buy it any more. You and your ilk will have to come up with fresh meat on the Anti -Semitism bone – it`s fading into the murky shadows now that the light is being shone on Israel and the Zionist lobbies.

  10. Mooser
    March 22, 2016, 4:23 pm

    “Jewish Americans like me who are anti-Zionists support a secular, democratic state where all citizens have equal rights.”

    An anti-Zionist who believes Zionists deserve “equal rights”? Ho-kay.
    So where’s the “anti” part?

  11. Stephen Shenfield
    March 22, 2016, 5:16 pm

    The best means of defense is attack. When Zionists make a fuss about anti-Semitism within the anti-Zionist movement, we can and should turn the same accusation back against them. There are also anti-Semites among pro-Israel forces — for instance, Christian fundamentalists — and Zionists turn a blind eye. They do not care about anti-Semitism except as a bludgeon to use against their opponents. All they care about is Israel. And in fact their real attitude toward anti-Semitism (except of the exterminationist variety) has always been positive because anti-Semitism alienates Jews from the countries where they live, strengthens their transnational identity as Jews. and facilitates their transfer to Israel.

    • Atlantaiconoclast
      March 22, 2016, 8:40 pm

      I think it is a huge mistake to conflate Christian fundamentalist doctrine with anti Semitism. Christian fundies think everyone needs Jesus. That doesn’t mean they hate non Christians, or want to dominate them. A much smarter tactic would be to call those who endlessly scream “anti Semitism” anti Arab racists and even Jewish supremacists if they truly merit it.

      • WH
        March 24, 2016, 4:13 am

        We’re not talking about simple fundamentalists here. We’re talking about nutcases like John Hagee, who believes that Hitler was sent by God so that the Jews would gather in Israel for the Second Coming, when they will either convert to Christianity or be sent to hell. This anti-Semitic nonsense doesn’t trouble Jewish Zionists as long as the money keeps coming.

    • Donald
      March 22, 2016, 11:16 pm

      I thought you were going to say that most defenses of Israel involve racism against Palestinians, either directly stated or implied. That’s what needs to be pointed out. On this subject, the pro Israel types have been allowed to act like they are the non bigoted types who stand in judgment over everyone else on the subject of racism, but mixing my metaphors a bit, the emperor has no clothes. Or the Judge forgot his robe or something.

      Mixed metaphors aside, there are antisemites around, but I think the anti- Palestinian racism on the pro Israel side is much more prevalent, and shows up in unconscious ways even among people who think they are liberal.

      • Citizen
        March 23, 2016, 4:59 am

        Doing his best to trump his competitors in a speech written by his Jewish son-in-law, Trump at AIPAC blamed anti-Jewish Palestinian culture, education for leaving the Jewish Israeli state without a partner for peace over the years and presently.

  12. talknic
    March 22, 2016, 7:32 pm

    Antisemitism true or conflated with AntiZionism, has no legal effect on Israel’s illegal actions in non-Israeli territories.

    Israel is still a rogue state controlled by a vile Zionist regime acting against International Law, the UN Charter and the most basic of Judaism’s tenets

  13. Atlantaiconoclast
    March 22, 2016, 8:37 pm

    Obama:” You know, I think a good baseline is: Do you think that Israel has a right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people, and are you aware of the particular circumstances of Jewish history that might prompt that need and desire? And if your answer is no, if your notion is somehow that that history doesn’t matter, then that’s a problem, in my mind.” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/03/zionism-is-finally-in-the-news-as-officials-seek-to-conflate-anti-zionism-with-anti-semitism/#sthash.RkHFSJbX.dpuf

    Even if this statement from Obama was correct, how does that justify placing that Jewish state on land already populated with another Semitic but non Jewish people, who also had national aspirations? Seems to me the problem with Zionism is its insistence on a Jewish state on another people’s land. There is no way around it. Zionist Jews literally believe that their right to a Jewish state trumps the rights of Palestinians. That is Jewish supremacism at work. Don’t kid yourself.

    • Citizen
      March 23, 2016, 5:07 am

      Obama is selective in who, which group, has any right worthy of declaring, regularly supporting affirmatively. His mind is a closed pc camp over which the sun and moon never appear to move.

      • Boo
        March 23, 2016, 9:23 am

        An interesting choice of imagery considering Joshua 10:13. So what you’re saying is that this condition will endure until justice is done for Palestine? I’d be delighted to credit Obama with that position.

  14. Sycamores
    March 22, 2016, 9:03 pm

    Philip Weiss,

    lets face it Trump has a large following of bigots, racists and anti-Semites. MSM are hardly covering it but it’s all over social media.

    how do you think the standing ovations Trump received at the AIPAC convention will affect the American Jewish community at large?

  15. JLewisDickerson
    March 23, 2016, 12:10 am

    RE: Thankfully, the Los Angeles Times has run an editorial stating that UC’s “intolerance policy goes dangerously astray on anti-Semitism.” It urges the university to prune any statement conflating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism because it’s an effort to suppress support for Palestinian rights.” ~ Weiss

    FROM WIKIPEDIA [Whitney v. California]:

    [EXCERPTS] Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927), was a United States Supreme Court decision upholding the conviction of an individual who had engaged in speech that raised a threat to society. . .

    . . . The Whitney case is most noted for Justice Louis Brandeis’s concurrence, which many scholars have lauded as perhaps the greatest defense of freedom of speech ever written by a member of the high court.[1] Justice Brandeis and Justice Holmes concurred in the result because of the Fourteenth Amendment questions, but there is no question that the sentiments are a distinct dissent from the views of the prevailing majority and supported the First Amendment.

    Holmes in Abrams had been willing to defend speech on abstract grounds, believing that unpopular ideas should have their opportunity to compete in the “marketplace of ideas.” But Brandeis had a much more specific reason for defending speech, and the power of his opinion derives from the connection he made between free speech and the democratic process. Citizens have an obligation to take part in the governing process, and they can only fulfill this obligation if they can discuss and criticize governmental policy fully and without fear. If the government can punish unpopular views, then it cramps freedom, and in the long run, will strangle democratic processes. Thus, free speech is not only an abstract virtue, but a key element that lies at the heart of a democratic society.

    Implicitly, Brandeis here moves far beyond the clear and present danger test, and he insists on what some have called a “time to answer” test: no danger flowing from speech can be considered clear and present if there is full opportunity for discussion. While upholding full and free speech, Brandeis tells legislatures that while they have a right to curb truly dangerous expression, they must define clearly the nature of that danger. Mere fear of unpopular ideas will not do.

    Justice William O. Douglas believed that had Brandeis lived longer, he would have abandoned the clear and present danger test; Whitney is in fact the precursor to the position Douglas and Hugo L. Black would take in the 1950s and 1960s, that freedom of speech is absolutely protected under the First Amendment. Brandeis does not go that far here, and his views were ultimately adopted by the Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), which explicitly overruled Whitney.

    Whitney was later pardoned by the Governor of California based on Justice Brandeis’ concurring opinion.[citation needed] . . .

    SOURCE – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_v._California

  16. Krendall Mist
    March 23, 2016, 12:55 am

    I bet–no, I know–that back in the primo days of the Cold War, many anti-Communists were anti-Russians. It’s hard to imagine a patriotic Soviet citizen denouncing with a cultivated moral outrage a Westerner as a vile “Russian-hater” for the latter’s condemnation of the obvious illegitimacy of the Soviet State. Such a proud Russian would have been dismissed as a laughable twerp–even if those Westerners condemning the Soviet associated Russians with Communism and naturally came to loath then.

    I see no principled reason why an accusation of anti-Semitism based on an anti-Zionist stance should be treated with any less contempt and ridicule–even if anti-Semitism (or “Jew hatred”) is cause or effect of the anti-Zionism.

    Of course, we anti-Zionists can take a page from the abortion playbook and promote our position pro-Palestinian or pro-American.

    • Mooser
      March 23, 2016, 11:47 am

      ” bet–no, I know–that back in the primo days of the Cold War, many anti-Communists were anti-Russians.”

      Oh, weren’t we all! I was scared of the Russians myself. And remember how people talked about the Chionese people during the Please-don’t-squeeze-the-Chairman days? Not very nice.
      I can remember some pretty incisive analyses of the Japanese and German character from WW2.

  17. Dan Walsh
    March 23, 2016, 7:18 am

    That we are still arguing, in 2016, about the conflation of anti-Semitism with anti-Zionism speaks volumes about Zionism’s (continuing) ability to divert the American public’s attention away from the important task of legitimating its own discourse.

    There has long been clarity on the invalidity of this conflation within the Jewish community. Consider this poster by Lisa Kokin from 1979:

    http://www.palestineposterproject.org/poster/being-jewish-is-not-the-same-as-being-zionist

    Q: How seriously can we take the Zionist claim that anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism if we (still) have no rational, consensus definition of anti-Semitism? Why is there still so much ambiguity around the contemporary meaning of this term, as used in the United States?

    Q: If anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism does that mean that to it is “anti-Semitic” to oppose Christian Zionists such as Hagee and Co., for any number of reasons including their homophobia, Islamophobia, racism, and their efforts to weaken the separation of church and state? IOW can one be anti-Semitic in one’s words or actions…even if no Jewish people/issues/institutions are involved at all?

    The meming of a rational, credible usage-based definition of the term “anti-Semitism” is long overdue. The various attempts by the US government and the EU to politicize the definition of anti-Semitism are a disgrace and they should be called out at every turn.

    A lexicon is the living, breathing glossary of a language in use: Mondoweiss is the ideal forum for initiating this discussion in an American context and seeing it through to fruition.

    How important is it to establish clear, consensus definitions for treating social or medical ills? Imagine if we charged modern science to develop a cure or vaccine for Zika but forbade the promulgation of an accurate, empirically-derived definition of the disease? Or worse, if we allowed parties with vested interests in the spread of the disease to craft the definition?

    The infamous Merriam-Webster’s definition of anti-Semitism was crafted in the 1950’s and though it has been repeatedly debunked (even by Merriam-Webster) it remains in service to Zionism.

    Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Collegiate Dictionary – 3rd Edition

    anti-Semitism:

    • hostility toward Jews as a religious or racial minority group often accompanied by social, economic, and political discrimination
    • opposition to Zionism

    • sympathy with opponents of the state of Israel

    Merriam-Webster has now disavowed its long-standing conflatory definition of anti-Semitism and publishes these two instead:

    Simple Definition of anti–Semitism

    • hatred of Jewish people

    Full Definition of anti–Semitism

    • hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

    This new definition says nothing about Israel or Zionism and this is as it should be. Mondoweiss can be the agent of change that leverages this de-politicized and functional definition into broad mainstream acceptance.

    Nothing could be worse for Zionism or better for Palestine and the US.

  18. RobertHenryEller
    March 23, 2016, 8:43 am

    Judaism exists and thrives when and where it alway has done so: Wherever Jews actually live and act as Jews, as Rabbi Hillel explained. Where so-called, self-styled Jews, people who call themselves Jews, to not live and act as Rabbi Hillel taught, there are no Jews, and no Judaism.

    Judaism will only be destroyed by the fake Jews who do not heed the teachings of Rabbi Hillel. No country that ignores Rabbi Hillel will ever be a Jewish state. Such a country will only be the destruction of Jews and Judaism.

  19. tony greenstein
    March 23, 2016, 9:11 am

    Yes anti-Zionism is a heresy to the practitioners of Judaism (or most of them) today. Baruch Spinoza was also accused of heresy. Who even remembers his detractors today?

    hophmi believes that
    ‘There’s one main reason people equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism, even though the two can technically be distinguished intellectually.’

    Yes that’s true, albeit not for the reasons s/he thinks. When you can’t defend the indefensible you have to cast aspersions on the motives of the accuser. It’s very difficult to defend a state whose PM says that it is going to build wall around it to keep out the ‘wild beasts’ nor is it easy to defend Apartheid Israel in so many other aspects.

    Far easier to put it all down to anti-Semitism.

    The only problem is that t he most convinced and devoted of anti-Semites support a Jewish state – from the BNP in the UK to Breivik in Norway! Twas ever thus.

  20. Boris
    March 23, 2016, 11:02 am

    It looks that hophmi was overwhelmed by “non-moderated” commenters.

    :-))))

  21. Misterioso
    March 23, 2016, 12:02 pm

    http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=15951

    Gideon Levy: Americans “Are Supporting the First Signs of Fascism in Israel”

    Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy talks to journalist Max Blumenthal about how the Israeli occupation has poisoned not only the region but much of the world, and how BDS might be the last standing hope to dismantle it – March 22, 2016

  22. James Canning
    March 23, 2016, 12:54 pm

    Conflating opposition to Zionist fanaticism, with “anti-Semitism”, is an attempt to suppress free speech.

  23. Henry Norr
    March 23, 2016, 5:07 pm

    UC regents committee OKs ‘anti-Zionism’ as discrimination

    By Nanette Asimov Published 11:42 am, Wednesday, March 23, 2016

    With the deft addition of three small words, University of California Regent Norm Pattiz defused rising tensions Wednesday over whether UC would declare “anti-Zionism” —opposition to the state of Israel — an official form of discrimination at the famously free-thinking school.

    Instead, a regents committee accepted Pattiz’ amendment saying that “anti-Semitic forms of” anti-Zionism and other forms of discrimination have no place at UC.
    The language is part of a tolerance and free-speech statement adopted Wednesday by a committee of the Board of Regents. The statement was intended to calm tensions over anti-Semitism across UC campuses but inflamed divisions that pit pro-Israel students and faculty against their anti-Israel counterparts.

    The full Board of Regents is expected Thursday to adopt the document that condemns anti-Semitism at all UC campuses and endorses free speech.

    http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/UC-regents-committee-OKs-anti-Zionism-as-6988865.php

    • HarryLaw
      March 24, 2016, 2:26 pm

      Antisemitism is wrong in all circumstances, so tying it together with Anti-Zionism makes the additional word anti-Zionism redundant. But that would not achieve the malign aims of the resolution.

      • echinococcus
        March 24, 2016, 3:11 pm

        Harry Law,

        Antisemitism is wrong in all circumstances

        Not before you give a clear definition that corresponds to something I would consider wrong in all circumstances.

  24. Talkback
    March 23, 2016, 6:57 pm

    If Judaism means that Jews have the right to do to Palestinians what they’ve been doing to them since the Balfour Declaration then I have no problem with being called an antisemite or self hater. But please add the word “proud”.

    • Mooser
      March 24, 2016, 6:37 pm

      “I have no problem with being called…”

      I wonder if that is a reality Zionists are prepared to deal with. I don’t think they are.

      • Talkback
        March 25, 2016, 6:54 am

        From my decade long experience with confronting Zionists I can only say this:

        The louder they scream “antisemite/self hater”, the more supremacist they are and trying to distract from it. You just have to ask them in return, if they think that Nonjews have the same rights as Jews when it comes to “Eretz Israel”.

  25. Boomer
    March 23, 2016, 7:52 pm

    The comments from Obama and Clinton cited above must be gratifying to Israel-firsters, while they are offensive to Americans who object to their government (and their taxes) enabling the continuing dispossession and oppression of Palestinians. Not only do these officials dismiss concern for Palestinians, but they do so by impugning the motives of those (here and elsewhere) who feel such concerns. Sanders might or might not be better in practice, but at least he recognizes the Palestinians.

  26. rugal_b
    March 24, 2016, 7:39 am

    The West can’t bring itself to condemn Zionism, which should be a pretty straightforward thing to do considering it’s implications on the world since its inception, because it would lead to extreme scrutiny of their own governments and political institutions. The fear for appearing anti-semitic is a laughable excuse considering how many Jews and Jewish organisations within the US and Israel are loudly calling for such condemnations.

    The only reason Zionism should be condemned is because it is a settler-colonialistic movement that exploits racial, religious and ethnic sentiments to enable the ruling class maintain their power and hegemony on colonized land. At this moment, Israel is far from being the only country to engage in such practice, they are joined by the USA, Canada, Australia, NZ and to a lesser extent, the UK, France and Germany.

    They can condemn Israeli brutality towards the Palestinians all they want, but they can’t for purely Machiavellian purposes, condemn Zionism because it would lead to greater empowerment of anti-establishment movements within their own borders. Palestinians are not the only ones that desire sovereignty, equality and a homeland of their own, all indigenous people have the same desire and political goals. The Native Americans, the blacks, the Hawaiians, the Maori, the First Nations, the aboriginals etc.

    • rugal_b
      March 24, 2016, 10:09 am

      In supplement to the above comment, the primary threat to the establishments representing the nations of USA, Canada, Australia, NZ and Israel is dissent of their respective creation myth. Theoretically, there is absolutely no reason at all for any of these nation to exist in the first place and to claim sovereignty over the land they are occupying. The only reason any of these countries are standing is through the threat of state violence, IOW the citizens are being held hostage by the government if they were to object to the legitimacy of the state, and disobey the rule of law.

      Condemning Zionism will mean condemning settler-colonialism and anti-indigenous movements, the same things being fought against albeit in a relatively more passive level in the other nations mentioned above. It will legitimize the anti-American grievances being held by many within the native American, Hawaiian, black and left-wing white communities and only weaken the already frail claim of the state to the right to govern land in America and Hawaii.

      As such, forcing the West to make such move, an outright condemnation of Zionism, rather than Israeli undesirable actions would be an extremely difficult yet highly potent move by those seeking justice and liberation, against not only Israel but all of its enabling accomplices in the West.

      • Mooser
        March 24, 2016, 5:47 pm

        Yes “rugal_b”, we know, we know. Everything says ‘Leave Israel alooooone!”

  27. Boomer
    March 24, 2016, 8:24 pm

    Speaking of what’s in the news:

    “BUENOS AIRES — President Obama Thursday visited a memorial in Argentina to the thousands of people killed and disappeared during that country’s “dirty war,” on the 40th anniversary of the coup that started it.

    “Obama used his visit to announce his plan to declassify new military and intelligence records that document the human rights violations from 1976 to 1983. . . .

    ““There’s been controversy about the policies of the United States early in those dark days,” Obama said, standing beside the Argentinian President Mauricio Macri. “The United States when it reflects on what happened here has to reflect on its own past…. When we’re slow to speak out on human rights, which was the case here.” . . .

    “What happened in Argentina “is not unique, and it’s not confined to the past,” he said. “Each of us have [sic] a responsibility each and every day to make sure that wherever [EXCEPT IN ISRAEL AND SOME OTHER PLACES] we see injustice, wherever [EXCEPT IN ISRAEL AND SOME OTHER PLACES] we see rule of law flaunted that we take responsibility to make this a better place for our children and grandchildren”

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/03/24/obama-speaks-us-role-argentinas-dirty-war/82206754/

    • eljay
      March 24, 2016, 8:50 pm

      || Boomer: Speaking of what’s in the news:

      … “There’s been controversy about the policies of the United States early in those dark days,” Obama said, standing beside the Argentinian President Mauricio Macri. “The United States when it reflects on what happened here has to reflect on its own past…. When we’re slow to speak out on human rights, which was the case here.” . . .

      “What happened in Argentina “is not unique, and it’s not confined to the past,” he said. “Each of us have [sic] a responsibility each and every day to make sure that wherever [EXCEPT IN ISRAEL AND SOME OTHER PLACES] we see injustice, wherever [EXCEPT IN ISRAEL AND SOME OTHER PLACES] we see rule of law flaunted that we take responsibility to make this a better place for our children and grandchildren” … ||

      The sad thing is that many years from now, when the Thousand Year “Jewish State” has collapsed and America is busy f*cking some other country over, President X will stand beside the Palestinian president and spout the same sorry sh*t about “dark days” and the need to conquer injustice and make the world a better place.

  28. Mayhem
    March 26, 2016, 11:28 pm

    Political Zionism rose as the remedy to anti-semitism that was endemic across Europe in the late 19th century. As a corollary to this anybody opposing Zionism and negating the fundamental premise of Zionism, which was to overcome anti-semitism, is encouraging and fostering a legitimacy for anti-semitism. As a consequence those who demean Zionism by attributing to it falsehoods of colonialism etc are supporting what Zionism was challenging, namely anti-semitism.

    Furthermore those who diminish the significance of anti-semitism do so to justify/rationalize their antagonism to Zionism. For very very many, being anti-semitic is at the core of their opposition to Israel, and they wear their anti-semitism (which of course they deny to avoid any possible stigma) as a kind of badge of honour. “I am not anti-semitic they say but I hate what Israel, the Jewish state, does” – such expressions amounting to justifications in order to achieve one’s hidden agenda that is basically predicated on judeophobia.

    Who will willingly accept they are anti-semitic and not attempt to disguise all the trappings like anti-Zionism as it operates today, when there are still many who consider anti-semitism and its associated manifestations repugant in the extreme?

    • Mooser
      March 27, 2016, 11:22 am

      “Mayhem”, why do you think it is in your interest to trivialize antisemitism???

      What prize are you expecting for proving everybody except you and your best fiends are antisemites?

    • talknic
      March 27, 2016, 12:36 pm

      @ Mayhem ” those who demean Zionism by attributing to it falsehoods of colonialism etc are supporting what Zionism was challenging, namely anti-semitism”

      OK. I’ll take your word on that http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8632-jewish-colonial-trust-the-judische-colonialbank

      • Mayhem
        April 13, 2016, 12:41 am

        @talknic, naturally it’s in your interests to falsely equate between a colonial enterprise and colonialism

      • Mooser
        April 13, 2016, 2:04 pm

        “naturally it’s in your interests to falsely equate between a colonial enterprise and colonialism”

        ROTFLMSJAO! So, what is the big difference between the two? Let me guess?
        Okay, the Zionists may have run a “colonial enterprise” but because of, ooh I know, I know, because they were either religious or politically motivated, they weren’t real colonialists!

        Sort of a distinction without a difference. If it’s even that.

      • echinococcus
        April 13, 2016, 3:44 pm

        Mooser, how dare you? Of course there is a difference if our betters see any.
        There are even more and even finer distinctions, too: for example between colonialist and settler.
        That difference, now, definitely needs French (in this case it seems we neglected to keep the nuance.) A settler in that musical language is a “colon”. Like colon, the shitgut.

      • Mayhem
        April 13, 2016, 7:09 pm

        Correction: I should have said that Talknic did “falsely equate between a colonist enterprise and colonialism”.
        Colonialism is defined as control by one country over another area and its people and those who came to settle the land of Palestine were colonists, they were NOT the imperialistic agents identified with any colonial power.
        I don’t expect those intent on bashing Israel will be bothered by semantics.

      • Mooser
        April 13, 2016, 7:47 pm

        “equate between a colonist enterprise”

        That’s not even English, dummy.

        “I don’t expect those intent on bashing Israel will be bothered by semantics.”

        Yes, there’s very little antisemanticism here.

      • echinococcus
        April 13, 2016, 9:02 pm

        Mayhem,

        Who the hell cares for a Zionist propagandist’s self-imagined distinctions among things that are strictly equivalent? Like distinctions between “return to ancestral homeland” and… invasion and genocide? Don’t be ridiculous. Colonial settlers, colonists or colon contents, it’s all the same bunch of criminals against humanity.

      • talknic
        April 13, 2016, 9:56 pm

        @ Mayhem “naturally it’s in your interests to falsely equate between a colonial enterprise and colonialism”

        Quote me

        ” should have said that Talknic did “falsely equate between a colonist enterprise and colonialism”.”

        Whatever bullsh*t you need to spout. Which ever way you put it is irrelevant to the crimes committed under International Law by Israel TODAY

        BTW the Jewish COLONIAL Trust was named by the Zionist Federation go complain to them

        Why is it that apologists for Israel’s ongoing colonization of non-Israeli territory are so stupid?

      • Mayhem
        April 13, 2016, 11:01 pm

        In your narrow mind Talknic it is “non-Israeli territory” but it has never been the territory of any other sovereign presence in recent times. To all intentions purpose it was terra nullius when the Jews came to settle there and to this day it remains disputed territory with the Jews having the most solid, substantive claim to it.
        Please tell me when this so-called identity known as the “Palestinian people” first emerged to stake a claim to this territory . To my recollection it didn’t happen until it was ordained by the KGB in 1964.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 14, 2016, 1:05 am

        To all intentions purpose it was terra nullius when the Jews came to settle

        no, it was not “nobody’s land” nor, according to international law, it is disputed. it’s occupied and recognized as such by the UN, the U.S. and everyone — with the exception of israel.

        Correction: I should have said that Talknic did “falsely equate between a colonist enterprise and colonialism”.
        Colonialism is defined as control by one country over another area and its people and those who came to settle the land of Palestine were colonists, they were NOT the imperialistic agents identified with any colonial power.

        for your edification Colonialism is not defined as “control by one country over another area and its people.” we’ve had this discussion before here:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism

        Colonialism is the establishment, exploitation, maintenance, acquisition, and expansion of colony in one territory by a political power from another territory. It is a set of unequal relationships between the colonial power and the colony and often between the colonists and the indigenous population.

        the territory being colonized is palestine (hence “occupied palestinian territory”),the indigenous population are the palestinians.

        the territory of the colonizers came from was primarily europe and russia but currently it’s primarily a US project and colony of US elites (“a political power”) today. that’s why people who want to please US elites and run for office in the US need to first agree to support our colonialist project and to a lessor extent pay fealty to “a political power” (represented by lobby).

        Which nation is Israel a colony of?

        the “political power from another territory” would be from zionist/elites of the “nation” of jewish people in the diaspora. again, primarily US. just follow the money jay, it’s not that complicated. those colonies popping up all over the WB, they cost money. so does the military and security forces protecting/sustaining/expanding them.

        you can follow the discussion by scrolling here http://mondoweiss.net/2014/11/justiceformikebrown-ferguson-palestine/#comment-726765

      • talknic
        April 14, 2016, 7:11 am

        @ Mayhem

        “In your narrow mind Talknic it is “non-Israeli territory””

        Sorry burst your foul smelling Ziogasbubble … On May 22nd 1948 the Israeli Government itself officially claimed it was operating in territories “outside the State of Israel” … “in Palestine”

        Israel has never acquired by any legal agreement any further territories to its proclaimed and recognized borders of May 15th 1948 http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

        ” but it has never been the territory of any other sovereign presence in recent times.”

        Strange. Palestinian Nationality Law was adopted in 1925 per the League of Nations Mandate Article 7 http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp#art7

        Palestine was a Nation State at the time Israel seceded from it

        ” To all intentions purpose it was terra nullius when the Jews came to settle there”

        You’re spouting Ziosh*t. They bought land from non-existent people … AMAZING!! UTTERLY AMAZING!

        “and to this day it remains disputed territory with the Jews having the most solid, substantive claim to it”

        More Ziosh*t! The UNSC tells us Israel is the “Occupying Power” over territories “Occupied” https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/6de6da8a650b4c3b852560df00663826

        Do you come here just to make an idiot of yourself?

      • Mooser
        April 14, 2016, 4:12 pm

        “To all intentions purpose it was terra nullius…”

        Like hell it was!

    • eljay
      March 27, 2016, 1:58 pm

      || Mayhem: Political Zionism rose as the remedy to anti-semitism … ||

      The remedies to anti-Semitism were and remain justice, accountability and equality. How exactly was political Zionism going to provide these remedies?

      || … those who demean Zionism by attributing to it falsehoods of colonialism etc are supporting what Zionism was challenging, namely anti-semitism. ||

      Colonialism – along with oppression, supremacism and countless (war) crimes – has been and continues to be the reality of Zionism. Those who deny it are stupid, deluded or intentionally dishonest.

      || … For very very many, being anti-semitic is at the core of their opposition to Israel … ||

      While for every single Zio-supremacist Jewish supremacism in a religion supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine is at the core of their support for Israel.

    • Annie Robbins
      April 14, 2016, 2:14 am

      anybody opposing Zionism and negating the fundamental premise of Zionism, which was to overcome anti-semitism, is encouraging and fostering a legitimacy for anti-semitism.

      because, or if, or to the degree that, zionism emerged as a reaction to anti semitism does not make “to overcome anti semitism” the “fundamental premise of Zionism”.

      the fundamental premise of Zionism can be found here (note no mention of anti semitism and as a side note this is the 1st link that pops up by googling “zionism”):

      http://www.truetorahjews.org/whatiszionism

      here’s the 2nd source on the google link w/opening paragraph:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

      Zionism (Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת, IPA: [t͡sijo̞ˈnut], translit. Tziyonut, after Zion) is a nationalist and political movement of Jews and Jewish culture that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (roughly corresponding to Palestine, Canaan or the Holy Land).[1][2]

      furthermore, one can be against a movement because they disagree the fundamental political premise of a movement (for example, being pro-civic national and anti ethnic national states), not because they necessarily object to the reasons a movement emerged (ie: overcoming anti semitism), but because of the consequence of that emergence (being against what it entails (ethnic cleansing) to bring about the outcome).

      so your “logic” is amiss here. let’s say i am anti colonialist/ anti genocide and anti ethnic cleansing. if the fundamental premise of your movement requires either the practice of colonialism, genocide or ethnic cleansing, i can be anti your movement simply on the basis of being predisposed to anti colonialist/genocide/ethnic cleansing without even taking into consideration the reasons your movement emerged. that’s simple logic. but can i make the allegation that you, a supporter of your movement are necessarily pro genocide and pro ethnic cleansing? no i cannot. because i can (or may be able to) recognize you support your movement not because you are pro genocide but because you support the fundamental political premise of a movement (you want a jewish state in the holy land).

      but the nature/premise of zionism — the “in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel” part, not the establish a jewish state part — requires the dispossession of millions of other people from their homeland cannot be dismissed.

      “being against what it entails to bring about the outcome” does not an anti semite make. one can not insist on another’s rationale (you cannot insist one wants to deny jewish self determination if, in actuality one merely wants to deny the dispossession of another people (palestinians) — just like one cannot insist you are genocidal and pro ethnic cleansing when your goal is a jewish state. but if it just so happens your goal requires and entails genocide/ethnic cleansing — heck, i am not the racist for pointing that out.

      bds is a non violent form of resistance for full on equal rights for palestinians in their homeland. live with it — it’s not anti semitism and neither is anti zionism.

      anybody supporting Zionism and supporting the fundamental premise of Zionism, which has effectively created an apartheid state regardless of the reasons that movement may have emerged (to overcome anti-semitism) is encouraging and fostering a legitimacy for anti-semitism.

      • MHughes976
        April 14, 2016, 3:31 am

        ‘Zionism implies anti-anti-Semitism; AAS is true: Z is true’. This is absolutely and utterly illogical, as any textbook will tell you. A falsehood can easily imply a truth, as ‘there are no canals anywhere’ implies ‘there are no canals on Mars’. The true proposition doesn’t begin to support the false one.
        The first premise is also highly questionable. Why should ‘Jewish people have certain rights in the Holy Land’ imply ‘There is no room for prejudice against people who are Jewish’? The latter statement is true anyway and does not require this rather strange justification.

  29. MHughes976
    April 14, 2016, 11:51 am

    To add – anti-Semites are led by their prejudices to think that where Jews and non-Jews live together then a) the Jews benefit, by exploiting the others c) the others are harmed. But some might affirm b) without a) and so believe that the exile of the Jews makes everyone, Jew and non-Jew alike, worse off. This is ground on which Zionist and anti-Semite can meet and I think is the basis for Herzl’s hope that everyone, Western anti-Semites and ME Arsbs not excepted, would be – and would have good reason to be – reconciled to his grand, and I his view completely humane, conception. What is excluded by Zionism is not everything believed by anti-Semites but the multiculturalist belief that everyone is in principle better off living with diversity, even with the degree of diversity that has divergence that has developed between Jew and Christian. The roots of Z are not in the rejection of anti-S but in certain readings, which are centuries old, of the history and morality found in the Bible.

Leave a Reply