‘Forward’ columnist and Emily’s List leader relate ‘gigantic,’ ‘shocking’ role of Jewish Democratic donors

US Politics
on 111 Comments

This is important, and a lot of people are passing it around: video of two political veterans describing the overwhelming role of Jewish money on the Democratic side of US politics.

The scene was a J Street panel Sunday night about the 2016 election at the Sixth and I Synagogue in Washington, and the dialogue began when Roger Cohen of the New York Times asked J.J. Goldberg of the Forward (at 44:00) to explain the importance of “funding” to pro-Israel politics.

“Funding?” Goldberg gave a little uncomfortable laugh then said:

Up until recently I was under the impression that the Democrats had to go to Jews. You ask a Democratic fundraiser, where do you get the money from? “Well from trial lawyers, from toys, from generic drugs, from Hollywood. From Jews.” Those are all essentially Jewish industries… When you are raising  money, you need to find rich people who are not right wing, and there are not– pardon me for saying this, there are not many rich goyim who are not right wing. Forgive me for saying that.

Then Goldberg said he had just read something “that knocked my socks off.” The Center for Responsive Politics issued a list of the top 50 donors to 527’s and super-PACs, and eight of the 36 Republican bigs were Jewish, and of the 14 Democrats, only one was not Jewish.

There was one non-Jew who was giving big money to the Democrats. That’s gigantic in the terms of American politics. If Bernie Sanders sets a new model, then this may change, and the weight of Jews in the political system may go down.

Goldberg’s candor about the Jewish “weight” on the Democratic side liberated the one person on the panel who I don’t think was Jewish, Stephanie Schriock of Emily’s List, the pro-choice group. She said “the money… is a big piece of this story and cannot be overlooked at all.”

She works with 50 federal candidates a year, most of them coming out of state legislatures or new to politics, with little foreign policy experience; and when the Iran deal came up they all had a lot “of angst” about taking a position. For the first time in her career, Schriock said, she was able to tell these candidates they could buck the Israel lobby group AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, was telling them to do: kill the deal.

As someone who has been doing this now for two decades, I realized that I had freedom as an operative, as a strategist to say to some of our candidates, which I, in fact, did: do what you feel is right here…. Because I think there’s enough energy around all of it now [meaning, all sides] than there used to be. So if you decide to be against the deal, there’s going to be folks that are going to be with you. If you’re going to be for the deal, there’s going to be folks that are going to be with you.

Folks means donors. Schriock concluded, “That was the first time I went, Wow, there’s really a change.”

She then explained how congressional candidates’ views on Israel are determined by the need to raise money from pro-Israel Jews.

I started as a finance director. I worked for candidates in the 90’s as their finance director. And I would come on a congressional race, I am a twenty-something kid who also knows nothing beyond the state borders, let alone overseas, and you thought about where you are going to go to raise the money that you needed to raise to win a race. And you went to labor, you went to the choice community, and you went to the Jewish community. But before you went to the Jewish community, you had a conversation with the lead AIPAC person in your state and they made it clear that you needed a paper on Israel. And so you called all of your friends who already had a paper on Israel – that was designed by AIPAC – and we made that your paper.

This was before there was a campaign manager, or a policy director or a field director because you got to raise money before you do all of that. I have written more Israel papers that you can imagine. I’m from Montana. I barely knew where Israel was until I looked at a map, and the poor campaign manager would come in, or the policy director, and I’d be like, ‘Here is your paper on Israel. This is our policy.’ We’ve sent it all over the country because this is how we raise money. … This means that these candidates who were farmers, school teachers, or businesswomen, ended up having an Israel position without having any significant conversations with anybody…

The papers were the same? Cohen asked.

“Very similar. Incredibly similar.”

For a country with 300 million people, that’s  a cornering of the market, Cohen observed.

It’s astounding. And when I look back at it, it’s shocking. [Someone in audience applauds] Thank you. I agree. Jeremy Ben-Ami [of J Street] and I had the great pleasure of meeting each other during the Howard Dean campaign and one of the conversations we had was, ‘Oh my gosh. Is there really only one foreign policy on this?’ Because it felt like it. And that was the case.

Now, she said, there is more than one position on Israel. J Street opened up the conversation, though she hinted that others are now permitted into the discussion, too. She exclaimed about how undemocratic this process has been:

It’s incredibly important. Yes: this country had one very clear unmovable set of policies, and it wasn’t driven by voters. It wasn’t driven by voters.

Cohen asked what would happen if a candidate didn’t take the AIPAC position on Israel?

You thought that the money was going to be gone.

Just going to dry up? Cohen said.

“Yes,” Schriock said. These are candidates, she said, who “really have to get those $5000 PAC checks from the pro-Israel PAC in St. Louis.”

A few comments. The silence in the synagogue was about the unspeakable being spoken: the disdain on the part of the Israel lobby for popular opinion and the lobby’s use of money to dismiss the public by essentially bribing politicians.

“It wasn’t driven by voters.” This is the obvious story that our press has failed to do for the ten years since the Israel lobby was declared fair game in Walt and Mearsheimer’s expose of the power over policy of the lobby, an expose the Atlantic killed so it had to be published in England. Schriock said the power of the lobby began to weaken in 06– surely in some measure because of the Iraq war and Walt and Mearsheimer. As J.J. Goldberg also said, the Iraq war left the “Jewish neocons” with their pants down as a bad influence on the United States, and the Jewish community, which had opposed the war largely, was not happy about being put in that light. J Street formed in part to be the lobby of anti-dual loyalty Jews who would support the Iran deal even if Israel said, No way.

And that’s why J Street was so vilified. Because it shivered the monolith; and as soon as the Jewish community failed to speak in one concerted voice on Israel, it gave Democratic politicians an opening to conclude, as Schriock says, that if they took a position opposed to AIPAC they could still get “folks” on their side.

But again, Where is the press? Embarrassed. (Even Jewish Insider, which beat me on this story, softened her comments. And Roger Cohen mentions Jewish funding in a column on Israel policy today, but doesn’t dare say what Goldberg and Schriock just told him.) The financial role that Goldberg and Schriock are describing is mirrored in the Jewish role in the media. We’re all over the media because of education, wealth, and culture; but to speak of Jewish donor influence is to broach the fact that Mort Zuckerman owns the Daily News, or the Times is Jewish owned, or that Comcast is led by Jews, or that and all these folks are sympathetic or ardently supportive of Israel. People are afraid to say the truth. And P.S. Time Warner executive Gary Ginsberg wrote speeches for Netanyahu.

Did Schriock know what she was saying? Yes; she spoke intentionally. A dam had burst; Goldberg gave her permission. And she, like so many others, is deeply offended by this corruption. “It wasn’t driven by voters.” That’s starting to change. There are now non-Zionists lobbying on Capitol Hill. Some day one of em may even get a column in the Times.

About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

111 Responses

  1. ritzl
    April 19, 2016, 6:12 pm

    Goldberg left out unions, or are they all “Jewish money” too?

    Sounds likes Clinton’s DLC sprint away from representing the interests of working people left the Dems little choice. Glad Sanders is changing that back to a more distributed funding base.

    • jd65
      April 19, 2016, 8:17 pm

      “Sounds likes Clinton’s DLC sprint away from representing the interests of working people…”

      Clinton’s sprint, eh? She won’t have very far to run…

  2. hophmi
    April 19, 2016, 6:32 pm

    You’re cleverly leaving out a bit of J.J.’s comment and adding a lot of stuff that isn’t there. J.J. said that there was a PERCEPTION that some neocons who were Jewish advocated for the Iraq War. This perception led some (clearly he’s thinking of people like you) to suggest that Jews were dually loyal, which hadn’t been heard since “Father Coughlin.”. Your response is to tall about how the Jews own the media, and you mention that the New York Times is owned by a (heavily, heavily assimilated) Jewish family, as if this proves that the Times editorial line, which is indistinguishable from a number of other liberal newspapers that are not owned by Jews, is somehow what it is because it’s owned by a Jew.

    Your type of poison is exactly the reason why Jews can’t speak out about these things. You contribute, dishonorably, to our vilification.

    • Sibiriak
      April 19, 2016, 11:57 pm

      Hophmi: . J.J. said that there was a PERCEPTION that some neocons who were Jewish advocated for the Iraq War.

      ————–

      No, J.J. Goldberg has argued repeatedly that neocons IN FACT advocated for the Iraq War– and that Bush took THEIR advice.

      For example, he writes:

      On September 12 [2002], however, a different Israeli voice visited Washington: ex-prime minister-turned-private citizen Benjamin Netanyahu. A longtime Sharon rival, closely allied with Washington’s neoconservatives , he’d been invited to address the Republican-led House as an expert on Iraq. Baghdad, he said, was hiding mobile centrifuges “the size of washing machines.” Moreover, “if you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.” Throughout the Middle East, including Iran, populations will be inspired to topple their own dictators.

      Bush, of course, listened to Netanyahu and the neocons, not Sharon and his generals. [emphasis added]

      http://forward.com/opinion/israel/217842/how-bibi-and-bush-made-a-mess-of-the-middle-east/#ixzz46KrMtz5V

      See also:

      “JJ Goldberg says Adelson’s influence fulfills anti-Semitic belief”
      ————————–

      And today MJ Rosenberg accuses neoconservatives of dual loyalty in their opposition to Russia’s occupation of the Crimean peninsula: “Israel Firsters r anti-Russian because ANY show of force by US anywhere is a precedent for US using force 4 Israel.” [emphasis added]

      http://mondoweiss.net/2014/03/adelsons-influence-fulfills/#sthash.rCdhpVZB.dpuf

    • Sibiriak
      April 20, 2016, 12:05 am

      hopmi: Your type of poison is exactly the reason why Jews can’t speak out about these things.
      —————-

      Just the opposite. Jews ARE speaking out on these things. You just don’t like what some of them are saying.

      You ignore this critical passage:

      As J.J. Goldberg also said, the Iraq war left the “Jewish neocons” with their pants down as a bad influence on the United States, and the Jewish community, which had opposed the war largely, was not happy about being put in that light.

      J Street formed in part to be the lobby of anti-dual loyalty Jews who would support the Iran deal even if Israel said, No way. [emphasis added]

    • Citizen
      April 20, 2016, 3:16 am

      @ hophmi
      Do you really think readers here are unaware of, e.g., the history of PNAC and the US Office of Special Plans?

      • hophmi
        April 20, 2016, 9:42 am

        I think that readers here think the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a work of non-fiction and that they’re primed to believe any conspiracy theory someone spins about the American Jewish community.

        Jew baiting is wrong. Emulating Father Coughlin is wrong. Speaking about the fact the the owner of the NY Times is Jewish, as if the fact of his Jewishness proved anything, is wrong.

      • Keith
        April 20, 2016, 11:09 am

        HOPHMI- “I think that readers here think the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a work of non-fiction and that they’re primed to believe any conspiracy theory someone spins about the American Jewish community.”

        Have you ever read the Protocols? I have. It is easily the dullest, most repetitious thing I have ever read, containing virtually no useful information. I forced myself to keep reading because of the continued reference to “the Protocols.” I needed to confirm that, in spite of a worthless beginning, there wasn’t anything interesting toward the end. The current primary function of the Protocols is as a perjorative label used by Zionist propagandists such as you to avoid any empirical evaluation, relying instead on proof by labeling. Pablo Christiani, blood libel, Protocols, Father Coughlin, conspiracy theory, etc. You throwing mud doesn’t alter the empirical reality.

      • Citizen
        April 20, 2016, 12:35 pm

        @hophmi
        Are you claiming, e.g. PNAC agenda & its key promoters & the US OFFICE of Special Plans & who ran it–are fictions? Is that what U imply by referencing the fictitious Protocols? Please clarify. Thanks!

      • hophmi
        April 20, 2016, 1:50 pm

        “The current primary function of the Protocols is as a perjorative label used by Zionist propagandists such as you to avoid any empirical evaluation, relying instead on proof by labeling.”

        Because saying that the owner of the NY Times is Jewish as an argument for why the NY Times takes the editorial position that it does is an empirical evaluation, right? See, that’s the problem. You talk about an empirical evaluation. That’s not what’s going on at Mondoweiss. What goes on here is polemical extremist, not dispassionate science.

        “Pablo Christiani, blood libel, Protocols, Father Coughlin, conspiracy theory, etc. You throwing mud doesn’t alter the empirical reality.”

        What mud? Yoni said that Pablo Christiani, who advocating making Jews wear badges, forced Jewish audiences to listen to him give pro-conversion speeches and to pay him for the privilege, told the Pope to burn Jewish books, and used the force of both monarch and Church to do all of it, was not a Jew-hater. This is the level of dreck we have here.

        And I bring up Father Coughlin because J.J. referenced him, and Phil cleverly left that out of his summary; J.J. said that people hadn’t spoken of Jews in the way some speak about them now since Father Coughlin. That’s why it’s a conspiracy theory. When you use someone’s religion as an explanation of all you find disagreeable, and you go further than that to suggest that people of that religion work together to subvert the country, that’s a conspiracy theory, not an empirical case. And it’s the very definition of bigotry.

      • Mooser
        April 20, 2016, 3:22 pm

        “Emulating Father Coughlin is wrong.”

        In case anybody doesn’t know, “Father Coughlin” was the taciturn yet lovable priest/baseball coach (doomed by TB in the last reel, you can tell by his name) played by Bing Crosby in “The Bats of St. Mary’s”, a musical film which tells the story of the surprise Little League championship won by a team of lovable misfits from a Catholic orphanage.

      • Keith
        April 20, 2016, 4:56 pm

        HOPHMI- “What mud?”

        Conflating things you disagree with to Pablo Christiani (11), the Protocols (25), Father Coughlin (20) and blood libel (14). There may be more instances, but that is what a quick search of your commenter profile yields. The pretense that this was a special situation with compelling circumstances is a joke. And as for Yoni Falic, Hophmi, you were the one who originally brought up Christiani, dishonestly conflating Yoni to him. You are a shameless liar who, for whatever reason, is commenting much more than in the past. You are a plague upon this comments section, too many people spending too much time dealing with your BS. As for empirical data, I have yet to see you back up anything you say. It is just you mouthing off.

    • James Michie
      April 20, 2016, 9:52 am

      Amazing, not shocking, but absolutely amazing, hophmi, that you and other Zionists are so “deft” at stepping over entirely the hideous fact of Zionist Israel’s six-decade oppression of Palestine and its people. But what should be extremely shocking (but isn’t) is how this panel of seven distinguished individuals who happen to be Jewish can sit for so long a time and not deal with the horrific reality of Zionist Israel’s six-decade (and counting) brutal, ruthless, racist, genocidal, ethnic cleansing military occupation and rule of an ever-shrinking Palestine, as unlawful colonial Zionist “settlers” aided by their Zionist “government continue to steal at gunpoint Palestinian villages and lands for still more unlawful colonies. This clearly points to a continuation of abject denial and cognitive dissonance within the Jewish community. Tragic, very, very tragic and chillingly ironic, since Zionist Israel’s “government” and “army” continue to use some of the very same tactics in occupying what remains of Palestine that were used by the Nazis against the Jews in the 1930s and 1940s. Yes, hophimi, when it comes to Palestine, the Jewish community has a great deal to atone for–whenever it gets around to it.

      • hophmi
        April 20, 2016, 1:55 pm

        “But what should be extremely shocking (but isn’t) is how this panel of seven distinguished individuals who happen to be Jewish can sit for so long a time and not deal with the horrific reality of Zionist Israel’s six-decade (and counting) brutal, ruthless, racist, genocidal, ethnic cleansing military occupation and rule of an ever-shrinking Palestine, as unlawful colonial Zionist “settlers” aided by their Zionist “government continue to steal at gunpoint Palestinian villages and lands for still more unlawful colonies. ”

        Did you throw enough adjectives in there, James? Are they all Jewish? I’m not sure. Neera Tanden is from an Indian family.

        I think if you want horrific and genocidal, you have to look next door in Syria and next door to that in Iraq.

        “Tragic, very, very tragic and chillingly ironic, since Zionist Israel’s “government” and “army” continue to use some of the very same tactics in occupying what remains of Palestine that were used by the Nazis against the Jews in the 1930s and 1940s. ”

        Which would those be? An average of around 100,000 Jews a month died during the Holocaust. How many Palestinians, on average, die in the West Bank or Gaza? Did the pre-Nazi Era Jews shoot rockets at German civilians and blow up their children on buses?

      • Eva Smagacz
        April 21, 2016, 6:31 am

        Hopmi,

        You are again using Holocaust to make emotional deflection of serious argument.

        James was making a comment about Germans and Israelis

        “Zionist Israel’s “government” and “army” continue to use some of the very same tactics in occupying what remains of Palestine that were used by the Nazis against the Jews in the 1930s and 1940s”

        And you are deflecting using Holocaust no less. May I point out to you that as history repeats itself, and ordinary people are well capable of war crimes, the occupying power that behaves like Nazis may well progress to genocidal acts of Nazis.

        Nobody argues that Israel IS currently killing Palestinians at the rate of 100000 a month – this is your deflection from the argument.

        The argument is that psychological trajectory of both societies: Israel’s and German’s is frighteningly similar.

      • hophmi
        April 21, 2016, 11:16 am

        “James was making a comment about Germans and Israelis”

        LOL. James was venting, and making a silly, offensive analogy that is used only in this context because James knows that it makes Jews crazy. He knows damn well that there is no comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany.

        “And you are deflecting using Holocaust no less. May I point out to you that as history repeats itself, and ordinary people are well capable of war crimes, the occupying power that behaves like Nazis may well progress to genocidal acts of Nazis.”

        Oh please. Someone makes a stupid Nazi-Israel comparison, but I can’t respond by talking about what the Nazis actually did. Listen to yourself, Eva. In the entire 67 year history of the conflict, there haven’t been as many Palestinian deaths as there were Jewish deaths in Poland in an average month during the Shoah. The Palestinian population is growing. The economy in the West Bank is also growing. Gazans are under a blockade and they’ve been hurt by having an genocidal Islamist leadership that oppresses them and that fires rockets into Israeli civilian areas, rockets that will only get more sophisticated and deadly over time.

        “Nobody argues that Israel IS currently killing Palestinians at the rate of 100000 a month – this is your deflection from the argument.”

        The argument was that Israelis use the same tactics against Palestinians as Nazis used against Jews in the 1930’s and 1940’s. The Nazi campaign against the Jews was avowedly genocidalist. They aimed to wipe exterminate the Jewish population Europe and tried to do it as efficiently and effectively as possible. There is no such intent, nor any comparable action, on the part of the Israelis. Bringing this up, again and again and again, is just a way of needling and heckling Jews by bringing up the most traumatic part of their history in service of a partisan political purpose. It’s the same reason Iranian leaders love to deny the Holocaust. They know full well that the Holocaust occurred. They’re not stupid people. But they know that denying the Holocaust makes Jews crazy. Playing on people’s worst fears and traumas always makes them crazy. Obsessively bringing up the Nazi analogy is like walking up to a drug-addled Vietnam Vet with PTSD and purposely bringing up Vietnam again and again.

        “The argument is that psychological trajectory of both societies: Israel’s and German’s is frighteningly similar.”

        No, Eva. Europe in the 1930’s and Europe today is frighteningly similar. That’s the analogy you should use if you want to make analogies. Europe today is witnessing the rise of the far-right in response to immigration, terrorism, and the loss of “European culture,” whatever that is. The far-right in Europe can grab as many, if not many more, votes in Europe parliaments as they can in the Knesset. Countries in Europe are the ones banning Muslim headwear, not Israel. Switzerland is the country placing restrictions on the height of minarets. France is the country with the 400% in violent antisemitic attacks, the National Front polling at 25% and more, and the endless attempts to force North African Muslims to practice laicite. Poland is the country that refuses to face up to its past collaboration with the Nazi regime by prosecuting historians.

        Rightists in Israel call for annexing the West Bank. Many generally support affirmative actions policies for Palestinians living within the Green Line and further developing Arab communities in Israel. That’s why there’s been a sizable increase in the presence of Palestinian-Israeli in higher educational institutions in Israel in the last 10 or 15 years. This is not similar to Nazi Germany, which almost immediately instituted a country wide boycott of Jewish businesses, passed the Nuremberg Laws by 1935, removed Jews from higher education and most professions by 1936-37, stripped them of citizenship soon after, and by 1938, had destroyed many of their institutions of worship in country-wide pogroms. By 1939, the Nazi regime had invaded Poland and had begun taking large groups of Jews into the forest and executing them in mass graves. By 1940-41, Jews were being herded into squalid ghettos in Polish cities, where they were dying in the hundreds every day. Jews were also being gassed to death in trucks. In 1941, the Nazis invaded Russia, where, in places like Babi Yar, they killed tens of thousands of Jews in a single day. By 1942, the Final Solution was in place, and Jews were being gassed in gas chambers throughout Poland in concentration camps. That’s how 91% of the Polish Jewish community died in 6 years time.

        And of course, Jews weren’t attacking other German civilians, and they weren’t surrounded by countries without diplomatic relationships with Germany who were keen to see Germany destroyed. Jews were a major part of German society for hundreds of years and the community was heavily assimilated and highly patriotic. In a depressed economy, a crazy demagogue took power in a democratic election and, zeroing in on classical antisemitic tropes about Jews having too much money and influence, and more modern ones about Jews and Bolshevism, in a country primed to follow authority, opened the gates the hell by carefully and systematically turning German society against the Other, particularly the Jews.

        Maybe you just don’t know very much about the Nazi regime, or you purposely use it as propaganda fodder. Maybe in Poland they focus on Polish victimhood, and you don’t learn much about how Nazis treated Jews. It’s offensive either way, and you need to stop doing it.

      • Keith
        April 21, 2016, 11:19 am

        EVA SMAGACZ- “Nobody argues that Israel IS currently killing Palestinians at the rate of 100000 a month – this is your deflection from the argument.”

        Well, of course it is a deflection. Had James restricted his reference to Nazi Germany in the 1930s, it would be quite accurate. Additionally, it must be remembered that the Holocaust occurred during wartime, which provided Nazi Germany with an environment conducive to such massive killing (and don’t forget that the Soviet Union lost well over 20 million of its citizens fighting Nazi Germany). It should also be pointed out that Israel has several hundred nuclear weapons which they may use during a war which would result in an Arab death toll many times that of the Six Million. Think of these nukes as instant gas chambers not yet used but standing in waiting for the Samson Option final solution. And it is US/Israel which block a nuclear free Middle East as advocated by the UN and supported by Iran. Tells a tale, doesn’t it?

      • hophmi
        April 21, 2016, 11:52 am

        “Well, of course it is a deflection. Had James restricted his reference to Nazi Germany in the 1930s, it would be quite accurate. Additionally, it must be remembered that the Holocaust occurred during wartime, which provided Nazi Germany with an environment conducive to such massive killing (and don’t forget that the Soviet Union lost well over 20 million of its citizens fighting Nazi Germany). It should also be pointed out that Israel has several hundred nuclear weapons which they may use during a war which would result in an Arab death toll many times that of the Six Million. Think of these nukes as instant gas chambers not yet used but standing in waiting for the Samson Option final solution. And it is US/Israel which block a nuclear free Middle East as advocated by the UN and supported by Iran. Tells a tale, doesn’t it?

        Here we go with the softcore Holocaust denial. The Holocaust occurred during wartime, and the massive killing of the Jews in gas chambers was like the deaths of 20 million Soviets during the war. No, it would not be accurate even if James restricted his comments to the 1930’s. Immediately after Hitler took power, a country-wide boycott of Jewish businesses was instituted. The Nuremberg Laws excluded Jews from most professions by 1935. Kristallnacht was in 1938, during which 91 Jews were killed over two days. In the three months following Kristallnacht, about 2500 Jews died in concentration camps alone.

        See, because Israel has nukes that could potentially kill more than six million people, the nukes are “gas chambers in waiting.” Think about the fact that this statement appeared on Mondoweiss the next time you hear me complain about the antisemitic invective here: Million of Jews died in gas chambers. Like, actually died in them. And the moderator thought that a comment that calls Israeli nuclear weapons “gas chambers in waiting” was ok.

        I wonder if Keith has ever referred to the United States arsenal of close to 5,000 nuclear warheads as “gas chambers in waiting.” Or Russia’s. Or India’s. Or Pakistan’s. Or France’s. Or Great Britain’s. Or China’s.

      • eljay
        April 21, 2016, 12:14 pm

        As usual, hophmi is shocked that anyone would compare the rapist to serial killers. Not because the rapist is a law-abiding citizen, mind you, but because:
        – serial killers exist, so it’s OK to rape; and
        – the rapist doesn’t kill anywhere near as many women as the serial killers do.

        You will never see hophmi – or any other Zio-surpemacist, for that matter – arguing that the rapist should release his victims and be held accountable for his past and on-going crimes.

      • Donald
        April 21, 2016, 2:27 pm

        Hophmi is usually wrong, but in the last couple of days I’ve agreed with him on two things, not because of his basic position but because people go too far.

        I’ve sort of given up on this, but the Nazi/Holocaust analogies are over the top. And the problem is that they aren’t the sort of comparisons that will get people to see how bad Israel is. Because they are exaggerated, they are more likely to chase people away. When I talk to friends in real life about Israel, I talk about the bombing of homes in Gaza and the shooting and indiscriminate firepower used and fishermen shot and so on and I know I can back it all up. If I started making Holocaust analogies I think they’d write me off as a lunatic.

      • oldgeezer
        April 21, 2016, 2:49 pm

        @Donald

        I agree with you, and like you, I am against Nazi analogies in general. There’s no need for them in order to highlight Irsael’s crimes against humanity, war crimes, violations of international law and violations of the Geneva Conventions. They are clearcut and don’t need an analogy to make the case for them.

        That said Holocaust analogies were not made and you are off base with that. Hophmi, and apparently you, think that Nazi crimes were limited to the Holocaust events which are only a fraction of the crimes that they commited during their time in control during that period. Crimes that the world decided were deserving of the death sentence or life sentence in many cases. hophmi could care less about these other crimes and the laws that were specifically written to help avoid the future occurrence of such crimes.

        Nazi analogies are best left alone. Unneeded and unnecessarily provocative and emotional.

      • Sibiriak
        April 21, 2016, 3:02 pm

        Donald: I’ve sort of given up on this, but the Nazi/Holocaust analogies are over the top…
        ————-

        In most cases (but not all), Nazi/Israeli analogies are overblown and counterproductive.

        But Hophmi is no model for careful, critical thinking, eg. reeling off specious analogies like this:

        Europe in the 1930’s and Europe today is frighteningly similar.

      • Keith
        April 21, 2016, 4:39 pm

        HOPHMI- “I wonder if Keith has ever referred to the United States arsenal of close to 5,000 nuclear warheads as “gas chambers in waiting.” Or Russia’s. Or India’s. Or Pakistan’s. Or France’s. Or Great Britain’s. Or China’s.”

        The world should have gotten rid of nuclear weapons long ago, and better do it soon or the species will likely annihilate itself. The biggest obstacle to the elimination of nuclear weapons is the US, which considers nukes a strategic asset. Israel, like its patron, has an aggressive stance on nukes, Moshe Dayan wanted to use them in 1973. Both the US and Israel are adamantly opposed to a nuclear weapons free Middle East (which Iran supports). So yes, all nuclear weapons are effectively gas chambers in waiting, and you should be much more concerned with Obama’s planned $ 1 trillion nuclear upgrade than with trying to label me an anti-Semite.

        As for the rest of your comment, the number of Palestinians killed and displaced during the Nakba, exceeds the number of Jews killed or displaced by Nazi Germany prior to WW II. And the number of Arabs killed as the Middle East warmonger Israel invades Lebanon, and Palestinians in Gaza when Israel “mows the lawn” greatly exceed the number of Jews killed prior to World War II. Don’t forget that it was the Zionists who dealt with the Nazis and approved of the laws restricting Jewish contact with Gentiles. And it is yet another example of Zionist dishonesty to label as Holocaust denial pointing out that along with the Six Million Jewish victims of the Shoah, over 20 million Soviets died stopping Nazi Germany. For Jewish Zionists, World War II consisted mostly of the Holocaust.

      • Mooser
        April 21, 2016, 6:45 pm

        Donald, please don’t worry. I read Mondo a lot, and I have made it my special mission to make sure that nobody says anything worse about Jews and/or Israel than we say about anybody else.
        Unfortunately, I had to lower the standard again, (just the other day, thanks to “Yonah” and “Jon s”) and now I try to make sure nobody says anything worse about Jews than we say about each other.
        That seems fair to me.

      • Boo
        April 22, 2016, 6:28 am

        hophmi: “An average of around 100,000 Jews a month died during the Holocaust. How many Palestinians, on average, die in the West Bank or Gaza?”

        That’s why I refer to what Israel is currently perpetrating on Palestinians as “the Slowlocaust”.

        Its current magnitude doesn’t have to equal the worst days of the original for us to conclude that its intent, and its ultimate effect, are intended to be similar.

    • REALITY CHECK 101
      April 25, 2016, 10:11 pm

      The war on Iraq [the war on “terror”] “there you go to the Jewish Neo-Cons who wanted to remake the world….Maybe I can say that because I’m Jewish”.
      -Carl Bernstein (of Deep Throat and Watergate fame) [And the parenthesis in the quote is mine]

  3. Les
    April 19, 2016, 8:03 pm

    The power of Jewish zionists who are in charge of the entirety of our mainstream print and broadcast media which creates American public opinion, complete with racist depictions of Palestinians, contrasts with the puny efforts that “Jewish money” could ever hope to achieve.

    • Sibiriak
      April 19, 2016, 10:47 pm

      Les: The power of Jewish zionists who are in charge of the entirety of our mainstream print and broadcast media
      —————–

      Overstatement.

      —————–

      which creates American public opinion, complete with racist depictions of Palestinians

      I recommend Kathleen Christison’s book “Perceptions of Palestine” for a rich account of the racist anti-Arab/anti-Muslim ideology that has formed the general Western “frame of reference” applied to the Middle East for literally centuries.

      http://www.amazon.com/Perceptions-Palestine-Influence-Updated-Afterword/dp/0520217187/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

      • Peter in SF
        April 20, 2016, 2:48 am

        a rich account of the racist anti-Arab/anti-Muslim ideology that has formed the general Western “frame of reference” applied to the Middle East for literally centuries.

        Sibiriak, I am curious, since you are so well-informed about this stuff, is Western anti-Semitism related to this frame of reference? In other words, did European Jew-haters choose to call themselves “anti-Semites” as part of an overall tendency to try to connect Jews with Middle Eastern origins, origins that everyone already viewed as contemptible? Or maybe some of it was the other way round — the Jews who live among us are contemptible, therefore people from the Middle East are contemptible? I’m not asking rhetorical questions here, just trying to understand the connection, if any, between Western anti-Semitism and general contempt for people from the Middle East.

      • Henry Norr
        April 20, 2016, 3:49 pm

        W/r/t “the general Western “frame of reference”” about the Middle East, just last night I happened to watch the first half of “The Occupation of the American Mind: Israel’s Public Relations War in the United States,” the new documentary film I learned about right here at Mondoweiss, and I recommend it highly. It focuses not on centuries-old anti-Arab and anti-Muslim racism (though I don’t think it denies their existence and importance), but rather on the very conscious, deliberate hasbara programs the Israeli government initiated after it found itself subjected to a lot of shockingly negative attention in the American media during the 1982 invasion of Lebanon. I don’t think I was aware of any of that – I didn’t even have a TV at the time – but the clips of John Chancellor and other mainstream reporters and anchors talking about how Israel had become a regional bully, etc., are quite stunning. It also has an amazing section talking about a study the Israel Project hired Frank Luntz to do a report about how they should and shouldn’t talk about the situation, then showing how the pols and the media adopted the terminology Luntz recommended virtually word for word.

        At least in the first half, the film doesn’t focus much on the role of the Israel lobby here at home, and definitely not on the question of Jewish power within the media. And it should be noted that some, at least, of the talking heads, who are interviewed still seem to put their faith in the two-state solution.

        Besides the MW post mentioned above, you can get more info about the film, order the DVD, or stream the movie (pay-what-you-can pricing) at http://www.occupationmovie.com.

        Don’t miss it!

      • Donald
        April 20, 2016, 4:10 pm

        “rather on the very conscious, deliberate hasbara programs the Israeli government initiated after it found itself subjected to a lot of shockingly negative attention in the American media during the 1982 invasion of Lebanon. I don’t think I was aware of any of that – I didn’t even have a TV at the time – but the clips of John Chancellor and other mainstream reporters and anchors talking about how Israel had become a regional bully, etc., are quite stunning”

        I remember some of this and I am embarrassed to say how much I fell for the hasbara. This was a couple of years before I stumbled across Chomsky’s “The Fateful Triangle” in a bookstore, which turned my views around. Anyway, at the time I actually heard a friend of mine, apolitical, talking about how mad she was at “those stupid Israelis” because of their bombing of Lebanon. And I felt superior, because I had read an article in The New Republic explaining that the press had it all wrong.

        A year or two later and I had read Chomsky, but also, a year or two later and the Marine barracks bombing had totally erased any memory of Israeli brutality, along with the hasbara campaign. Sabra and Shatila, oddly enougth, played a role. The Western press is much more horrified by face to face massacres than by technological massacres conducted by bombing, at least if it is a Western country doing the bombing. And the line was that since the massacre was conducted by the Christian Phalangists and not by Israelis and since the Israelis investigated it, that meant the Israelis were civilized. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a mainstream reference to the bombing after the time period when it actually happened.

      • Sibiriak
        April 20, 2016, 9:29 pm

        @Peter in SF

        I’ll try to get back to your questions at some point.

    • Lillian Rosengarten
      April 20, 2016, 11:40 am

      “the power of Jewish Zionist” is an offensive statement that reeks of anti-Semitism and reminds me of German propaganda of the 1930’s. These blanket statements do nothing but inflame.

      • Mooser
        April 20, 2016, 12:33 pm

        ” These blanket statements do nothing but inflame.”

        Yup, it’s one hell of a spot. I never know whether to be ashamed or play defense.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 20, 2016, 1:20 pm

        the part i found offensive was “who are in charge of the entirety of our mainstream print and broadcast media which creates American public opinion”.

        gee, it just makes it seem like A. non jews have no impact creating american public opinion — which is absurd, and B. every single person in charge of the msm is a zionist jew, which i don’t think it true either.

        but the idea that american public opinion has been greatly influenced by racist depictions of Palestinians because of Jewish zionists in positions of power in mainstream print and broadcast media, while perhaps controversial, is none the less true. imho. and i do think one can reference the power of jewish zionists, just like you can reference the power of any ethnic/political faction of society. it’s what you do with that reference that makes it bigoted or not.

        i don’t think there’s anything inherently racist about referencing jewish zionists, i mean, why would there be? unless one thinks the word zionist is inherently racist. but they call themselves zionists — don’t they? and it distinguishes them from christian zionists. if someone referenced the power of christian zionists in the american landscape, like hagee and those people, or the majority of christian evangelicals (although that could be changing) i mean that’s what they call themselves — christian zionists. and they have a lot of power in dc too. and i don’t think referencing it (that power) is racist or bigoted.

        and it reminds me of phil’s post today http://mondoweiss.net/2016/04/obamas-november-surprise/

        The theme of the evening was: Obama wouldn’t have gotten the Iran deal if we had not taken on AIPAC inside the official Jewish community. But J Street took on AIPAC and cracked the monolith and signaled to politicians around the country, they could support the deal and still get Jewish backing and not get their heads handed to them in the next election.

        phil goes on to mention others were responsible for the iran deal too, but if his impression is correct, what is that (j street taking credit for obama’s success w/iran deal) if not a reference to the power of (self identified “liberal”) jewish zionists? it sounds like two factions of the jewish zionists community in a struggle for power. and it also sounds like an acknowledgement (Schriock said it too) “Jewish backing” was the determining factor in the iran deal AND wrt who would or would not have their heads handed to them during the next election. so — are people calling that anti semitic? and if not why not? because it was said at a j street conference? because if i claimed jews were the determining factor in the iran deal (or our middle east foreign policy) and the determining factor in who’s head would or would not roll in congress in the next election i would likely be accused of anti semitism.

        only if you think jewish zionists, as a group (or several groups), have no power could the term be construed as bigoted. but if one assumes they have power then referencing the power is not bigoted — it’s the way it’s referenced.

      • hophmi
        April 20, 2016, 1:56 pm

        Well, Lillian, they’re quite routine here. And they’re evidence of a serious antisemitism problem within the BDS movement.

      • Eva Smagacz
        April 21, 2016, 6:52 am

        I would be so grateful for a definition of Anti-semitism, how does it differs from racism, and why discussing facts can be offensive to anybody (they can be discomforted by facts, but that surely is another matter ).

      • Keith
        April 21, 2016, 11:02 am

        EVA SMAGACZ- “I would be so grateful for a definition of Anti-semitism….”

        The traditional definition generally follows the line that anti-Semitism is the irrational hatred of Jews just because they are Jews. The current operational definition of anti-Semitism is any activity which interferes with the agenda of Zionist Jews. The operational definition is used to apply the label which is then used to infer Jew hatred. It is a tactic used to justify Israeli actions (safe haven from anti-Semitism, etc), and of intimidation to squelch any discussion of Jewish power and the political economy. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are frequently referenced along with Blood Libels and lately Pablo Christiani and Father Coughlin. Also, if you link to rense.com your quote will be tainted even though Google led you there and you will be inferred an anti-Semite. I find it curious that these Zionists seem to have such an intimate knowledge of these “anti-Semitic” websites, apparently they spend a lot of time there. Not surprising, perhaps, because perceived anti-Semitism is the mother’s milk of Zionism.

      • hophmi
        April 21, 2016, 12:14 pm

        “The traditional definition generally follows the line that anti-Semitism is the irrational hatred of Jews just because they are Jews.”

        Actually, the definition of antisemitism is to be opposed to the influence of Semitism (which is used as a synonym for Judaism in this context) on European culture. The 19th century writer who coined the term, and artists like Richard Wagner, who were examples of the intellectual line of thought, felt threatened by the presence of relatively newly emancipated Jews on European culture. Wagner wrote about it in musical terms.

        That’s why I find so much of Phil’s writing to be problematic. His critiques actually are in that modern mode of taking the presence of Jews in general society and the power they possess as individuals, and creating a myth that they exercise it collective, as Jews, for the benefit of Jews, and to the detriment of everyone else. Jews are responsible for the Iraq War, because a few Jews supported the war (and of course, no one else did). Jews own a lot of newspapers. A Jew owns the New York Times! So because a Jew owns the New York Times (even if he’s very highly assimilated), he must use his influence, as a Jew, to dictate the editorial direction of the paper to the benefit of the Jewish collective, and to the detriment of everyone else. Disregard the fact that the most rabidly pro-Israel national newspaper is owned by an Australian Christian, or that many newspapers that take a similar editorial line to the Times are owned by non-Jews, or that the invidious fallacy that because an owner is a Jew, he must therefore act as a Jew, on behalf of other Jews.

        “The current operational definition of anti-Semitism is any activity which interferes with the agenda of Zionist Jews.”

        This is the definition that antisemites like to use to caricature the Jewish community. In reality, while a few rightists might propound this definition, just as many Islamists might define Islamophobia as any criticism of Islam or Muslim countries, most Jews do not take this view.

        “It is a tactic used to justify Israeli actions (safe haven from anti-Semitism, etc), and of intimidation to squelch any discussion of Jewish power and the political economy.”

        I’ve never heard anyone ever suggest that it was antisemitic to discuss power in the Jewish community. What is antisemitic is to do it by assuming that because people were born into a certain religion, they must therefore act as members of that religious group principally on behalf of others in that group, to the detriment of everyone else. What is antisemitic is to endlessly discuss Jewish power without placing it into some meaningful comparative context, such as mentioning that Jews are under 2% of the population, that Jews have a long history of working harder than almost any other affluent minority for universal social justice, that Jews have been targeted by divisive campaigns throughout history meant to force them either to convert or to assimilate, etc. It’s like talking about crime in the Black community without discussing institutional racism. It’s like talking about terrorism in the Muslim community without mentioning that the vast, vast majority of Muslims are peaceful people. It’s a form of covert, and sometimes overt, bigotry.

        ” The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are frequently referenced along with Blood Libels and lately Pablo Christiani and Father Coughlin.”

        Well, of course, when the topic is J.J. Goldberg’s comments, and the part where J.J. said that we hadn’t heard people making certain kinds of comments “since Father Coughlin,” I think it becomes relevant to mention Father Coughlin. When a political movement uses Jews who are harshly critical of their own faith, like Israel Shahak, to talk about what Judaism is, I think mentioning Pablo Christiani, and the use of such Jews by hegemons throughout history to justify persecuting the Jewish community, are relevant. And when people talk about Jews as fifth columnists and as tribalists who are only interested in themselves, I think mentioning the Protocols is relevant.

        “Also, if you link to rense.com your quote will be tainted even though Google led you there”

        A man is defined by the company he keeps. Rense has been cited enough here to suggest to me that at least a portion of Mondoweiss commentators are Holocaust deniers of one form or another.

        “I find it curious that these Zionists seem to have such an intimate knowledge of these “anti-Semitic” websites, apparently they spend a lot of time there.”

        Unfortunately, history has taught us to be vigilant.

      • yonah fredman
        April 21, 2016, 1:32 pm

        Antisemitism is partially the hatred for individual jews just because they are jews. But it is also the hatred for judaism, the hatred for jews unless they are willing to disown their traditions and their fellow jews. These additions involve some nuance, for many atheists hate all religions including Judaism and many people criticize particular aspects of judaism. There is also regarding “disown their fellow jews” the aspect of solidarity with their fellow jews even when those fellows are in the wrong. That is part of the reason why these additional aspects lead to controversy.
        As a rule all analogies are inexact and thus it becomes a question of context: why do they hate the religion of the jews but accept the other religions or why do they accept ethnic solidarity of other groups but hate the Jews for their solidarity.
        Whereas hatred of the jews for their particular noses (to quote moses hess) is not acceptable in modern society, hating the Jews because of the content of the book of Esther or of the passover hagada is considered acceptable by some. Then again any attempt by jews to question the content of the hagada, say, will inevitably lead to accusations of dilution, assimilation and deracination. So there is a narrow eye of the needle that needs to be threaded.
        There are very few Armenians or roma who comment here, or rwandans or native Americans for that matter, thus the lack of empathy with the 1939 to 1945 period seems to indicate some animus based on something hateful. (And the refusal to view Jewish concerns for survival and continuity as something natural given the extreme recent history, is indicative of some stubborn refusal that indicates a lack of human feelings for the other.)

      • oldgeezer
        April 21, 2016, 2:41 pm

        @yonah

        As an atheist I respect your religion and freedom to choose your religion to the same extent that I accord respect to any religion (that I know of). I won’t demean it or try to convert you to my system of belief.

        “There is also regarding “disown their fellow jews” the aspect of solidarity with their fellow jews even when those fellows are in the wrong. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/recent-comments/#sthash.mF8LsNKD.dpuf

        No respect. None at all. It merely makes you as in the wrong as those you stand beside. Two wrongs/evils will never make a right. It just makes an even greater wrong/evil. When you do that you are entitled to an equal share of indignation, repugnance and rebuke. It’s actually a despicable thing to do.

      • Mooser
        April 21, 2016, 6:58 pm

        Shorter “Yonah”: ‘Only Jews matter. Please forget Palestinians exist. Let’s not mention them’

      • Mooser
        April 21, 2016, 7:26 pm

        “There is also regarding “disown their fellow jews” the aspect of solidarity with their fellow jews even when those fellows are in the wrong.”

        That’s right! No disowning our fellow Jews, no sir! Not for “Yonah”:

        “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.” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/profile/wondering-jew/#sthash.4LtyE6fB.dpuf

        Yup- “Yonah” you keep up the tribal unity, buddy.

      • Keith
        April 21, 2016, 7:59 pm

        HOPHMI- “His critiques actually are in that modern mode of taking the presence of Jews in general society and the power they possess as individuals, and creating a myth that they exercise it collective, as Jews, for the benefit of Jews….”

        Whoa, partner. Are you actually claiming that organized Jewry doesn’t act as a collective to advance the interests of (primarily Zionist) Jews and doesn’t seek to collectively influence the US government regarding Israel? Because that is exactly what Phil has been writing about even as you function as a Zionist attack dog to hide this reality. The very notion that AIPAC, the World Jewish Congress, and the other members of the Conference of Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations don’t function collectively to bring Jewish financial and political power to bear is preposterous. Social clubs? They are just social clubs?

        HOPHMI- “I’ve never heard anyone ever suggest that it was antisemitic to discuss power in the Jewish community.”

        What chutzpah! You did exactly that at the beginning of your comment! You do it all the time, conflating any such discussion as being like the Protocols or Father Coughlin, both of which you did numerous times before this thread. And if J.J. Goldberg referenced Father Coughlin, then he also is guilty of conflation and of unsubstantiated labeling. And since the conference dealt with the massive amount of Jewish political funding and how that influenced the politicians, it supported the rather obvious observation that organized Jewry clearly functions as a power-seeking, power-wielding collective to achieve their objectives. And anyone who points that out will be called an anti-Semite, which, I might add, Yonah equates to a Jew-hater.

        HOPHMI- “It’s like talking about crime in the Black community without discussing institutional racism.”

        Comparing the unhappy plight of the American Blacks with the long history of American Jewish power and privilege is obscene.

        HOPHMI- “When a political movement uses Jews who are harshly critical of their own faith, like Israel Shahak, to talk about what Judaism is, I think mentioning Pablo Christiani, and the use of such Jews by hegemons throughout history to justify persecuting the Jewish community, are relevant.”

        Israel Shahak, your moral and intellectual superior, wrote about the influence of Classical Judaism on the policies of the state of Israel where he resided, an extremely relevant topic for this website. I am unaware of how Pablo Christiani is relevant to Israeli policies, you use him merely to disingenuously conflated someone to him. For example, “Pablo Christiani speaks,” referring to Yoni Falic. You are utterly shameless.

        HOPHMI- “Unfortunately, history has taught us to be vigilant.”

        What contemporary events show is that Shahak was essentially correct that Zionism is a form of reversion to Classical Judaism with its strong anti-Gentile animus, particularly virulent concerning the Gentile peasants who were, in fact, the majority of the Gentile population. Your sense of victimhood correlates strongly with the rise of the Holocaust industry following the 1967 Six Day War. You are a loyal and aggressive defender of the Zionist faith, an attack dog for Zion.

      • bryan
        April 21, 2016, 8:04 pm

        yonah – I appreciate your indefatigability in continuing to portray the whole world as anti-Semitic AND unjustifiably anti-Israel, but I do feel sorry that your friends in Rabin Square are somewhat undermining your sterling efforts.

      • Mooser
        April 21, 2016, 8:27 pm

        “Comparing the unhappy plight of the American Blacks with the long history of American Jewish power and privilege is obscene.”

        Even apart from questions of “power and privilege” it is unquestionable that Jews were always included as persons and citizens in the US, not chattel slaves, or legal second-class citizens. That right there is a big difference.

      • Mooser
        April 21, 2016, 8:33 pm

        “I appreciate your indefatigability in continuing to portray the whole world as…

        “Bryan”, research seems to indicate that Ziocaine Syndrome episodes are often accompanied by bouts of ‘projection vomiting’.

      • yonah fredman
        April 21, 2016, 10:23 pm

        bryan- I took Eva at her word that she wanted a definition and I sought to provide my own definition that included a few different aspects.

        citing Jewish Israeli zionist hatred for Arabs/Palestinians as represented (apparently accurately without any doubts) by the crowd in Rabin Square deals with none of the points that I raised. but why deal with what I said, when you can insult me. war of ideas? forget about it. war of insults.

      • yonah fredman
        April 22, 2016, 1:50 am

        Keith-you are right, antisemitism is mistranslated as hatred, opposition need not be hatred. American Jewish political and financial success naturally arouses opposition. Watched some David duke on YouTube the other day. Now thats jew hatred.
        Y’see it’s one thing to hear that prince is dead and it’s another thing to hear about a bomb on a bus or a soldier dispatching (murdering) a wounded, pause, pause, not a terrorist, it’s Hebron and the battle is too serious to dismiss with such rhetoric. To me the situation seems fated, which includes likud still dominant for a while longer, Jewish money dominating the Democratic party, and a comments section in mondoweiss, the symptom of the future of the Democratic party inhabited by various types, including people who talk like educated David dukes and it’s tough to really say who is a mere opponent and who in fact is an enemy.

      • bryan
        April 22, 2016, 5:38 am

        Yonah – my comment did not seek to insult you and if you took it as such then I unreservedly apologise. “Indefatigability” was perhaps an over-statement (Your archive reveals a mere 37 references to anti-Semitism, many of which attempt to conflate unjustified criticism of Israel with old-fashioned racism). I had seen Eva’s question and your reasonable response to it, but I was merely suggesting that those who advocate for the pervasiveness of this old-fashioned racism within those who criticise Israel are not well-served by those who demonstrate the extreme racism within Israeli society. Nor were the recent events in Rabin Square merely a manifestation of an intense (and possibly understandable) dislike of Palestinians by a fringe group within Israeli society. The event was addressed by members of the Knesset, inciting the rally. The rally was intensely hostile to Israel’s indigenous human rights organisation (like bt’selem) who attempt to portray the humane and rational face of Israeli society, and to independent journalists, the so-called extreme ‘leftists’ of Israeli society like David Sheen). The role of the police was criticised by Dan Cohen, for merely seeking to minimise the injuries at the hands of the marauding mob, rather than to uphold civil rights. And let’s not forget that the rally was called to celebrate and protect from justice a medic who had just killed a man in cold blood.

        To be fair to you, your response to Eva, did not even mention the anti-Zionism v. anti-Semitism question in the way that some of your previous posts have. The nearest you came to it was suggesting there is some hostility to Jewish solidarity whilst acknowledging that your fellow Jews do not necessarily deserve support if they are in the wrong, and a statement that everyone should acknowledge Jewish concerns for survival and security. Perfectly reasonable, as long as you will accept three further points: (1) the continued colonisation of Judea and Samaria, the blockade of Gaza, and the maintenance of the status quo with regard to a settlement of the dispute does not necessarily enhance survival and security within the 67 borders; (2) survival and security of Jews in Israel is legitimate provided it is not at the expense of the survival and security of non-Jews; (3) survival and security of Jews is worthy provided it is not achieved in the context of a retreat into mental and social ghettos which could be seen to inevitably undermine principles of respect for human rights and international law, and here it is appropriate to mention the over-reliance of the Israeli state on the export of security equipment and systems (e.g. racial-profiling at airports and the increasing militarisation of civil police forces) which endanger the liberties of citizens in the western world.

      • yonah fredman
        April 22, 2016, 10:12 am

        Bryan- you referred to the mob in rabin square as my friends and that was the insult. They are not my friends. Hebron is the front line of the current intifada and in a way sending soldiers to defend the settlers in Hebron involves placing them in a perverse mindset, so as such it is hebron, the settlers and the occupation that is to blame. The soldier should not be given a free ride. There are rules and laws and I accept the prosecution of the soldier as necessary and right and I view the knesset members who participate as dangerous,whereas defense minister yaalon has increased in my estimation due to his solidity on the issue ( in contrast to Netanyahu’s waffling and politicking.) Regarding the west bank : due to my attachment to jerusalem if I woke up tomorrow as prime minister I would not immediately withdraw, I would consult avrum Burg and others to guide me through the process of negotiation and withdrawal. The harm done to the Palestinians is/was/ continues to be grievous and for healing to occur is really beyond my hopes at this time to see in my lifetime. Still I think in practical terms and do not suggest a wholesale exit of the post 1897 jews, which means juggling practicality and morality which is a weak position. Not the purism of the God of wrath and liberation.

      • Mooser
        April 22, 2016, 11:43 am

        “war of ideas? forget about it. war of insults.”

        Please see “Yonah’s” reply (it is above, I don’t need to paste it again) to commenter “Yoni Falic”

        “Yonah” I would advise you not to get in a war of insults, you are very badly equipped for it.

      • Mooser
        April 22, 2016, 11:55 am

        “and it’s tough to really say who is a mere opponent and who in fact is an enemy.”

        Poor “Yonah”! Et tu Jews?

        “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.” “Yonah Fredman”- See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/profile/wondering-jew/?keyword=boat#sthash.BXKdoBfh.dpuf

        So are they “opponents” or “enemies”?

      • Keith
        April 22, 2016, 2:59 pm

        YONAH FREDMAN- “Watched some David duke on YouTube the other day.”

        Why?

      • MHughes976
        April 22, 2016, 4:15 pm

        Yonah is saying, I think, that anti-Semitism is hatred a)!directed at individual Jews either ‘because they are Jews’ or on grounds related to the Jewish religion b) directed at Judaism in the abstract. At this rate, nothing falling short of the emotional pitch of hatred qualifies. I think that hatred directed at individual Jews, even many individual Jews, would also fail to qualify if it was caused by real or even supposed bad behaviour on the part of those individuals, unless we exclude the possibility that such behaviour could happen.
        My suggested definitions, in reply to Eva’s question, are that racism is negative prejudice related to race (even the White race) and that racism is anti-Semitism if the race in question is Jewish. At that rate no genuinely rational argument (and I think anti-Z is rational) is racist or anti-Semitic in character. No one owns words and anyone may use them as they wish, with the sole obligation of making oneself clear. But I think it’s convenient to regard an ‘-ism’ as a belief of some kind.
        My definition is loaded, ie it classifies as anti-S only things that are bad, prejudice being bad. Some might prefer a neutral definition, say making anti-S any opposition – any, not only wrongful or prejudiced opposition – to anything with strong Jewish support, like Zionism. But this leaves it open for anti-Z to be right or wrong.

      • gamal
        April 22, 2016, 6:39 pm

        “Poor “Yonah”! Et tu Jews?”

        homewrecker, “I sure can tear it down”

        Just as Fontella says “I dont need a bulldozer to turn your home into a big mess”

        it takes her ten minutes to wipe out ten years of happy co-habitation.

        https://youtu.be/JWS8UcXjKD4

      • yonah fredman
        April 22, 2016, 7:32 pm

        keith- I have followed the career of david duke and the overlap between KKK and trump is certainly of interest in 2016, so a tape of duke’s semi endorsement of trump was of interest. i don’t know what milieu timothy mcveigh came from, so i do not feel that i can ignore certain segments of the population.

      • bryan
        April 23, 2016, 9:40 am

        Sorry yonah – I should probably have called the Rabin Square mob – your fellow-travellers not “your friends”. In my defence I can only say that I had just read your statement defining anti-Semitism that said “But it is also the hatred for judaism, the hatred for jews unless they are willing to disown their traditions and their fellow jews.”

      • Mooser
        April 23, 2016, 11:56 am

        “Why?”

        “Keith” isn’t it obvious? That’s how to induce a Ziocaine Syndrome Episode.

      • Keith
        April 23, 2016, 2:34 pm

        MOOSER- ““Keith” isn’t it obvious?”

        Yes. But what is actually strange is how many Zionists spend an inordinate amount of time at these (Mossad run?) “anti-Semitic” websites while I hang at CounterPunch, Znet, Black Agenda Report,The Saker,etc, yet I am the anti-Semite. Before Mondoweiss, I had never heard of most of these. Stormfront? Does that involve weatherizing your house? Seriously, these are totally marginal sites that Zionists fixate on and try to conflate someone with as proof by labeling. And since these sites do a lot of copy and paste of legitimate authors, then someone like Hophmi can claim something is anti-Semitic if it appears on one of these sites which Hophmi is intimately familiar with. Talk about a get out of jail free card, just make sure that something you don’t like is copy and pasted by rense.com and you are home free. If you can’t hide it, taint it by association. So very, very dishonest.

    • brent
      April 20, 2016, 12:51 pm

      The heavy hands on NPR and The Newshour do more to sway public opinion and thereby influence politicians, than any other single phenomenon. This is done primarily by omitting relevant information and informed voices.

      • Lillian Rosengarten
        April 20, 2016, 4:14 pm

        Annie, I do think Zionism in its present form is a racist , nationalist ideology.
        Christian Zionists have their own agenda which is converting Jews to Christianity or having them die in the “rapture “. To be anti-Zionist is not to be anti-Jew. Anti-Semitism used to be about a person who disliked Jews. Forgive me if I was wrong but that was what my previous comment was referring to.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 20, 2016, 4:49 pm

        well i agree with you there lillian, i misunderstood your point.

      • Lillian Rosengarten
        April 20, 2016, 6:38 pm

        Hophmi, do you mean anti-Semitism in BDS as a statement of anti-Zionism and/or delegitimizing Israel. ? I myself do not think anti-Zionism is anti-Semitic as I have said before. In addition, it is clear to me that Israel has delegitimized itself and must exist in another form of a true and equal democracy side by side with Palestinians. Without this happening, Israel will continue to fragment and destroy itself.

    • Eric
      April 20, 2016, 3:39 pm

      Jewish Zionists control the American media? To paraphrase Captain Renault as he toured the casino: “I am shocked—shocked—to find that gambling is going on in here!”

  4. JWalters
    April 19, 2016, 8:20 pm

    “Oh my gosh. Is there really only one foreign policy on this?” – Stephanie Schriock

    Harry Truman was confronted with major donors who wanted control over U.S. foreign policy regarding Israel.

    JFK was confronted with major donors who wanted control over U.S. foreign policy regarding Israel.

    Kudos to the panelists for helping bring these facts into the public discussion. Kudos to Phil for this lucid account of the discussion.

    Related question: Are the people running the “Jewish industries” themselves controlled by people with even more financial power, perhaps people who bankrolled and established these industries? Specifically, are their options on political donations constrained by people with a more direct financial interest in the foreign policy?

    • Bandolero
      April 22, 2016, 10:14 pm

      JWalters

      I largely agree with your lines. This is a very fine article on a very relevant discussion to give some ordinary people, non-insiders, a hint to a better understanding of what’s going on behind the scenes in the spheres of high power.

      My imagination about whether there is someone more powerful “behind” the “jewish industries” who gives instructions whom to donate to and whom not to donate to, is that there may be competing business interests that reflect the ideological split inside the “folks being with candidates” – as Stephanie put it, meaning the jewish mega donor class.

      For example, when I look up opensecrets.org for the 2014 election cycle, I find the mega top donor of democrats and of all donors is a guy called Tom Steyer living in California. According to opensecrets.org he gave $75 million in the 2014 election cycle to democrats, multiple times more than anyone else. See yourself:

      http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/topindivs.php?cycle=2014&view=fc

      So who is Tom Steyer? It’s a hedge fund manager with jewish family roots. Than I looked up his name and business in Wikipedia. What struck me, was that Wikipedia listed some past busniess of him in Eastern Asia, Indonesia, to be exact. I have no idea if has has still Eastern Asia business, but if one once has Eastern Asia business and it goes well in a mega market growing fast, I would not be surprised if such business continues.

      So, my question regarding an ideological split in the jewish donor community would be whether there is also a split in business interests, for example between those having more business ties over the atlantic and those having more business ties over the pacific. I came to this idea because of the US “pivot to Asia” policy adopted about five years ago, that seems to be disliked by Israel, but that seems to have serious money behind it.

      Let me put that in a very direct question: does the US foreign policy prescribed by AIPAC damage very serious business interests of a part of the (jewish or non-jewish) mega rich donor class? And if so, whom does it damage?

      • Bandolero
        April 24, 2016, 1:43 am

        JWalters

        I looked at it again. What I think now is that if someone active in hedge fund business had
        foreknowledge of falling oil prices – say because he would know – say that Sec Kerry asking the Saudis to increase oil output and crash the market – he could have earned a lot of money by betting on falling oil prices. What could have been won by such foreknowledge would be definitely more than $75m spent by Tom Steyer on Democrats in the 2014 election cycle.

        So, in result, I find it more plausible that coming oil market ops had leaked than that’s a story of Aipac or pacific vs atlatic business interests.

  5. Krauss
    April 19, 2016, 11:04 pm

    Let’s be honest: the reason why she felt compelled to say what she said is because of two major factors: Walt and Mearsheimer and the BDS movement. J Street is still Zionist with a long history of shutting out Palestinian voices. Emily still only tried to set this up as AIPAC vs J Street. Zionism vs Zionism. That’s not good enough.

    Her comments are notable for someone on the inside, but they are still a result of grassroots efforts to expose the Israel lobby. And yes, it’s mostly about money on the democratic side. That’s where the big donors of the Jewish community comes from, to ensure support of Jewish Apartheid.

    The GOP are going to support Israel no matter what. It’s because of Christian evangelicalism, it’s because the Palestinians are muslims, and are therefore the automatic enemy in the eyes of the GOP.

    As the GOP withers and dies demographically, the spotlight will turn to the Democratic party. Why are its elites increasingly out of step with the base? The NYT wrote about “conservative Jewish influence” a few days ago when talking about Bernie’s Israel heresy. Again: only in the context of Jewish dissent is this discussion ever broached. It was also written by a Jewish reporter in a newspaper owned by Jews. That’s not good enough.

    True progress will be when the disucssion moves from “How are Jews feeling?” to “What can be done to end support of Jewish Apartheid, not because what some Jews feel like, but because it is the right thing to do for humanity”.

    • hophmi
      April 20, 2016, 9:49 am

      J Street shuts out Palestinians? There were at least six featured Palestinian speakers at its national conference 2015.

  6. Marnie
    April 20, 2016, 12:33 am

    “When you are raising money, you need to find rich people who are not right wing, and there are not– pardon me for saying this, there are not many rich goyim who are not right wing. Forgive me for saying that. ”

    This is not the point of the article but it’s 2016 and to hear someone say the G-word (goy, goyim, gentile) just pisses me off. He said it so easily, this 2-syllable insult. It would be as easy, again 2 syllables, to say non-Jews. And then, who is he saying ‘forgive me for saying that” to. Jerk.

    • hophmi
      April 20, 2016, 9:46 am

      Gentile is an insult now? It’s just a Latin-derived word that means non-Jew. But it’s interesting that it pisses you off this much. #hegemonyproblems

      • Marnie
        April 20, 2016, 11:49 am

        The PC definition of “gentile” is non-Jew; the historic definition of gentile is pagan, a non-believer. Just because you’re unaware that it’s insulting and derogatory along with the terms goy, goyim, is no surprise. I think special names for someone who isn’t Jewish shouldn’t be insulting, but you maybe haven’t been questioned about your authenticity so much. How nice.

      • Marnie
        April 20, 2016, 2:15 pm

        Yeah, I know, it’s hard to get interested when it ain’t about you.

      • Sibiriak
        April 20, 2016, 2:42 pm

        hophmi : Gentile is an insult now? It’s just a Latin-derived word that means non-Jew.
        ———————

        Sure, who wouldn’t love to be called a “non-Jew”? It’s a purely negative* label, but so what?

        Sometimes I even introduce myself that way. “Hello, I’m a non-Jew. How about you?”

        —————————–

        * “Negative”: Consisting in or characterized by the absence rather than the presence of distinguishing features.”

      • Mary T
        April 20, 2016, 4:02 pm

        Live and learn, hophmi. The Orthodox Union web site has an article titled “The Jewish N Word”, by Rabbi Jack Abramowitz. According to Rabbi Abramowitz:

        “There may not be malice behind the use of a given phrase but it does betray one as the product of a less enlightened era. . . . if a person to whom a term refers has a preference, I will use it. That’s really the crux of the matter.”

        “Along these lines, we Jews have some terms that others may find offensive. Yes, the speaker may have no ill intent but the listener may take umbrage nevertheless.

        The first such word is ‘goy.’ ‘Goy’ literally means a nation, which includes the Jews. For example, in Genesis 12:2, G-d tells Abraham that his descendants (i.e., the Jews) will be ‘goy gadol’ – ‘a great nation’. In Exodus 19:6, Israel is referred to as ‘goy kadosh’ – ‘a holy nation’. II Samuel 7:23 calls the Jews ‘goy echad ba’aretz’ – ‘a singular nation in the land’.

        But goyim’, i.e., ‘nations’? That means ‘all the nations other than Israel’. Members of those nations are called ‘goyim’ by extension, meaning ‘members of the other nations’. In the singular, ‘goy’ – the member of a nation other than Israel. It’s not inherently offensive but guess what? Non-Jews find it disparaging. At the very least, they find it condescending. Therefore, we should not use it in conversation.”

        I don’t know anything about Rabbi Abramowitz, but he seems like a wise man.

      • lysias
        April 20, 2016, 5:47 pm

        “Gentile” is also a word used by Christians. At least I used to hear it growing up as a Catholic. In Christian usage, it refers to someone who is neither a Christian nor a Jew, i.e., a pagan. And in Christian usage it is undoubtedly pejorative.

    • echinococcus
      April 20, 2016, 10:23 am

      Marnie,

      “Goy” in the general American language does not seem to carry the negative connotations it seems to have in the racist religious language and among those influenced by it. Your general American seems to be aware of that usage. Even though biologically “Jewish” with some religious people in the family, I only heard of the negative implication these last few years.

      • Marnie
        April 20, 2016, 11:50 am

        Hey echinococcus – I’m American by birth. I didn’t hear the term so much there.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 20, 2016, 1:25 pm

        i never heard the term til i was in college.

        i’d even question whether “Goy” is even “in” the “general” American language. it’s an offensive term that used enough could become normalized i suppose. wiki keeps watering down their definition of it. but as a person who is not jewish, i don’t like it applied to me or like hearing it or reading it.

      • echinococcus
        April 20, 2016, 8:53 pm

        OK, looks like we’ve had different experiences –also possibly because I avoid talking to religious people. I’ll look into it.

      • echinococcus
        April 23, 2016, 2:14 am

        Marnie/Annie,
        Reporting from a quick-and-dirty survey (non-random sample, insufficient numbers, unstratified, questions carelessly formulated, all highly unscientific and very dirty.) To the question, does “goy” carry any negative connotations, I got a quasi-unanimous “no, where do you get the idea?” from (Sefardí) family outside New York, “yes” from those living in or around NY; “yes” from almost all Eskenazi acquaintances.
        From persons belonging to the general American public, with no personal involvement with the tribe, those with an East Coast origin were all familiar with the word but divided about its connotations, while the West Coast natives mostly had either heard the word late in life or not at all.
        One more Eastern vs. Southern Europe thing? Dunno.

      • Marnie
        April 23, 2016, 12:30 pm

        Hi again echinococcus –
        Sounds like a lot of time futzing around to refute my assertion that goy is insulting and you got a mixed bag of responses in your research. Isn’t it enough if a few people are insulted? Does it have to be unanimous? I also can’t figure out why you’d ask Jews if it’s offensive since they’re the ones mostly using the term and what are they going to tell you anyway – “Yes, it’s very offensive, which is why I use that term whenever possible”. Would you ask African Americans if they’are offended by the N word or just ask white folks if it’s offensive? I hate the term, okay? And I’m not alone, okay? Sheesh.

      • YoniFalic
        April 23, 2016, 10:12 pm

        On a liar or an ignorant person argues goy has no negative connotation. Standard Yiddish idiom for stupid person is goyisher kop or goyish head.

      • echinococcus
        April 24, 2016, 2:52 am

        Marnie and Yoni,

        It’s just a point of language usage. My general impression is that it is an insult among the Yiddish speakers / Eskenazis but less or not so among the Spanish speakers. That anybody feels insulted or not is not the point.

      • Marnie
        April 24, 2016, 10:58 am

        Yikes.

      • YoniFalic
        April 24, 2016, 1:07 pm

        Modern Israeli Hebrew is relexified Yiddish and certainly follows Yiddish usage as I grew up with the language.

    • Marnie
      April 21, 2016, 12:22 am

      I don’t know why anyone feels the need to identify themselves religiously anyway. I think your spiritual beliefs and practices don’t need to be on display or part of introducing yourself because seriously who gives a f$%@? I don’t like insulting terms being used to describe anyone who’s not part of whatever. I also strongly believe that no matter what the f%#@ you call yourself, it’s your actions and your code of conduct that defines you. Which I think is a big part of why the majority of israelis who claim they are Jews is disturbing as their behavior is nothing at all like the guidelines of social interaction, justice, honor, etc., are supposed to be. Take for example the “kill all Arabs” hate fest in Tel Aviv the other day. And David Sheen was attacked by a group of folks feeling the hate in Tel Aviv, who accused him of being with Bt’selem and they tried to take his camera because they’re ashamed of what they are doing and know they’re wrong. The real face of israel is a horror.

  7. David Doppler
    April 20, 2016, 10:41 am

    I think elected officials should face demands from their electorate to publish those AIPAC papers, spelling out what they have promised in exchange for all that financial support. I’m going to write my Congressperson.

  8. Ossinev
    April 20, 2016, 2:12 pm

    @hophmi
    “I think that readers here think the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a work of non-fiction and that they’re primed to believe any conspiracy theory someone spins about the American Jewish community.”

    Haven`t read it so I confess to not being an expert on the full content itself. Stand to be corrected but my understanding is that it was a treatise ergo non fiction ( no love story etc ) detailing an alleged meeting of “Jewish leaders” formulating a conspiracy for “World Domination” at the turn of the 20th century.

    I don`t think Jews , Zionist or otherwise , are into / have ever been into “world domination “.
    Apart from anything else it would be highly counterproductive in terms of multiplying the need for contact with a huge range of untermenschen.

    No I believe that their Zionism was totally focused on the creation of their Biblical Disney World in Palestine and yes the Zionists ( no matter what age they happened to be ) conspired from day one to achieve this objective and continue to do so via money,terror,war crimes,ethnic cleansing,two fingers to the International Community and International Law to name but several methods. As part of their Biblical Colony project they realised from day one that they would have to “neutralize” the threat / potential threat of the locals in both Palestine and the surrounding Arab states and in order to do this they very quickly realised in turn that they needed to control the political dialogue and actions of the world`s leading superpower viz a viz the Middle East .It was in this phase of the project that I think it is fair to say that they instituted what was and has been ever since what can fairly be described as the “Protocols of the American Elders of Zion ” and a major part of their methodology is clearly outlined in this article.

    Looking from the outside “into” America what is surreal is the fact that they have got away with it for so long. But as has been made more and more clear on the MW site very large cracks are beginning to appear in the AIPAC / ADL etc propaganda wall. The “Elders” in the American Jewish community are being ignored,confronted and contradicted by the younger generation and the speed of this process is heartening. As for the generality of the Americans who hitherto made bland assumptions that it was automatically right to support “the only Democracy / our only ally in the Middle East ” – well in the age of the Internet and taxpayer austerities they are waking up and smelling the coffee ( sorry in this case that should really be smelling the stink ).

  9. dx
    April 21, 2016, 1:11 am

    So AIPAC is very much like ALEC (American Legislative Executive Council). Hardly ever hear much about either one’s influence in ordinary American press.

  10. yonah fredman
    April 22, 2016, 7:34 pm

    mooser- one rule of common sense: never talk seriously to a comic. you want to play jackie mason one second and then ask serious questions. you’re surely joking. out of every 100 sentences that you write (excluding block quotes) about 7 have content of interest. see if you can improve your batting average.

    • oldgeezer
      April 23, 2016, 1:11 am

      @yonah

      One rule of common sense, drop the pretense of being a philosophical individual discussing nuance and the balance of rights and wrongs when, in the end, you resort to mindless tribalism even when your tribe is wrong. Its a reqyirement by your rules. You have spent the last two week waxing to a mindless extent. Your musings resemble a black hole. It has no end given that you say nothing of value and back horrific crimes against humanity perpetrated by those you consider to be fellow tribalists. Let alone tossing overboard coreligionists who dont adhere to your exact thoughts.

      The only difference between you and hoppy is he doesnt make a pretense of being remotely intellectual. Granted he couldnt pull it off if he tried.

      • Mooser
        April 23, 2016, 10:58 am

        ” Let alone tossing overboard coreligionists who dont adhere to your exact thoughts.”

        “oldgeezer” you must understand, Judaism is a competitive religion. The more exclusive we make it, and the fewer Jews qualify, the more people we kick out, the more people who leave, the bigger and more powerful Judaism is. Just ask “Yonah”.

        Jews suis generis!

    • Marnie
      April 23, 2016, 12:32 pm

      “Yonah”

      What a pretentious @#!$*@#$%.

  11. REALITY CHECK 101
    April 25, 2016, 10:36 pm

    I have a question. Not all comments, nor comments by particular posters, have a ‘reply’ tab. Is that by choice of the poster, or are comments closed on this article? or possibly someone could advise how to reply to those comments? Thanks in advance..

    • Annie Robbins
      April 26, 2016, 1:05 am

      RC101, if the comments were closed on the article you would not have been able to post this ;)

      we rarely close comments on articles, tho it has been done in the past.

      the reply tabs are not by choice of the commenter, but by some sort of tech automation. to comment on a particular posters comment that has no reply feature, scroll up from that comment to the closest reply feature and click ‘reply’ your comment will land at the base of that subthread. sorry if it’s a tad confusing. if your comment is separated by other comments it’s helpful to address the person by name or reference some of their text that you are referring to.

      • REALITY CHECK 101
        April 26, 2016, 5:17 pm

        Thank you Annie. But if I have to scroll up to a different comment to leave a reply, hophmi is probably not going to see my reply. To add one more reply in a long list of replies to a comment not even made by the poster I want to reply to seems somewhat ridiculous. But thanks for your reply.

      • Annie Robbins
        April 26, 2016, 8:00 pm

        under the box where you comment is an option that says ” NOTIFY ME OF FOLLOW-UP COMMENTS BY EMAIL.”

        i think (although i am not positive) everyone participating in a subthread receives the notifications if they click the box. why don’t you try leaving him a comment and see what happens. and click the box yourself.

      • REALITY CHECK 101
        April 27, 2016, 1:12 am

        I’m sorry Annie..I’ve been checking that box and I don’t seem to be getting notifications either. Nor am I getting notifications that you’ve replied to me. Do I have spinach in my teeth or something?

      • Annie Robbins
        April 27, 2016, 8:26 pm

        sorry to here that reality check. write adam at [email protected] for anything techie. sometimes things take a long time to fix around here. if you don’t hear back from him try tova at [email protected]

  12. Theo
    April 26, 2016, 12:37 pm

    Hallo Annie

    I had a good laugh reading the comments regarding the word goy or goyim. It depends how do you look at it, a french man in love calls his lady “ma petite cochon”, my little pig, that would be insulting to most of us, however she just loves it!

    I tried to fill out the questionnaire for Tova, however I could not agree with many questions, it was a 3d degree to me. You will not find me on Facebook, YouTube or similar sites, I prefer privacy. I am not a yes-man, sometimes my questions or comments did upset a few important persons, however I also got results, churning the same stew over and over will not get us any further in our quest.

    • gamal
      April 26, 2016, 2:33 pm

      “I had a good laugh reading the comments regarding the word goy or goyim.”

      but thats because you are a Grokle, with all the potential to become an actual Emmet (air ticket, hire car, reservations for a campsite in Newquay)

      when will you people understand Cornwall is for the Corniche

      https://youtu.be/mFA4VDod37Y

      • Theo
        April 27, 2016, 1:01 pm

        gamal

        I enjoyed the music, all my life I liked afro-american and caribic music, however I just don´t know what the hell are you talking about!!!!

      • Mooser
        April 27, 2016, 2:09 pm

        “I just don´t know what the hell are you talking about!!!!”

        “Theo” if you find the lyrics confusing, try something purely instrumental .

    • Annie Robbins
      April 27, 2016, 8:30 pm

      not sure if your my little pig analogy works so well theo. i bet the french man’s lady wouldn’t like it if a stranger called her a pig. i didn’t get too far on the survey myself because once you do not answer certain questions there’s no opportunity to continue.

      • Mooser
        April 27, 2016, 11:07 pm

        “i bet the french man’s lady wouldn’t like it if a stranger called her a pig”

        Of course, nobody gives a damn how the pig feels about it.

  13. gamal
    April 27, 2016, 7:52 pm

    Firstly Jackie Mittoo, much appreciated.

    “I just don´t know what the hell are you talking about!!!!”

    understanding is vastly overrated.

    I dont really get the whole Goy issue, I have dealings with all kinds of Jews in all manner of circumstances, producing work together etc, the issues of choseness, goyishness etc never come up, or when they did it seemed to me unoproblematic

    if the Zionists are toying with all this so be it, i am a goy, a grokle and was once briefly an emmet, heathen, pagan, i was often mistaken for a Mizrahi Israeli in north London Jewish areas which led to some amusing encounters and conversations,

    let me leave you with the Islamic “everyone must get stoned”, muste is the state of rut of the male elephant they enter a fierce state of intoxication, also you will forgive us, after listening for saying white people have no rhythm, we dont mean any harm and you know its true. you are rhythm goys.

    https://youtu.be/M2K_2MQij9Q

    • Mooser
      April 27, 2016, 10:59 pm

      “…much appreciated”

      You’re welcome! The best I can manage personally is seedy suburban organ.

    • Keith
      April 28, 2016, 12:46 am

      GAMAL- “understanding is vastly overrated.”

      Hear, hear! Once I learned to renounce my fetishization of reality and to embrace my Karma and laxatives, things cleared up.

      PS- Jackie Mittoo?

      • Mooser
        April 28, 2016, 4:28 pm

        “PS- Jackie Mittoo?”

        Plenty of Jackie Mittoo on You-Tube.

Leave a Reply