‘Anti-Zionism = anti-semitism’ is a formal logical fallacy

Activism
on 102 Comments
There is a canard going around that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. For example, the title of a recent article by Jonathan Sacks, the ex-chief rabbi of Great Britain, makes this into a formal equation: Anti-Zionism is the New anti-Semitism.

Sacks, of course, may not have chosen this title, but the title which makes the formal equation (anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism) is consistent with the tenor of the article. Sacks is saying anti-Zionists are anti-Semites. At the very least, he’s saying if you’re an anti-Zionist you’re automatically suspect for being an anti-Semite.

Peter Beinart takes issue with this. Beinart is very admiring and complimentary of Sacks but suggests that to make a formal equation between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism dehumanizes Palestinians.
Sacks says this:

“Anti-Semitism is a classic example of what anthropologist René Girard sees as the primal form of human violence: scapegoating. When bad things happen to a group, its members can ask two different questions: “What did we do wrong?” or “Who did this to us?” The entire fate of the group will depend on which it chooses.”

And that makes Beinart’s point. Anti-Semitism is scapegoating the Jews for (God knows what?) The point is the scapegoat bears the sin of others: the scapegoat is either innocent, or not the main problem. And that’s very obviously not true about Zionism. It is Zionism that drove 700,000+ from the land and won’t let them come back; it is Zionism that engages in military occupation and oppression of millions for 50 years now. Opposition to that is not scapegoating the Jews. And by Sacks’ own definition that makes anti-Zionism not anti-Semitism.

Now can anti-Zionists also be anti-Semites. Sure. But that’s an entirely different question….it has NOTHING to do with anti-Zionism. The strong claim that anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism is a formal logical fallacy. It is entirely lacking in merit.

What about the weaker, factual claim that many anti-Zionists also happen to be anti-Semites. That weaker claim, of course, is in the prejudiced eye of the beholder….  In order to back it up, you’d have to do studies; and designing objective studies about such a thing would be very tricky. Sacks cites a 2013 European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights study which surveyed the subjective feelings of 5,847 European Jews in an on-line survey. 66% of respondents reported anti-Semitism to be a problem. This included 35% of respondents who perceived any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic. Gathering data like this is important and necessary, but this study provides no information that would permit a conclusion that anti-Zionists are anti-Semites.

Sacks also cites a Brandeis University study of Jewish students who reported having been exposed to “anti-Semitic rhetoric” on college campuses. “Much of the intimidation on campus,” he said “is stirred by ‘Israel Apartheid’ weeks and the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) campaign against Israel.” This rather begs the question and assumes that BDS activism is anti-Semitism.
Once the formal claim (anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism) is rejected—which it must be because it’s a logical fallacy—then when you identify someone as an anti-Zionist, you’ve told me NOTHING about whether the anti-Zionist is an anti-Semite, or not.
Sacks is trying to move anti-Zionism into the definition of anti-Semitism, which is invalid.
This post first appeared on Roland Nikles’s blog.
About Roland Nikles

Roland Nikles is a Bay Area writer and attorney. He blogs here: rolandnikles.blogspot.com. And you can follow him on twitter @RolandNikles

Other posts by .


Posted In:

102 Responses

  1. jon s
    April 16, 2016, 4:45 pm

    Prof. Beinart nailed it.

  2. yourstruly
    April 16, 2016, 7:22 pm

    To be true to oneself the moral person must always side with the slave, never with the slave owner, even (better, especially) when the slave owner not only happens to be of the same religious persuasion as oneself, but insists, as is the case in Israel today, that s/he speaks for everyone of said persuasion. Except Israel has been built by way of the colonization by Jewish settlers of an indigenous people’s (the Palestinians’) homeland, with the subsequent “cleansing” of Palestinians so as to establish settler hegemony over the now stolen land. Settler colonization being a form of enslavement, no matter one’s closeness to the settlers (familial, ethnic, religious or otherwise), once again, to be true to oneself as a moral person one can only side with the slave.

    • YoniFalic
      April 17, 2016, 10:55 am

      Zionism is a particularly vicious form of 19th century-style white racist European genocidal colonialism in which European invaders destroy or expel a native population in order to create space to move in white racist Europeans and additionally a favored non-European population to play a servile role.

      There is no place on the planet for such an ideology any more than there is a place for 19th century-style white racist enslavement of people that descend from sub-Saharan African populations.

  3. Stephen Shenfield
    April 16, 2016, 7:22 pm

    The equation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism has two possible interpretations. One is that they are intrinsically equivalent, which is of course a logical fallacy. The other is more sophisticated: it is admitted that they are not intrinsically equivalent, in principle anti-Zionism need not be anti-Semitic, but in practice most anti-Zionists are concealed anti-Semites and are using anti-Zionism as a cover for their anti-Semitism. As this claim concerns the hidden motives of others, it can never be proven or disproven. However, it is extremely implausible to anyone not suffering from ethnocentric paranoia.

    • Yossarian22
      April 18, 2016, 10:26 am

      Not only is it unprovable, but it rests on the absurd assumption that in the West, anti-semitism is much more influential than anti-Arab racism or Islamophobia. The fact that both candidates to the GOP presidency are openly Islamophobic yet the closest thing to anti-semitism you see on national politics is a reference to “New York values”, the constant harassment of Muslim-Americans and the war on Mosques should prove that it’s beyond laughable. When was the last time a Haredi Jew was denied boarding on a plane for speaking Hebrew or Yiddish or for wearing religious garb? When’s the last time an entire town rose up to protest and harass its synagogue? When’s the last time a major national politician said a Jew should never be allowed to become president or that Jews should be targeted as potential traitors? The fact is that if you’re going to decide your stance on I/P based on racial prejudice, you are of course going to side with Israel just like a racist would side with a Polish-American over an African-American. I’ve met plenty of anti-semites who said nasty things about Israel, but every single one of them also called Palestinians things like “sand n***ers” or “camel jockeys.”

  4. Marnie
    April 17, 2016, 12:34 am

    anti-zionism = antisemitism = the Cheyne-Stokes respirations of a dying canard. Pull the plug!

  5. amigo
    April 17, 2016, 9:09 am

    The moral of the story is, !!!.

    We so called anti semites are encouraged vociferously by zionists to condemn Syria/Iraq / Iran/North Korea etc etc but to condemn Israel is anti semitic.

    They are telling us , that we must “Leave Israel alone” becuse they are the Jewish State. Wouldn,t it be anti Semitic to ignore Israel,s war crimes , because some Jews are involved.Should we avoid condemning an African American who committed a crime because he /she is Black. Surely that would be racism.

    • silamcuz
      April 17, 2016, 10:32 am

      Framing our criticism of Zionism in the correct manner is vital for attracting the good kind of support. When we vociferously condemn governmental policies of the Israeli state, and frame them as being exclusive to Israel is IMO a bit anti-semitic, and can be used against us by the Zionists.

      Recently, an event organised by the Stanford chapter of SJP had to be cancelled because it was being co-opted by American nationalists who tried to frame anti-Zionism as a pro-American ideology. This sort of framing is really not helpful and can be construed as a form of anti-semitism, especially considering Israel is merely acting as a partner of global imperialism, along with many other bigger nations, including of course, America. SJP had to release statements explaining their decision and apologize to those already committed to the event, because of the actions of supposed anti-Zionists who in reality are just white supremacist co-opting a progressive, secular movement for their own motives.

      I suppose this is why need to ensure our criticism of Israel is based on objective political analysis, not ideology or morality.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 17, 2016, 11:15 am

        an event organised by the Stanford chapter of SJP had to be cancelled because it was being co-opted by American nationalists who tried to frame anti-Zionism as a pro-American ideology.

        that’s a lie. this sort of framing (inserting untruths to make your point) is really not helpful and can be construed as propaganda. the event was canceled by the palestinian speaker after a (or some) SJP member(s) informed her she couldn’t say she didn’t think israel had a right to exist. so, if you want to make the argument the palestinian speaker thinks isreal doesn’t have a right to exist because American nationalists frame anti-Zionism as a pro-American ideology that’s up to you. but you can’t really make the argument that’s why the speaker of the event decided not to speak because she explains it herself and she’s the one who canceled the event, not SJP.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 17, 2016, 11:34 am

        maybe you’d care to reframe whatever it is you’re trying to say without venturing into untruths about why the speaker refused to speak. also, both sjp and the palestinian speaker published their version of events, in their own words. sjp retracted their first explanation and posted a 2nd explanation. you could try quoting them directly.

      • amigo
        April 17, 2016, 11:44 am

        “I suppose this is why need to ensure our criticism of Israel is based on objective political analysis, not ideology or morality.” silamcuz

        How the hell does one critise Israel without being moral.

        You sure your not a zio apologist.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 17, 2016, 12:21 pm

        amigo, there’s something particularly orwellian about being instructed on morality and how to frame criticism “in the correct manner” by someone who proceeds to tell a completely skewered story that doesn’t align with the truth.

        i feel sort of sorry for those stanford sjp kids. i get the impression the surrounding events on campus and the pressure to silence criticism of israel on campus and the dialogue about, and focus on, anti semitism is so prevalent that these kids are afraid to have an open discussion without being condemned or shut down by the school. this issue or question of ‘does israel have a right to exist’ is a perfectly valid one to have beginning with the very premise of the question itself — do states have a ‘right to exist’? and if they did — why are there no laws protecting the ‘right of existence’ for states or regimes? it’s an interesting philosophical discussion. but it sounds like that basic question has already been flung to the wayside and determined this so called ‘right’ (which i don’t think exists at all) is already a settled matter and if one denies it to israel one is afraid of being accused of anti semitism.

        and even if that’s not at the root of it, whoever posted that first explanation (whether it was one person or a few) was so turned around they posted a bunch of completely unsubstantiated allegations (weir allegedly claiming communism was a jewish conspiracy being one of them, i can’t recall the others — something about arabs) they had to then retract. i mean where does one come up w/this stuff or to make accusations with nary a bit of evidence. to be that flustered or fearful of reprisal a group of kids can’t figure out how to deal with the mere presence of a person they deem to be racist as a member of the audience. can you even imagine them telling a zionist jewish student they could not even be present in the room as a member of the audience to listen to a speaker at a public event because they rejected their ideology? not in a million years! yet this is basically what they tried to justify and they did it by either making up stories (at worst) or publishing unconfirmed rumors. and as palestinians, to be fearful to publicly discuss (or hold and event that discusses) the merits of israel’s existence — sad. very sad. this kind of pressure — or whatever kind of pressure they are under — should not be present at one of our top universities, or any university.

      • ritzl
        April 17, 2016, 11:54 am

        “…We…” ?

        Strange comment. Color me skeptical, though you could well be who you present yourself to be.

        This from EI (Charlotte Silver):

        “Is anti-BDS group Sawtona impersonating Palestinians?”

        https://electronicintifada.net/content/anti-bds-group-sawtona-impersonating-palestinians/16326

        Just putting it out there. Seems like a new tactic (or an old tactic and a new effort).

      • Annie Robbins
        April 17, 2016, 1:06 pm

        ritzl, we dropped the ball on that story. i was in contact about a month ago w/both Sireen and professor curtis when these events occurred at purdue. then we were contacted by a person alleging to be a student from canada who was active in pro palestine activism and alleged to have met anwar salem when she was in palestine and was interested in contacting us with him. she said the group sawtona was active on some american campuses or something. so when i mentioned i had heard of the group but couldn’t figure out what student group they were affiliated with asked her what university she went to and what student groups she was working with she responded that she wasn’t currently a student and she failed to mention any specific university. i couldn’t confirm her existence — there was no social media trail with her name on it. so i asked if she knew anyone whose identity could be confirmed that was associated with the group operating on any campus and she couldn’t do that either. but, she said she could set me up with an interview with this anwar person allegedly in palestine who she claimed to have met. and, in exchange for her connecting him with me we would agree to do an exclusive interview with him!!! — promoting his fake group no doubt.

        it gets worse. they have been stalking certain students. the administration at the schools know about it. and, i think it’s the students supporting israel on campus group (SSI) who are impersonating the palestine group on campus. that’s what it appears to be and that is who is likely plastering campuses with these posters. and that is because at one of the events they were live tweeting (a reference EI makes) but the only palestinians present in the room were all not affiliated w/the fake group. and the SSI students were present at the bds event — and likely the ones live tweeting.

        anyway, due to my editorial parameters, i didn’t write the story. but it’s a hot story.

      • MHughes976
        April 17, 2016, 12:29 pm

        I just want to second amigo’s remarks

      • ritzl
        April 17, 2016, 1:42 pm

        Hi Annie. I agree that it’s a big story. If Sireen had a hard time detecting the tactic, it’s effective and dangerous.

        It needs exposure.

      • amigo
        April 17, 2016, 1:56 pm

        silamcuz—Be yourself, everyone else is already taken.(Oscar Wilde)

      • amigo
        April 17, 2016, 2:01 pm

        “I just want to second amigo’s remarks”, MHughes976

        Thanks .

      • gamal
        April 17, 2016, 4:34 pm

        Thanks for the video Annie, Amina is wonderful.

        “ritzl, we dropped the ball on that story.” you are kidding, now you have to be a damn ninja even to talk about Palestine. There is some weird sandbagging of ‘White folks” with all this supremacy crap, yes in America lets first organize against America, now there is objective politics untainted with either morality or common sense.

        going to read that one again with this on (yes the impossible rhythm is ours now we appropriated it and will not be sending it back, look how it thrives with us)

        https://youtu.be/tbTGaDfiPPM

      • Bumblebye
        April 17, 2016, 5:33 pm

        I read about the “Sawtona” thing, it reminded me that I’ve come across a couple of abnormal fb presences lately – since one fellow pm’d a threat to me after I called him out on his PEP hypocrisy. Latest one pretends to be a high schooler from a city near my town, but there’s just so much wrong with what is and is not on the page that very few could be fooled for long.

        edit
        a high schooler, on fb supposedly since middle of last year – but NO friends?! And no, not the “no friends to show” line – just NO friends.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 17, 2016, 9:39 pm

        great music gamal! but i’ll have to start it over when i press post comment! wow. so fun.

        bumblebye, they are so transparently false it can’t be anything but a hoax. one of the videos put out by the group..i transcribed a bunch of it. let me go see if i can find it. outrageous quotes.

        and what’s the point of writing someone claiming you’re a student in toronto working for the rights of palestinians only to have to write back you are not really a student? and then i asked what groups she worked with in toronto and the answer was none but can i connect her to any please? it appears NO one connected to this group can identify themselves. whereas, someone with that ptv could make a fortune working for david horowitz’s hate group. reminds me of th canary people.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 17, 2016, 9:47 pm

        here’s the quote from their interview with a palestinian

        it’s true that israel is occupying but also hugging us when it comes to livelihood. also we are very happy about it in comparison to other Arab countries who lost contact with us. But we as the Palestinians people are against the occupation but they (the israelis) give us all the rights we deserve. All the rights other Arab countries don’t give us.

        !!!!

      • silamcuz
        April 18, 2016, 5:35 am

        “that’s a lie. this sort of framing (inserting untruths to make your point) is really not helpful and can be construed as propaganda….sjp retracted their first explanation and posted a 2nd explanation. you could try quoting them directly. ” – Annie Robbins

        You are correct in saying there were two distinct statements made, but I do not believe SJP claimed the latter statement to supersede the former. Each statement explained different issues that in combination lead to the cancellation of the event.

        Here is the first statement by SJP, regarding the unwelcome intrusion of white supremacists into the event which is still up in the group’s official Face Book page.

        Stanford Students for Justice in Palestine decided to cancel our event “The Exiled Palestinians.” This was due to the presence of Alison Weir, who has openly expressed anti-Semitic sentiments. Although she was not invited, Ms. Weir came to our event with the purpose of selling copies of her book and distributing materials promoting her personal website. When asked to remove her materials, she eventually removed her books but left other materials advertising her website. We expressed our discomfort with her materials as well as her presence at our event given that she claimed to be associated with the event, but she refused to leave….

        Ms. Weir has also made derogatory remarks about Arabs, endorsed speech by a former head of the KKK, denied the impact of South African Apartheid, and referred to communism as a Jewish conspiracy. We find such speech to be unacceptable, and it has no place in our movement.

        The crux of the matter is, the movement for justice in Palestine is constantly under threat of being co-opted unwillingly, by undesirable groups or characters that can bring down the image of the movement as a whole. Anti-Zionism is indeed not anti-semitic, in fact I would argue Zionism is the fundamentally anti-semitic (anti-Jewish) however that doesn’t mean there aren’t people jumping for the chance to legitimize their hatred and bigotry by co-opting anti-Zionism.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 18, 2016, 11:03 am

        but I do not believe SJP claimed the latter statement to supersede the former.

        maybe you missed this part:

        (bolded on original)

        ** We do regret that the previous statement issued on April 8 had factual inaccuracies; the statement that “In addition, Ms. Weir has also made derogatory remarks about Arabs, endorsed speech by a former head of the KKK, denied the impact of South African Apartheid, and referred to communism as a Jewish conspiracy” is not true.

      • silamcuz
        April 18, 2016, 11:35 am

        With regards to the statement by Ms. Elashkar, the invited speaker to the cancelled event, I believe what she said only serves to exonerate Stanford SJP for taking the correct step in not humoring her unnecessarily provocative stance towards Israel’s right to exist.

        She comes off as severely arrogant and disrespectful to the organizers, in addition to being hopelessly inept in political discourse. How is boasting that Israel has no right to exist, in front of a diverse crowd of supporters and adversaries, be helpful to the movement especially considering the present political climate in Stanford.

        Right when the Stanford pro-Israel camp is pushing out the narratives connecting anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism and stoking Islamophobia at the same time, for a visibly Muslim Palestinian to go on stage in a open event and passionately state Israel has no right to exist strikes me as too sabotaging to be an honest expression of resistance.

        It’s as if Ms. Elashkar is deliberately trying to stir up trouble for the SJP organisation. Why not just focus on the letting the attendees know of your horrible experiences due to Israeli policies, and allow them to debate the right of existence among themselves based on your side of the story?

      • Mooser
        April 18, 2016, 4:03 pm

        “The crux of the matter is, the movement for justice in Palestine is constantly under threat of being co-opted unwillingly, by undesirable groups or characters that can bring down the image of the movement as a whole.”

        Whew! Good thing that could never, ever happen to Zionism! No really it’s impossible. If Zionism was accused of such a thing (“co-opted unwillingly, by undesirable groups or characters that can bring down the image of the movement as a whole”) it could only be as a result of antisemitism!

      • silamcuz
        April 19, 2016, 10:04 am

        Annie Robbins :

        “maybe you missed this part”

        Actually I did miss that part, thank you for point that out! However, the full statement does indicate that the uninvited person, Allison Weir has links to white supremacist groups even though she claims to be an anti-Zionist :

        These remarks were in fact made by notorious white supremacist Clay Douglas to Ms. Weir during the times she appeared on his radio show, “The Free American Hour”. However, it is important to note that Ms. Weir did nothing to challenge these assertions by Mr. Douglas and has in fact repeatedly stated her belief that Mr. Douglas is not racist, violent, or anti-Semitic.

        I also researched upon SJP’s rather strong allegations upon the purported anti-Zionist activist, and to my surprise, found that their stance towards her and her organisation is supported by a wide group of well-known activists and pro-Palestinian organisations. Some of the major ones include Rebecca Pierce (https://twitter.com/aptly_engineerd), Ali Abunimah (https://twitter.com/aliabunimah/status/610844197017419777), Jewish Voice for Peace (https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fjewishvoiceforpeace.org%2Fjewish-voice-for-peace-statement-on-our-relationship-with-alison-weir%2F&h=6AQFaQXED), Ben Norton (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10154045737750850&set=a.10150118033445850.320582.675805849&type=3&theater) among many others.

        In addition, one of Ms. Weir’s main supporters against SJP is the co-founder of the Free Gaza Movement, Greta Berlin who also claims to be an anti-Zionist activist. However, Ms. Berlin has been widely discredited by those within the movement as harboring anti-semitic viewpoints and run a Facebook page that is filled with blatantly anti-Semitic rhetorics, which goes unmoderated. If that wasn’t bad enough, she is also alleged to have made Islamophobic attacks towards those she disagrees with in the movement. (https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/final-word-greta-berlin-and-free-gaza-controversy)

        These prove that we are not short of people of significant influence and followings that are actively disseminating anti-semitic thoughts and ideas while cloaking themselves as anti-Zionists. In the end, the party that will bear the costs of these opportunistic,devious actions are the Palestinians and pro-Palestinian activists.

      • Mooser
        April 19, 2016, 11:42 am

        “that are actively disseminating anti-semitic thoughts and ideas while cloaking themselves as anti-Zionists.”

        Yeah, yeah, and since there hasn’t been a single thing antisemites haven’t accused Jews of, any accusation directed at a Jewish person or organization will resemble a spurious antisemitic accusation.
        Viola! Complete immunity!

      • Annie Robbins
        April 20, 2016, 6:52 pm

        I also researched upon SJP’s rather strong allegations upon the purported anti-Zionist activist, and to my surprise….. Ms. Weir did nothing to challenge these assertions

        it may come as a surprise to you but everyone here already knows all about this. we had a thread with over a 1000 comments on it and it was discussed thoroughly all over the internet for months. we’ve also had lots and lots of commenters — such as yourself — who can’t help but insert weir into every thread. we’ve heard it all, there’s literally nothing you can say about this long drawn out saga that will come as a surprise to any of us. but how thrilling you were surprised. you must have been in a coma or living under a rock for many months to miss these well worn details. — or, else you’re just lying about being “surprised”.

      • silamcuz
        April 21, 2016, 5:15 am

        Annie Robbins :

        “it may come as a surprise to you but everyone here already knows all about this. we had a thread with over a 1000 comments on it and it was discussed thoroughly all over the internet for months”

        Annie, I did have a look at that thread you mentioned, and the consensus among the MW site editors appear to be in support of SJP.

        Ms. Weir’s white nationalist organisation, If Americans Knew, however, is still sharing articles published in Mondoweiss in their official Facebook page, which I am assuming is being done without consent of Phil Weiss. In my opinion, this serves to present a scenario whereby IAR is someway affiliated with MW, when it is clearly not. I just thought this should be brought onto light here, in case people, especially the editors are not aware of it.

    • eljay
      April 17, 2016, 1:04 pm

      || silamcuz: … When we vociferously condemn governmental policies of the Israeli state, and frame them as being exclusive to Israel is IMO a bit anti-semitic … ||

      I’m not aware of any other state governments:
      – defining their states as religion-supremacist “Jewish States”;
      – occupying and colonizing Palestine;
      – refusing to allow Israeli refugees to return to their homes and lands; and
      – refusing to enter into sincere negotiations with the Palestinians for a just and mutually-beneficial resolution to the I-P issue.

      || … This sort of framing is really not helpful and can be construed as a form of anti-semitism, especially considering Israel is merely acting as a partner of global imperialism, along with many other bigger nations, including of course, America. SJP had to release statements explaining their decision and apologize to those already committed to the event, because of the actions of supposed anti-Zionists who in reality are just white supremacist co-opting a progressive, secular movement for their own motives. … ||

      Hi, rugal_b / a4tech! :-)

      • Mooser
        April 19, 2016, 11:46 am

        “Now that so many have essentially agreed with me, I am completely baffled that my original comment was filtered out.”

        “Pablo Christiani speaks.”

        Damn, I knew the Moderation process could be slow here, but this is ridiculous! 700+ years?

  6. YoniFalic
    April 17, 2016, 8:38 pm

    Now that so many have essentially agreed with me, I am completely baffled that my original comment was filtered out.

    Silamcuz is clearly a crypto-Zionist, and as a former Israeli and as a former Jew, I certainly believe that Israel should be dismantled and that the invaders like my family should be relocated.

    From the standpoint of international law the point is simple.

    If the international anti-genocide legal regime is supposed to be meaningful, the State of Israel must be dismantled.

    After Auschwitz a state founded in post-Auschwitz genocide is disgusting and evil. Res ipsa loquitur.

    As for the original comment from Silamcuz, here is what I wrote.

    Zionism is an extreme organic nationalist ideology which is reasonably considered opposed to the civil or voluntary nationalist ideals on which the US is supposed to be based.

    It is perfectly reasonable to frame Zionism as completely un-American and to frame those that support Zionism or the State of Israel as subversives and enemies of the USA and of American ideals.

    I have to add that the State of Israel has become an intrinsic component of the white racist ideology of many US white racists.

    Progressive anti-Zionists must emphasize the Gleichschaltung of US white racist ideology and genocidal Zionist racism.

    I carefully chose to use the Nazi term to emphasize exactly what is happening in the sick minds of Neocons, white racists, and Israeli Jews.

    It is a mentality I know well because I used to be one of those progressive racist Israeli Jewish Nazis.

    • hophmi
      April 18, 2016, 9:35 am

      Pablo Christiani speaks. It’s always the ex-whatevers who hate their peoples the most. The ex-Muslims hate Islam, the ex-Christians hate Christianity, and the ex-Jews hate Judaism.

      It’s not enough to call for Israel’s dismantlement. No. Jews should be “relocated.” Wonder what that means.

      • Mooser
        April 18, 2016, 11:36 am

        “Pablo Christiani speaks. It’s always the ex-whatevers who hate their peoples the most. The ex-Muslims hate Islam, the ex-Christians hate Christianity, and the ex-Jews hate Judaism.”

        “Hophmi” knows the true measure of religion is how much you hate the other religions, not how much you criticize your own.

      • hophmi
        April 18, 2016, 1:31 pm

        Hophmi knows that using “ex-Jews” to say harsh things about Judaism has a long, disreputable history. Hophmi also knows that ex-Muslims who speak this way about Islam, like Ayaan Hirst Ali, are pillorized here. Hophmi also knows that it’s by now a tried and true technique of Mooser’s to refuse to distinguish between criticism of Israel and crazy things that anti-Zionists say, like calling on Jews to “relocate” from Israel, and then to suggest that I’m arguing that all criticism of Israel is bad when I call people here out on some of the outrageous things that they say.

      • Mooser
        April 18, 2016, 4:18 pm

        “Hophmi also knows that it’s by now a tried and true technique of Mooser’s “

        Which worked again!
        Well, I’m gonna go take a nap, get my head “pillorized” (sic).
        I’ll be dreaming of the 13th Century.

      • YoniFalic
        April 19, 2016, 1:13 pm

        “Relocate” means “get on a plane to travel to a new home” as I did. The racist E. European, S. Arabian, N. African, and Aramean-Mesopotamian invaders certainly don’t belong in Palestine as I didn’t. Removing the invaders is the first step in providing relief to the natives.

        As for Pablo Christiani, Petrus Alphonsi, etc., we simply don’t have enough information to delve into the motivations of these people. There is no reason to believe they hated Jews per se.

        Current thinking suggests that before the 12th century, Judaism in Spain was mostly Hellenistic and non-Talmudic. Many Spanish Jews seem to have been uncomfortable with Talmudization because they considered this new form of Judaism to be questionable religiously and inauthentic historically. Petrus Alphonsi and Pablo Christiani seem to have reached the point where they could not live in a Talmudizing or Talmudized Jewish community.

        There may be an analogy between Talmudization in the 12th or 13th century and Zionization in the 19th, 20th, or 21st century as long as we qualify that Talmudizers did not plot, carry out, or advocate genocide as Zionists dis or do.

      • echinococcus
        April 19, 2016, 1:55 pm

        Current thinking suggests that before the 12th century, Judaism in Spain was mostly Hellenistic and non-Talmudic. Many Spanish Jews seem to have been uncomfortable with Talmudization

        You are becoming my go-to bibliography source. May I have some references, if you happen to have them handy? The fact is that “Hellenizing” tendencies were mentioned, anecdotally, by some of the well-informed, down into the end of the 20th C –before, that is, the Sefardís remaining in the area got thoroughly zionized (but were attributed to Romaniote influence.) That this has only a tenuous relationship to what you mention, i.e. ritual stuff in past times, is obvious but I’m just wondering if there may be any relationship at all.

      • hophmi
        April 19, 2016, 2:29 pm

        “The racist E. European, S. Arabian, N. African, and Aramean-Mesopotamian invaders certainly don’t belong in Palestine as I didn’t. ”

        Every Jew in Israel is an invader, including the Arab Jews who were kicked out of the rest of the Middle East. Got it.

        “As for Pablo Christiani, Petrus Alphonsi, etc., we simply don’t have enough information to delve into the motivations of these people. There is no reason to believe they hated Jews per se.”

        We have no reason to believe that a guy who prevailed about Louis IX to compel Jews to wear badges singling them out as Jews, prevailed on the Pope to order all copies of the Talmud burned, and used the power of King James 1 and Raymond de Penyafort to force Jewish communities to listen to his speeches and to pay the expenses for his travel hated Jews per se. He was just an anti-Zionist, right?

      • Keith
        April 19, 2016, 9:12 pm

        HOPHMI- “We have no reason to believe that a guy who prevailed about Louis IX to compel Jews to wear badges singling them out as Jews, prevailed on the Pope to order all copies of the Talmud burned, and used the power of King James 1 and Raymond de Penyafort to force Jewish communities to listen to his speeches and to pay the expenses for his travel hated Jews per se.”

        And to you, it was all just like yesterday. The only history you know is the biased Judeo-centric “history” of Jews and Jew-haters. That is all you know and all you want to know. No tribalism here, folks!

      • Donald
        April 20, 2016, 8:29 am

        Hophmi is right. If all Jews whose ancestors are not native to Palestine need to leave, then that’s just a new form of ethnic cleansing. That’s not what a 1ss with equal rights for everyone is supposed to mean.

      • Sibiriak
        April 20, 2016, 9:09 am

        Donald:If all Jews whose ancestors are not native to Palestine need to leave, then that’s just a new form of ethnic cleansing.
        —————-

        It’s also a pipe-dream–born of frustration and anger. Many well-intentioned moralists think their vision of perfect justice not only can be achieved , it must be achieved. The Palestinians haven’t been able to get even a fifth of the pie, so why not demand the whole damn thing? They certainly deserve it!

        Colin Wright expressed what I imagine many people feel:

        I’d hate to see the Palestinians agree to settle for 22% of Palestine, when in fact they have a legal right to 47% of Palestine and a moral right to 100% of it.

        Hostage’s retort:

        […]The Palestinians have made it clear that they view the 1967 lines as the interim point of departure for any renewed rounds of boundary negotiations. If they don’t secure recognition of any undisputed territory, pretty soon they’ll end up standing on a cake of soap floating in the Mediterranean. [emphasis added]

        http://mondoweiss.net/2012/09/abbas-warns-repeatedly-of-new-nakba-israel-ethnically-cleansing-palestinians/#comment-503751

      • echinococcus
        April 20, 2016, 9:33 am

        If all Jews whose ancestors are not native to Palestine need to leave, then that’s just a new form of ethnic cleansing. That’s not what a 1ss with equal rights for everyone is supposed to mean.

        As you say, that’s not what a 1ss with equal rights means. The 1ss with equal etc. may be a worthy, lofty goal, but it still has no formal authorization from the owners of sovereignty over Palestine (ie the Palestinian people, including all refugees and ex-refugees pushed out by the Zionist invasion, excluding all invaders with hostile intent, in the form of a general plebiscite.) In the absence of which any 1, 2, 3 etc-SS is no different than the illegal partition or anything else imposed by colonial powers without authorization from the owners.

        Besides, no “ethnic cleansing” of the intruders is needed. Give me a guess as to the number of Herrenvolk invaders who would gladly remain in Palestine if they have to take Palestinian citizenship, or even nondenominational citizenship with strictly enforced equal rights with Palestinians (and payment due for everything.) These brainwashed Zionist riffraff will have no difficulty staying in their respective home countries, or in the US that already guaranteed taking up those who don’t like the idea. So the term “ethnic cleansing” is seriously inappropriate.

        Considering the belligerent and group-suicidal mindset of the overwhelming majority of the invaders, any peaceful solution remains a pipe dream anyway.

      • Mooser
        April 20, 2016, 12:05 pm

        .” If all Jews whose ancestors are not native to Palestine need to leave, then that’s just a new form of ethnic cleansing.”

        Oh, please. So if I murder you and your family, move into your house, I can keep it if I have children?

        You simply cannot conceive that people in Israel, Zionists, Jews, whatever you want to call them, will never have to take responsibility if they use their children as human shields? Once again, confusing the prerogatives of raw power with self-determination or civil rights, or something.

      • Mooser
        April 20, 2016, 2:36 pm

        “Pablo Christiani speaks. It’s always the ex-whatevers who hate their peoples the most.”

        You know, “Hophmi” I could be a better goddam Zionism defender than you, and I am a dyed-in-the-Woolite antizionist.
        It never even occurred to you to maybe suggest that “Yoni” might be suffering from PTSD, acquired in the defense of Israel and thus his inexplicable behavior and ideas? Nope, you go right to the “Pablo Christiani”.

        Anyway, I’m glad you gave non-Jewish readers a glimpse into the warm, inclusive world we Jews have developed as an antidote to the unrelenting persecution we are subjected to.

    • jon s
      April 19, 2016, 4:12 pm

      Do I understand correctly that YoniFalic’s hate-filled comment was shot down by Moderation, but then he reposted it by quoting himself, and here it is, vicious Jew-hatred, from a meshumad, no less.

      • Mooser
        April 19, 2016, 4:33 pm

        Shorter “Jon s”: ‘Yoni grew up in Israel, served in the IDF, and scares me silly’

        Amazing, the lack of gratitude and disrespect an Israeli gets for defending his country. And from Americans, too.
        Oh well, what do they care, “Hoophmi” doesn’t live there, and if Israel does anything which offends “Jon s” left-liberal sensibilities, he’ll get right on a plane and leave!

        Jeez, how on earth do real Israelis stand guys like “Jon s”(IDF draft dodger) and “Hophmi”?

      • Mooser
        April 19, 2016, 4:41 pm

        “from a meshumad, no less.”

        A “meshumad” is a filthy Hebrew derogatory term for a person who won’t take part in the profits from a crime, or won’t accept a windfall from somebody elses misfortune. A very nasty thing to call someone.

      • gamal
        April 19, 2016, 8:42 pm

        ” “meshumad” is a filthy Hebrew derogatory”

        whereas Meshumar will provide you with a Kosher phone wherein the data is blocked,

        http://venishmartem.com/old/filters/phones/item/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%A8-phone

        because the internet poses a significant threat to “Yiras Shomayim”

        http://venishmartem.com/old/haskamos-prevention

        I have never been called an apostate but perhaps have the distinction of having been declared a heretic by both Muslims I taught and Buddhists I was a student of, I have known very many Buddhist Jews or Meshumadim, is that right, they were good fun we abominationated all together, but shall regret it no doubt when ISIS or JONIS gets here.

      • yonah fredman
        April 19, 2016, 11:18 pm

        A meshumad means someone who is born Jewish and who converts to another religion. If someone was born Jewish and declares they are no longer jewish, I have never heard the term meshumad used to describe them.

      • echinococcus
        April 19, 2016, 11:57 pm

        Well, Mr Fredman, if this is so then you confirm that Mooser’s definition is absolutely correct. Thanks.

      • jon s
        April 20, 2016, 5:24 am

        yonah,
        I think that YoniFalic has earned it.

      • Sibiriak
        April 20, 2016, 9:55 am

        echinococcus: Well, Mr Fredman, if this is so then you confirm that Mooser’s definition is absolutely correct.
        ———-

        So now, in your mind, Judaism is a crime, a criminal enterprise profiting from “somebody else’s misfortune”.

        Got it.

      • yonah fredman
        April 20, 2016, 9:59 am

        Jon s, yonifalik is a jew hater, who considers himself an ex jew, or the son of an ex jew. I suppose that given the taboo on such words as kapo and piece of s*** and worthless c*** you have found the word meshumad instead. That he is defended by echo and the demon offspring of pfeffercorn and Jackie mason indicates that you might be on to something. It’s tuff to find appropriate names for some of the drek around here.

      • YoniFalic
        April 20, 2016, 11:30 am

        I hate genocidaires, genocide supporters, genocide advocates, and human garbage that expects to benefit from genocide.

        People, that favor post-Auschwitz genocide and want people to get a pass for post-Auschwitz genocide because they are “Jewish” in some obscure way, are particularly vile and despicable.

      • Mooser
        April 20, 2016, 11:47 am

        “I think that YoniFalic has earned it.”

        Ah, so “Yoni” who left Israel, is a traitor, and ex-Jew, while “Jon s” shows his Jewish fervor by helping hold stolen ground and indoctrinating kids for the IDF.

        Yup, we’ve come a long way, joined the big leagues.

      • Mooser
        April 20, 2016, 1:02 pm

        “defended by echo and the demon offspring of pfeffercorn and Jackie mason”

        Easy to see what a joy it is to be Jewish. It’s the comforting embrace and fellow-feeling (and the girls don’t feel bad either!) which promotes tribal unity. Can you imagine anything nicer?

        “words as kapo and piece of s*** and worthless c***”

        Brave, brave “Yonah” curses out an IDF veteran over the Internet. Brave, brave Sir “Yonah”!

        Hey, but this is really starting to put a new light on that whole “Jewish persecution” thing. I mean c’mon, can you conceive of anybody anybody in this world, tough enough to persecute “Yonah” “Hophmi” and “Jon s”. Why, I’m sure it can’t be done! And oh, the inestimable joy of growing up with folks like them.

      • Mooser
        April 20, 2016, 1:17 pm

        I think that YoniFalic has earned it.” “Jon s”

        Yup “Jon s” think Yoni is entitled to the fruits of murder and dispossession, and can’t understand why he won’t take it, like a good… is supposed to? That’s very nice of “Jon s”

      • Mooser
        April 20, 2016, 2:04 pm

        ,”Yonah Fredman”: “yonifalik is a jew hater, who considers himself an ex jew, or the son of an ex jew. I suppose that given the taboo on such words as kapo and piece of s*** and worthless c*** you have found the word meshumad instead. That he is defended by echo and the demon offspring of pfeffercorn and Jackie mason indicates that you might be on to something. It’s tuff to find appropriate names for some of the drek around here.”

        Okay, we need some new Moderation rules around here.
        This has got to stop!
        I propose, that from now on, nobody is allowed to say anything about Jews which is worse than what Jews say about each other! That seems fair to me.

        How bout you, “Yonah” “Hophmi” and “Jons”? You old “demon offspring”, you. Do you like that standard? Seems fair to me. And once again Tribal Unity defeats all comers!

        “And the inestimable joy…” Sorry, I thought I had deleted that line.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 20, 2016, 6:57 pm

        who’s the demon offspring of pfeffercorn? never even heard of pfeffercorn.

      • Mooser
        April 20, 2016, 7:24 pm

        “who’s the demon offspring of pfeffercorn?”

        “…and Jackie Mason”? They were married?

      • echinococcus
        April 22, 2016, 12:00 am

        Sibiriak,

        So now, in your mind, Judaism is a crime, a criminal enterprise profiting from “somebody else’s misfortune”

        Instead of posturing, kindly provide the list of temples, parochial organizations, Hassidic bacchanal groups, etc. that support resistance against Zionism or at the very least audibly dissociate themselves from Zionism. The only ones I can see are Neturei Karta –not such a lot. JVP is uncertain as to its character and mainly into non-religious inherited tribality.

        I don’t like abstract concepts in the discussion of real phenomena. The reality of Judaism is now Zionism. Most of the serious exceptions are six feet under, and even their children are getting too long in the teeth.

      • Sibiriak
        April 22, 2016, 1:17 pm

        echinococcus: … provide the list of […]groups, etc. that support resistance against Zionism or at the very least audibly dissociate themselves from Zionism–a.
        ————–

        You are either not thinking clearly or engaging in inane sophistry.

        The fact that many adherents of Judaism (Jewish religion in its many differing forms) support Zionism or are associated with Zionism does not demonstrate that Judaism is Zionism, that Judaism itself is a “crime”.

        The reality of Judaism is now Zionism.

        Judaism had existed for centuries, and when Zionism appeared, it was widely opposed by religious Jews. Then, following the Nazi genocide and the creation of Israel, most relgious Jews began to support Zionism and Israel. Now a growing number are questioning Zionism and Israel, if not embracing outright opposition. Change is possible. The future is open.

        Those real phenomena demonstrate that Judaism and Zionism are two different things, and there is no fixed, constant relation between them. Your conflation of Judaism and Zionism is no less fallacious than the Zionists’ self-serving conflation of the two. Most importantly, equating Judaism with Zionism and labeling Judaism a crime, not just Zionism, is in no way helpful to the Palestinian cause.

      • MHughes976
        April 23, 2016, 9:57 am

        I hope for a ‘solution’ that will be genuinely agreed and will cause happiness rather than misery, so do not hope that anyone will be expelled or excluded. That said, I don’t agree that pushing back ethic cleansers, or heirs who have consolidated their gains amid fire and sword, is in principle just another, perhaps rather more limited, form of ethnic cleansing. It absolutely can’t be. If ethnic cleansing is a terrible crime against the weaker race by others then undoing some of its results is not excluding or disadvantaging those others on the grounds of their race but on the grounds of their misdeeds, even if they are all of one race themselves, as ethic cleansers may well be. If the moral rule is to oppose all ethnic cleansing as much as you can then then you cannot follow the role out by leaving its results unchanged when you have a chance to change them.

  7. Talkback
    April 17, 2016, 8:49 pm

    Who cares about what lying shmocks are trying to frame as antisemitic? And who even cares about antizionism?

    It’s about universalism, humanism, international and human rights. Try to frame this as antisemitic, shmocks.

    • hophmi
      April 18, 2016, 1:34 pm

      It’s not hard, especially when calling your movement universal, humanistic, or about human rights doesn’t pass the laugh test. Sorry. You don’t get to call yourself an advocate of universalism, humanism, or human rights when your activism in the Middle East is focused on Israel, but not on states like Iraq, where minority groups are facing a genocide, or Saudi Arabia, where human rights are nonexistent.

      You do get to call yourself an armchair Palestinian nationalist, if achieving a state for the Palestinians is your goal, or an armchair Hamasnik, if your goal is simply ending the state of Israel.

      • Mooser
        April 18, 2016, 4:27 pm

        “…or an armchair Hamasnik, if your goal is simply ending the state of Israel.”

        “an armchair Hamasnik” Wow, that is lame.

      • eljay
        April 18, 2016, 5:04 pm

        || hophmi: … You don’t get to call yourself an advocate of universalism, humanism, or human rights when your activism in the Middle East is focused on Israel, but not on states like Iraq, where minority groups are facing a genocide, or Saudi Arabia, where human rights are nonexistent. … ||

        Don’t forget Mali and African “hell-holes”. You haven’t properly defended the “moral beacon”, “light unto the nations” and “Western-style democracy” state of Israel if you haven’t also compared it to those bottom-of-the-barrel states.

        As for the rest of your comment, it’s pure garbage to suggest that one cannot be pro-human rights if one fails to direct his activism at ALL* transgressor states at the same time. Or are you questioning the activism of people who focus on Iraq or Iran or Saudi Arabia or Islamic State but fail to include Israel? Didn’t think so. Hypocrite.
        __________________
        (*One cannot be a serious activist if one omits any transgressors from his activism.)

      • hophmi
        April 18, 2016, 10:39 pm

        I know that you think you’re clever, Eljay, but you’re missing a couple of things here. The first is that fighting for human rights in Iraq is a far, far more urgent matter than Israel is. The second is that human rights activists in Iraq tend not to be allied with one faction fighting for a nationalist cause. The third is that pro-Palestinian activists not only have little to say about human rights elsewhere in the Middle East. When confronted with the hypocrisy, they say that it’s not their place to dictate to people in the Middle East how to live. That’s not universalism and that’s not human rights activism.

      • eljay
        April 19, 2016, 9:22 am

        || hophmi: I know that you think you’re clever, Eljay … ||

        Really? Looks like you know something I don’t.

        || … but you’re missing a couple of things here. ||

        Okay, let’s see what you’ve got.

        || … The first is that fighting for human rights in Iraq is a far, far more urgent matter than Israel is. … ||

        So you’re trivializing human rights (HR) issues in I-P and disparaging HR activism that isn’t prioritized according to your criteria. You’re off to a great start.

        || … The second is that human rights activists in Iraq tend not to be allied with one faction fighting for a nationalist cause. The third is that pro-Palestinian activists not only have little to say about human rights elsewhere in the Middle East. … ||

        And now you’re disparaging HR activism that doesn’t focus on a selective sub-set of HR issues. But you’re OK with activism that focuses on some HR issues and intentionally ignores others. Good stuff. Keep going.

        || … When confronted with the hypocrisy, they say that it’s not their place to dictate to people in the Middle East how to live. That’s not universalism and that’s not human rights activism. ||

        HR activists who do not support HR everywhere are hypocrites.

        Zio-supremacists like you – who claim to care about HR but who do consistently everything in their power to white-wash and deflect and distract from Israel’s very real HR violations – are hateful and immoral hypocrites.

        HR activists who support HR everywhere but who focus their attention on one or a few issues at a time are not hypocrites.

        Looks like I haven’t missed a thing.

      • Talkback
        April 19, 2016, 9:24 am

        Thank you, hophmi. Your ad hominem ideocies are a perfect example for another Zionist logical fallacy.

        Whether a state or an ideology is in accordance with universalism, humanism, international or human rights has nothing to do with me, or who I focus my analysis or criticism on. But your focus on me is just the usual diversion from the real issue.

        The fact that I’m focussing on Israel has simply to do with the fact, that there’s no big controversy about the crimes of other in the middle East. Only Israel has supporters who will focus on attacking someone personally and accusing him of hatred simply when he brings up Israeli crimes. Nobody else is THIS stupid and dishonest.

        And when I’m talking about universalism, humanism, international or human rights it goes without saying that I’m inherently targeting all countries/people who violate these principles and rights. I’m not one of the Jewish shmocks like you who rely on double standards when it comes to Jewish criminals, their war crimes and their crimes against humanity.

        So why do you only support, legitimize, belittle or deny crimes of the state of Israel and not the crimes of Iraq or Saudi Arabia? And what are your thoughs about the ending of the South African Apartheid or the Nazi regime? Yeah, I know, it depends on the question what was or is good for the Jews, right?

      • Talkback
        April 19, 2016, 9:34 am

        Mooser: “an armchair Hamasnik” Wow, that is lame.

        Well Hamas is not Jewish. Only if you are Jewish foreigner it is kosher for Hophmi to claim all of Palestine, write a something like “The Judenstaat”, declare a war against a country and its people by proclaiming to take it over, if necessary by war and expulsion. Or claim a right to “return”, only for Jews who very likely have nothing to do with ancient Hebrews. The Palestinians and their refugees who actually live or lived there (and can PROVE it) do not have these rights according to Jewish jurisdiction, cause they are only gentiles and therefore underpriviliged. At least according to armchair Judeonazis.

      • Keith
        April 19, 2016, 11:09 am

        HOPHMI- “The first is that fighting for human rights in Iraq is a far, far more urgent matter than Israel is.”

        Typical Zionist misrepresentation of reality. The “human rights” situation in Iraq is a disaster precisely because of the imperial invasion and occupation of Iraq strongly supported by AIPAC and Israel. Your hands are double dirty on this one. Saudi Arabia? Imperial asset and Israeli de facto ally Saudi Arabia? Israel loves Saudi Arabia and the whole GCC.

      • hophmi
        April 19, 2016, 2:36 pm

        “Typical Zionist misrepresentation of reality. The “human rights” situation in Iraq is a disaster precisely because of the imperial invasion and occupation of Iraq strongly supported by AIPAC and Israel. Your hands are double dirty on this one. Saudi Arabia? Imperial asset and Israeli de facto ally Saudi Arabia? Israel loves Saudi Arabia and the whole GCC.”

        Israel didn’t invade Iraq. Neither did AIPAC. And invoking both hardly gives the anti-Israel left a pass on its complete failure to speak up about these human rights disasters. Start learning not to blame others for your problems, Keith, and you might get somewhere.

      • echinococcus
        April 19, 2016, 4:39 pm

        The goal of simply ending the “state of Israel” being the only one compatible with justice, you should give up propaganda in its favor –even if you’re doing for free.

      • oldgeezer
        April 19, 2016, 4:49 pm

        @hophmi

        “And invoking both hardly gives the anti-Israel left a pass on its complete failure to speak up about these human rights disasters. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/04/anti-zionism-anti-semitism-is-a-formal-logical-fallacy/#comment-165324

        Get your ears checked. Or try to tune out the din of Israel and AIPAC cheerleading squads asking for middle eastern countries to be invaded.

        But you’re right. Neither Israel nor AIPAC invaded Iraq. Nope. Nosiree.

        Let me guess…. You haven’t heard them begging for Iran to be invaded.

      • Keith
        April 19, 2016, 8:49 pm

        HOPHMI- “Start learning not to blame others for your problems, Keith….”

        Start learning to take responsibility for Zionist actions and the world would be a better place. To deny Israeli and AIPAC influence in getting the US to invade Iraq is so intellectually dishonest (your specialty) as to be beyond hypocrisy. Are you still hot for the US to bomb Iran, you war monger? And if AIPAC and the rest of you Zionists got the US to attack Iran, would you later claim blamelessness? You are some piece of work, Hophmi, a Zionist cadre to the core.

      • eljay
        April 20, 2016, 7:21 am

        || hophmi: … Start learning not to blame others for your problems … ||

        After you’ve taken the time to re-read and to comprehend what you wrote, you might want to pass this bit of wisdom along:
        – to the intentionally and unapologetically (war) criminal and religion-supremacist “Jewish State” of Israel; and
        – to your fellow hateful and immoral Zio-supremacists.

      • Kay24
        April 20, 2016, 8:36 am

        Hoppy sounds a bit ignorant and obviously has read only hasbara fairy tales without much research.
        “Israel didn’t invade Iraq. Neither did AIPAC. And invoking both hardly gives the anti-Israel left a pass on its complete failure to speak up about these human rights disasters. Start learning not to blame others for your problems, “…

        Long Range Plans

        Jewish-Zionist plans for war against Iraq had been in place for years. In mid-1996, a policy paper prepared for then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu outlined a grand strategy for Israel in the Middle East. Entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” it was written under the auspices of an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Specifically, it called for an “effort [that] can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right…” [8]

        The authors of “A Clean Break” included Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser, three influential Jews who later held high-level positions in the Bush administration, 2001-2004: Perle as chair of the Defense Policy Board, Feith as Undersecretary of Defense, and Wurmser as special assistant to the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control. The role played by Bush administration officials who are associated with two major pro-Zionist “neoconservative” research centers has come under scrutiny from The Nation, the influential public affairs weekly. [9]

        The author, Jason Vest, examined the close links between the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and the Center for Security Policy (CSP), detailing the ties between these groups and various politicians, arms merchants, military men, wealthy pro-Israel American Jews, and Republican presidential administrations

        JINSA and CSP members, notes Vest, “have ascended to powerful government posts, where… they’ve managed to weave a number of issues – support for national missile defense, opposition to arms control treaties, championing of wasteful weapons systems, arms aid to Turkey and American unilateralism in general – into a hard line, with support for the Israeli right at its core… On no issue is the JINSA/CSP hard line more evident than in its relentless campaign for war – not just with Iraq, but ‘total war,’ as Michael Ledeen, one of the most influential JINSAns in Washington, put it… For this crew, ‘regime change’ by any means necessary in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority is an urgent imperative.”

        http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/iraqwar.shtml

        Referenced and substantiated from many writers from the left and right.

      • yonah fredman
        April 20, 2016, 9:49 am

        Kay24- as you say there are many who blame Israel for the second war against iraq. One wonders why you would quote a revisionist Web site on this day of the year. A little effort, you could have found a less tainted site.

      • oldgeezer
        April 20, 2016, 10:10 am

        @Kay24

        hoppy is also operating under the delusion that israel doesn’t threaten iran or even talk about removing the Islamic regime.

        It’s not really possible to think that he is that ignorant or delusional leaving only one explanation for his inane comments.

        http://mondoweiss.net/2016/04/zionism-is-nationalism-not-judaism-a-former-hebrew-school-teacher-explains/#comment-833644

      • Kay24
        April 20, 2016, 11:49 am

        Yonah, just look at the sources under “Notes”, and you can see that these well known facts have been researched from credible sources.

        John J. Mearsheimer, Stephen M. Walt, “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” Bob Woodward, The Guardian etc.

        “Predictably, we have come under fire from hostile sectarian groups that regard the IHR as harmful to their interests. Zionist groups such as the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Anti-Defamation League routinely smear the IHR, attacking us as a “hate group” or dismissing us as a “Holocaust denial” organization.

        In fact, the IHR steadfastly opposes bigotry of all kinds. We are proud of the support we have earned from people of the most diverse political views, and racial, ethnic and religious backgrounds.

        The IHR does not “deny” the Holocaust. Indeed, the
        In fact, the IHR steadfastly opposes bigotry of all kinds. We are proud of the support we have earned from people of the most diverse political views, and racial, ethnic and religious backgrounds.

        The IHR does not “deny” the Holocaust. Indeed, the IHR as such has no “position” on any specific event or chapter of history, except to promote greater awareness and understanding, and to encourage more objective investigation.”

        http://www.ihr.org/main/about.shtml

        I would not called them “tainted” at all. That seems to be the mantra of the zionists who want to stifle criticism bringing world focus to their endless crimes. They simply publish articles from a wide range of writers and say:
        “Articles and reviews posted on the IHR website, and presentations given at IHR meetings and conferences, represent a wide range of views. Each writer is responsible for what he or she writes or says. Accordingly, the IHR does not necessarily agree with the content or outlook of posted or distributed items.”

        Sometimes the truth hurts people who do not want to hear it.

      • yonah fredman
        April 20, 2016, 12:51 pm

        Kay24- if you think ihr is untainted, then you’re tainted. If you think neutrality regarding historical events is an untainted position, then you’re tainted. Nuff said.

      • Shmuel
        April 20, 2016, 1:10 pm

        I would not called them “tainted” at all. That seems to be the mantra of the zionists who want to stifle criticism bringing world focus to their endless crimes.

        No, the IHR actually is a racist organisation, and citing what they say about themselves doesn’t change that.

      • MHughes976
        April 20, 2016, 4:19 pm

        Just to add my voice to Shmuel’s. The IHR seems to be dedicated to the ideas of Harry Elmer Barnes, which began with opposition to American entry into WW1 and developed into what we now call ‘holocaust denial’.

      • MHughes976
        April 20, 2016, 4:30 pm

        I think that universal human rights are being denied to the Pakestinians and that this bad thing is defended and justified on a grand scale in the West, much more than any other comparable evil.. Therefore I take care to argue against it. I may be wrong but I cannot be wrong for the sole reason that human rights are being denied elsewhere.

  8. talknic
    April 18, 2016, 12:29 am

    ‘Anti-Zionism = anti-semitism’ is irrelevant to the legal status of Israel’s legally defined and recognized borders and Israel’s illegal activities outside of the State of Israel

  9. echinococcus
    April 18, 2016, 2:10 am

    Apart from the many valuable points in the article, “anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism” cannot be a “formal logical fallacy”.
    The equation only requires the following premise:
    – Zionism is identical with the target of anti-Semitism (in the mind of the declarer)

    Apart from the formal side, it doesn’t take much research to see that for many Zionists it is Zionism that constitutes Judaism to the exclusion of everything else. Such a statement for them is consistent with their insane belief. That is where the logical fallacy lies; it is not formal but substantial. Also, the insanity defense cannot be invoked by the Western authorities or Zionist allies who accept the equation.

    • Sibiriak
      April 19, 2016, 10:13 pm

      echinococcus: Apart from the many valuable points in the article, “anti-Zionism = anti-Semitism” cannot be a “formal logical fallacy”
      ——————-

      Good point. And rather than the equative formulation, which might imply complete identity and reversibility, the classificatory “anti-Zionism is a type of anti-Semitism” would also be formally valid and might more accurately describe the assertion being made.

      [echinococcus:] it doesn’t take much research to see that for many Zionists it is Zionism that constitutes Judaism to the exclusion of everything else

      True, for many, but not all. (And I might add that not all forms of anti-Judaism are forms of anti-Semitism. There can be legitimate critiques of aspects of Judaism–hardly a monolithic ideology– that to do not derive from or entail anti-Jewishness.)

      [echinococcus:] Such a statement for them is consistent with their insane belief. That is where the logical fallacy lies; it is not formal but substantial.

      The substantial issue isn’t just whether Zionism constitutes Judaism to the exclusion of everything else, or even whether Zionism as an ideology is inherently racist, but also what is the character of actually existing Zionism.

      Jonathan Sacks writes:

      It is why Israel—the only fully functioning democracy in the Middle East with a free press and independent judiciary—is regularly accused of the five crimes against human rights: racism, apartheid, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and attempted genocide. This is the blood libel of our time. [emphasis added]

      http://europe.newsweek.com/jonathan-sacks-anti-semitism-anti-zionism-bds-israel-labour-442978?rm=eu

      All those elements of the alleged “blood libel” are substantial assertions subject to empirical verification.

      If Israel is in fact NOT a “fully functioning democracy” (it isn’t), if Israel IS in fact guilty of racism, apartheid, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and attempted genocide (it is), then there is no “blood libel”. And if there is no “blood libel”, Sack’s case against anti-Zionism collapses.

      • echinococcus
        April 20, 2016, 9:59 am

        Sibiriak,
        Yes but the formal assertion had already been made in the form of an equation (is).

        not all forms of anti-Judaism are forms of anti-Semitism. There can be legitimate critiques of aspects of Judaism–hardly a monolithic ideology– that to do not derive from or entail anti-Jewishness.)

        This is smuggling an unsubstantiated belief in the existence of any “Jewishness” outside of religion/ritual, generally described as Judaism. Even though a fundamental of racist attacks against, and pretences by, people with that supposed religious ancestry, the claim is still as unproven as always. As also shown by the censoring of all criticism of Jewish tribalism here.

      • Keith
        April 20, 2016, 10:41 am

        SIBIRIAK- “All those elements of the alleged “blood libel” are substantial assertions subject to empirical verification.”

        Yes, but when have you ever seen a Zionist such as Hophmi actually evaluate empirical data? The tried and true technique is to attach a perjorative label (blood libel, Protocols, Pablo Christiani, etc) and dismiss empirical reality out of hand while simultaneously accusing the truth teller of anti-Semitism. This proof by labeling is a very common tactic.

      • Mooser
        April 20, 2016, 2:23 pm

        (…Pablo Christiani, etc)

        You know, up til just a few days ago I thought “Pablo Christiani” was an Italian designer line of suits and men’s furnishings.

      • Mooser
        April 20, 2016, 6:36 pm

        “This proof by labeling is a very common tactic.”

        Good old No. 3. You Suck!

  10. eljay
    April 18, 2016, 8:00 am

    Mr. Sacks:

    … When bad things happen to a group, its members can ask two different questions: “What did we do wrong?” or “Who did this to us?” The entire fate of the group will depend on which it chooses.

    If it asks, “What did we do wrong?” it has begun the self-criticism essential to a free society. If it asks, “Who did this to us?” it has defined itself as a victim. It will then seek a scapegoat to blame for all its problems. …

    According to Mr. Sacks’ reasoning: When bad things have happened to “the Jewish people” (a group) and Jews (its members) have asked “Who did this to us?” instead of “What did we do wrong?”, the group has defined itself as a victim. It has then sought out a scapegoat (non-Jews) to blame for all of its problems.

    Mr. Sacks appears not to have thought through the implications of his reasoning, which presents itself as either anti-Semitic, selective or self-serving.

    • eljay
      April 18, 2016, 8:12 am

      The same reasoning applies to Zionists and Israel: Always scapegoating, never asking “What did we do wrong?”

      • Mooser
        April 18, 2016, 11:24 am

        “The same reasoning applies to Zionists and Israel: Always scapegoating, never asking “What did we do wrong?”

        “eljay” don’t ask impossible things of people! Why if we actually took responsibility for Zionism, and looked at it objectively, do you have any idea how goddam ordinary we will look?
        What the f–k are we supposed to do with, say, converts? Give ’em a T-shirt which says: “I converted to Judaism and all I got was the responsibility for Zionism”?
        Hmmmm, I’ll have to ask “Shmuel” if that would be considered ‘converting out of self-interest’ or not.

      • eljay
        April 18, 2016, 12:33 pm

        Mooser: “eljay” don’t ask impossible things of people! … ||

        I don’t hold a progressive Marxist belief in determinism in human behavior. ;-)

        || … a T-shirt which says: “I converted to Judaism and all I got was the responsibility for Zionism”? ||

        Not snapp enough. How about this:

          I converted to Judaism
                      and all I got
        was this lousy blowback.

        :-)

    • Sibiriak
      April 18, 2016, 8:57 am

      Excellent point!

      Sacks’ reasoning is doubly fallacious: he employs a false dichotomy and he employs it selectively.

      • MHughes976
        April 18, 2016, 1:36 pm

        The two questions are by no means mutually exclusive, are they? Our own mistakes and the ability of others to take advantage are naturally linked. Though one might say that the Palestinians offer an example of people marked down for outrageous treatment by forces that were and are overwhelmingly powerful and implacable.
        The original scapegoat ritual was not a way of blaming others but a ceremony of confessing one’s sins and asking for the guilt to be removed.
        There is something horrible about Sacks’ saying such monstrous things with such an air of kindly regret and benevolence. Mind you, I’m sure there are Christians who outdo him.

  11. James Michie
    April 18, 2016, 8:56 am

    WRONG headline, Phil and Adam. It should read: “Anti-Zionism = anti-racism, anti-brutality, anti-genocide, anti-ethnic-cleansing, anti-fascism, anti-grand-theft.” Yes, I know that it’s a lengthy headline, but it speaks TRUTH to those who support and fund Zionist Israel’s brutal, ruthless, racist, genocidal, ethnic cleansing, fascist military occupation, the grand theft of Palestinian lands and rule over defenseless Palestine!

Leave a Reply