Sanders is in Jewish tradition that rejected exceptionalist nationalism of Zionism

US Politics
on 126 Comments

Jesse Alexander Myerson has an excellent meditation on Bernie Sanders’s throw-back Jewish identity at the Village Voice. There is a romance in the piece: Yiddish socialists who fought their persecution in Europe brought the fight for emancipation to the U.S. and transformed our country (that was a long time before neoconservatism and neoliberalism also transformed our country). And the piece is religious, too, inasmuch as Myerson quotes Scripture.

But the ending is terrific. It clearly identifies the sociocultural changes inside the Jewish community that made Zionism an ethos for the affluent. And clearly links anti-Zionism with a Jewish progressive tradition, of which Bernie Sanders is a part. Anti-Zionism is coming in, folks. Myerson’s piece is on the front page of the Village Voice, with the headline, “Heretic.” The Zionist/ant-Zionist debate is beginning to happen.

Myerson:

Despite the appeal of Zionism, many Jews still veered left: Thousands joined the civil rights movement, appalled by the treatment of black people in the South, building on the legacy of the Jewish CIO organizers who had helped lay early groundwork for the sit-ins and freedom rides. Despite being limited in number in American society, Jews were overrepresented in activist circles: It is not a coincidence that a rabbi, Abraham Heschel, walked alongside Dr. Martin Luther King, or that two of the most prominent murder victims of the movement, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, were Jewish. A young Bernie Sanders was among them, too, committing civil disobedience in protest of housing discrimination in Chicago.

Many American Jews, however, took a stand on the wrong side of those struggles. In a single generation, formerly working-class Jews who’d been concentrated in the Lower East Side, Grand Concourse, and Flatbush had spread out to Great Neck, Scarsdale, and New Jersey, becoming suburban homeowners and “professionals,” assimilated into that American Dream of upwardly mobile whiteness. The “there goes the neighborhood” attitude that attended white flight boiled over during the 1968 NYC teachers’ strike, which pitted mainly suburban Jews against the black communities that had replaced them in what was now the “inner city.” At the same time, but thousands of miles away, Israel undertook an aggressive expansion and occupation in Palestine, making manifest the country’s ideological shift toward right-wing Zionism. That Zionism found voice in this country as well, becoming the most salient and powerful political philosophy for American Jews.

The magnitude of this change is difficult to overstate. The internationalism of the pre-war American Jewry was supplanted by nationalism. Our egalitarian commitment was replaced by exceptionalism. Our agitation against war was undermined by ceaseless colonialism in Palestine. Jews have been instructed that the cluster bombs and night patrols blanketing the Holy Land are necessary to preserve our heritage. We have to wonder: Has the shift to militant nationalism robbed us of a Jewish heritage worth preserving?

That’s a great question. And a religious one. Some young Jews may say, I don’t want any of this old time religion. Some may reject any resort to religious fables when dealing with present day human rights questions.

About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

126 Responses

  1. Kathleen
    April 2, 2016, 12:21 pm

    “Our egalitarian commitment was replaced by exceptionalism. Our agitation against war was undermined by ceaseless colonialism in Palestine. Jews have been instructed that the cluster bombs and night patrols blanketing the Holy Land are necessary to preserve our heritage. We have to wonder: Has the shift to militant nationalism robbed us of a Jewish heritage worth preserving? ”

    Yowser.

    And MW has been a huge part of helping this ongoing shift of attitudes and awareness to grow.

    The “yuge” differences between Clinton’s (die hard neocon) Aipac speech and Sanders Aipac speech (not read at Aipac) demonstrate the massive difference between Clinton’s foreign policy leanings (actions in Iraq, Libya, Syria) and Sanders far more reasonable and sane foreign policy leanings

    • echinococcus
      April 2, 2016, 2:45 pm

      massive difference between Clinton’s foreign policy leanings (actions in Iraq, Libya, Syria) and Sanders far more reasonable and sane foreign policy leanings

      Please provide exactly where the “massive difference” is: one is Likud and AIPAC, the other is Zionist Bloc and JStreet.
      There is not a speck of difference for a Palestinians facing the occupation, theft and genocidal action. If you see any, please specify exactly in what.
      Both defend the genocidal massacres in Palestine. Both are out with the mantra that the invader “has a right to defend itself”. Both have supported the AUMF and the Iraq budget –Sanders, being a “Labor” Zionist, registered a grandstanding Nay, soon belied bt his budget vote.
      They then both pushed for war to destroy Libya and Syria. If there is any difference on the Sanders side, please provide specifics (not his own late, self-serving general principle BS from his own web site.) Same applies to many more situations, like the aggression against Russia, the re-invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, etc. In fact, Sanders revelaled himself as the more clueless of the two by inviting Saudi troops to invade Syria and cheering on the destruction of Yemen.
      So “Sanders’ far more reasonable and sane foreign policy leanings” seem to consist in the fact that he doesn’t follow the same genocidal Zionist party but a more dangerous one, and that he is part of most of the crimes of aggression supported by the Empress, except for the fact that she is first-person Nuremberg gallows bait (or whatever would be done today.)
      This isn’t the first time, and my invitation to provide solid evidence for your electoral propaganda items is still valid. Thank you.

      • joemowrey
        April 2, 2016, 6:27 pm

        Thanks, echinococcus., for keeping the discussion honest as concerns Sanders. Phil is trying way too hard to find a reason to like him. There are some reasons, no doubt, when it comes to his domestic agenda, But Sanders’ foreign policy views are a strictly status quo in terms of U.S. empire. And his views on Israel, as you point out, differ very little from any of the other candidates. He’s begun to make a few gratuitous statements about Palestinian rights, etc., but his history of full-blown support for Zionism belies his recent rhetoric. To imply that he has any kind of anti-Zionist leanings is purely magical thinking.

        It’s okay if people want to support Sanders. But lets not make stuff up to justify that support. Better we laud him for his domestic agenda while keeping the pressure on for him to quit being such a hypocrite when it comes to human rights and social justice for anyone other than Americans.

        The tendency for people to label him as some kind of peacenik is truly disgusting. He’s no psychopath, like Clinton, but he’s certainly no anti-war candidate either.

        Saying it doesn’t make it so. It will only make it harder to hold him accountable later on.

      • echinococcus
        April 2, 2016, 9:59 pm

        Joe Mowrey,

        Sanders is extremely likable in person, no contest there. Supporting him based on his domestic policy, though, would mean that one believes that anything can be done on that account in a test tube, dissociated from imperialism. This here being a Palestine solidarity site, we’ll skip the two-party dictatorship aspect.

      • Kathleen
        April 5, 2016, 11:45 am

        Bernie’s no vote on 2002 Iraq war resolution was “yuge.” Just because you continue to be unwilling to digest that one that is your choice.

        Then continue to Bernie’s reasonable speech for Aipac . He is light years away from Clinton on this issue and “regime change” in the middle east

      • echinococcus
        April 5, 2016, 6:29 pm

        Kathleen,

        Bernie’s no vote on 2002 Iraq war resolution was “yuge.” Just because you continue to be unwilling to digest that one that is your choice.

        I like the cutesy pronunciation-spelling, but you really should read the AUMF
        at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/html/PLAW-107publ40.htm
        Only takes a couple minutes to read.
        Sanders voted it, along with all the other warmongers, leaving Barbara Lee alone against all.
        The AUMF made a separate Iraq vote redundant, as Bush had already certified that Hussein was complicit in 911. Sanders knew it. His Iraq nay, theoretically creditable, was meaningless in the face of that yes to AUMF. He then proceeded to approve the Iraq invasion budget.
        Your ignorance of these facts and the big fact that Sanders has cowardly supported almost every war and every war budget, especially those on behalf of the Zionist entity, does not make them disappear.
        Also,

        Then continue to Bernie’s reasonable speech for Aipac

        I did. He hews to the Zionist Bloc/JStreet line. As proved by that speech. These guys are definitely more dangerous than the Likud/AIPAC.

        He is light years away from Clinton on this issue and “regime change” in the middle east

        Is that why he’s supported all the same interventions as the Empress in said Middle East but also wrt Russia? Can you point to anything except his flowery (very recent) words but no action? I’m still waiting for anything precise.

      • Dan
        April 5, 2016, 10:42 pm

        “The AUMF made a separate Iraq vote redundant, as Bush had already certified that Hussein was complicit in 911 ”

        I’m not convinced it was redundant. Not sure. The first was passed three days after 9/11 so I don’t think the case that Hussein was harboring 9/11 terrorists had been made – what “certification” are you referring to? Since first AUMF was limited to organizations, nations, etc.
        connected to 9/11 that is key.

        I believe he voted for some Iraq war budget resolutions, starting in 2006, and against others – my understanding is votes for were because they included veterans benefits he had been fighting for – looking for document I read awhile back on this.

      • echinococcus
        April 6, 2016, 1:07 am

        Dan,

        The AUMF applied as (illegal) war powers for Iraq following certification by Bush that Iraq was involved in 911, in compliance with the AUMF requirement, as were more recent (illegal) Obama wars, still under the (illegal) 2011 AUMF, that this or that country or organization were responsible for 911. Check it out.

        Also war budget for veterans are very much war budgets. In fact, i remember it as being for US (illegal) voluntary aggressor combatants, none drafted, mostly pre-veteran, but I may be wrong –irrelevant anyway.

    • gamal
      April 3, 2016, 11:58 am

      “Our egalitarian commitment was replaced by exceptionalism. Our agitation against war was undermined by ceaseless colonialism in Palestine”

      from another source:

      “Take my advice and do not follow leaders who are vain and arrogant on account of their wealth, power and position.

      Who wax lyrical about the glories of their ancestors, who claim that the calamities they cause are the work of God.

      God has been kind to them and they disregard his commands about justice and his interdictions against oppression.

      They are the strongholds of the “party spirit”, provincialism and bigotry, they deny the kinship of humanity, they offer only temptations and revolts against order.

      They propagate and defend the idea of the superiority of one race over the other, which has proved so harmful and injurious to humanity.

      Beware of these leaders, be just do not envy one another.”

      from Khutba 197 Ali Ibni Abi Talib, (cousin of the Prophet) about 655AD (ish),

      • Mooser
        April 3, 2016, 2:55 pm

        “Take my…/…one another

        That is good advice. Well worth taking.

      • Kathleen
        April 5, 2016, 11:47 am

        This is one of the sentences that does reflect stereotypes.

  2. hophmi
    April 2, 2016, 3:07 pm

    Oh gawd. Pieces like these are only for people who see the world in Black and White. What nonsense. A good deal of those Yiddishe socialists were also Zionists; the largest Zionist youth group was Hashomer Hatzair.

    Critical comment about Sanders’ failure to mention his Jewishness has zero to do with Zionism. It is an appropriate critique of Sanders’ habit of omitting his Jewishness altogether, as he routinely does by referring to himself as the child of Polish immigrants, without mentioning the fact of his Jewishness. And it’s telling that Jesse Myerson sees this kind of thing as Jewish. Because that’s the typical anti-Zionist Jew; a leftist who cares little for the religion at all and perhaps, would rather see it disappear into history.

    Bernie Sanders is indeed a Zionist, and that’s an inconvenient fact that Jesse Myerson ignores.

    • Krauss
      April 2, 2016, 6:04 pm

      It is an appropriate critique of Sanders’ habit of omitting his Jewishness altogether

      lol

      as he routinely does by referring to himself as the child of Polish immigrants, without mentioning the fact of his Jewishness.

      What a crime! You never fail to amuse with your idiocy, hop.

      • Mooser
        April 3, 2016, 11:38 am

        ” without mentioning the fact of his Jewishness.”

        “Hophmi” while Sanders seems to be an exceptionally healthy and active septuagenarian, requiring him to do a hora at each campaign stop is a little much, don’t you think?

      • just
        April 3, 2016, 4:57 pm

        lolololololol!

        (I can’t stop laughing, Mooser! That’s precious!)

      • hophmi
        April 3, 2016, 7:22 pm

        As usual, Mondoweissers have nothing worthwhile to say because they know I’m right as usual.

      • Mooser
        April 4, 2016, 2:10 pm

        “As usual, Mondoweissers have nothing worthwhile to say because they know I’m right as usual.”

        I’ve heard that the Mods tear their hair, and pass your comments from one office to another trying to find a reason to delete them, “Hophmi”. But they can’t!

    • eljay
      April 3, 2016, 8:56 am

      || hophmi: … Because that’s the typical anti-Zionist Jew; a leftist who cares little for the religion at all … ||

      There you go again, anti-Semitically reducing Jewish to just a religion.

      You appear to have forgotten (again) that – according to you and your co-collectivists – Jewish is much more than just a religion: It’s a tribe, a culture, an ethnicity, a people, a nation and a civilization.

      And if that’s true – and I can’t imagine that you would lie about such an important thing – it shouldn’t matter in the least if an “anti-Zionist Jew; a leftist” cares little for the religion.

      • Mooser
        April 3, 2016, 11:35 am

        ” Jewish is much more than just a religion: It’s a tribe, a culture, an ethnicity, a people, a nation and a civilization.”

        “Eljay”, you would leave out ‘desert topping’ and ‘floor wax’.

        And almost zero calories, safe for wood or linoleum surfaces, no trans fats and cleans as it shines.
        But you won’t mention any of that!

      • eljay
        April 3, 2016, 3:29 pm

        || Mooser: “Eljay”, you would leave out ‘desert topping’ and ‘floor wax’.

        And almost zero calories, safe for wood or linoleum surfaces,
        no trans fats and cleans as it shines.
        But you won’t mention any of that! ||

        Sorry, Mooser. It’s just that Jewish is so many things, I can’t always remember them all, especially when I’ve just been shocked by hophmi’s recurring anti-Semitism.

      • yonah fredman
        April 3, 2016, 4:51 pm

        leftists like myerson have no regard for their fellow jews in trouble whether religious or ethnic or cultural. let the jew teachers get fired. does myerson give a damn? no. they are standing in the way of progress. were those jew teachers religious? no. but they were jews and identified as jews and were called jews and harassed rhetorically as jews. does myerson give a damn? no way. he’s not on the side of the jews. jews are in the way. get out of the way. that’s what myerson and his ilk stand for.

      • hophmi
        April 3, 2016, 7:24 pm

        It shouldn’t matter? Why? It matters for those who purport to speak as Jews, which Myerson does.

      • eljay
        April 4, 2016, 7:19 am

        || hophmi: It shouldn’t matter? Why? It matters for those who purport to speak as Jews, which Myerson does. ||

        Why should it matter? If a Jewish person is part of the Jewish people and has, say, Jewish ethnicity and/or Jewish culture, why is he unqualified “to speak as a Jew” – which he is – simply because the Jewish religion does not matter to him?

        How is it that atheist Jews – to whom the Jewish religion cannot matter any more than any other religion in which they do not believe – are able “to speak as Jews”?

        Since you seem to know exactly what defines a person as “Jewish”, please provide a complete and detailed definition of what is required of any person who “purports to speak as a Jew”. Thanks.

    • jonrich111
      April 4, 2016, 5:41 am

      “Because that’s the typical anti-Zionist Jew; a leftist who cares little for the religion at all and perhaps, would rather see it disappear into history.”

      I am not sure how you can say that when Myerson makes clear that his desire is to reclaim a Jewish heritage worth preserving. Namely, a Judaism that is rooted in universal human emancipation, not militant nationalism.

      • hophmi
        April 4, 2016, 10:39 am

        Yeah, yeah, he wants to reclaim it. Has he called for the institution of liberal democracy in the Arab Middle East? That would be consistent with universal human emancipation. Has he spoken out about the treatment of women in Islamic states? That too would be consistent with universal human emancipation. I bet he’s not big on either one. Has he called for an end to the incitement of Palestinian children to murder Jews? I bet he says it’s not his place to dictate tactics to the Palestinians.

      • jonrich111
        April 5, 2016, 6:04 pm

        Hophmi, you are deflecting. Myerson is a Jewish-American, writing an essay about Jewish identity as it relates to militant nationalism. Therefore, Israel is relevant to his thesis. Throwing in the classic Hasbrara line: “what about the Islamic states?” is a typical dodge. Are you suggesting that Myerson should be unable to speak out against any injustice unless he simultaneously condemns every single injustice that exists in the world? That is irrelevant. He is specifically writing a column about Jewish identity and Israel, so you trying to bring up Islamic states serves no purpose other than to derail the conversation, because you are unable to defend the legitimacy of Israel’s actions.

    • Shmuel
      April 4, 2016, 9:40 am

      that’s the typical anti-Zionist Jew; a leftist who cares little for the religion at all and perhaps, would rather see it disappear into history.

      The same could easily be said (assuming one goes in for such silly generalisations) of “the typical Zionist Jew”. How many Jews of any stripe actually care for “the religion”? In the case of Zionism, there has always been an element of supplanting religion with nationalism (or in the case of the religious-Zionist minority of replacing one religion with another, or hybridising “the religion” out of existence).

      • yonah fredman
        April 4, 2016, 9:56 am

        The ideal jew embodies both the external jew plus the internal jew a la Abraham joshua heschel. Both tradition, texts and continuity plus a deep concern for all humans. This is a balancing act that asks too much of most of us. A few special people are capable of combining both. (Heschel’s “Israel: Echo of Eternity” might disqualify him by some here.)

        While few can walk the narrow bridge, it is an ideal to me. But Deutscher was not on board. He was prepared to throw the external jew onto the ash heap of history. Sanders and myerson the same.
        I realize that my perspective as expressed at mw emphasizes the external rather than the internal.
        I admire avrum Burg and Peter beinart who each in their way try to combine the two.

      • Shmuel
        April 4, 2016, 10:12 am

        This is a balancing act that asks too much of most of us.

        Zionists included. Which is why the above stereotype of the “typical anti-Zionist Jew” is so ridiculous and mean-spirited. As another Shmuel once put it (Kiddushin 70b): “One tends to find his own flaw in others”.

      • hophmi
        April 4, 2016, 10:46 am

        The staunchest supporters of Israel today are Modern Orthodox Jews who pray three times a day, send their kids to day school, and generally practice their religion with fervor.

        The Pew study was really pretty clear. There’s a correlation between support for Israel and religious practice, and the more assimilated and disconnected from Judaism one is, the less likely one is to support Israel.

        I don’t share many of the political positions that Modern Orthodox Jews tend to hold, including on Israel. But when they speak “as Jews,” they have a whole lot more credibility because being Jewish entails something to them other than a way of giving secular politics a religious veneer.

      • Shmuel
        April 4, 2016, 11:37 am

        Hophmi,

        The vast majority of Jews are not religiously observant. This is as true of anti-Zionist Jews as of non- pro- and I-don’t-give-a-damn-about-Zionism Jews.

        The “Finkler” stereotype of anti-Zionist Jews is nothing more than an attempt to impugn Jewish criticism of Zionism as stemming from estrangement, lack of concern or worse (with the “worse” definitely implied).

      • Mooser
        April 4, 2016, 2:41 pm

        “The ideal jew embodies both the external jew plus the internal jew “

        And Oy yez is mir it’s such a conundrum, a paradox! “The external jew” can be made ideal just a few days after birth. “The internal jew”, ah that takes a lifetime.

      • Mooser
        April 4, 2016, 6:45 pm

        “The staunchest supporters of Israel today are Modern Orthodox Jews who pray three times a day, send their kids to day school, and generally practice their religion with fervor.”

        Wow, with friends like that who could ask for anything more?

        And so much for “Failed Messiah”. Sold to “Diversified Holdings” and now dedicated to ‘protecting the reputation’ of the Jewish community.

      • Mooser
        April 4, 2016, 6:59 pm

        Wiki: “Rosenberg sold The Failed Messiah Blog in February 2016 to a group known as Diversified Holdings.[10] In their first post on February 3, 2016, Diversified Holdings stated that their goal was to protect the “reputation of the Orthodox Jewish community.”.[11] It is not clear who the new owners of the website are.”

      • echinococcus
        April 4, 2016, 11:53 pm

        The staunchest supporters of Israel today are Modern Orthodox Jews who pray three times a day, send their kids to day school, and generally practice their religion with fervor.

        I see, Hophmi means the real, observant Jews with a conscience, unlikely to ever assimilate, fervently sticking to tradition and fighting for it –like these:

        http://www.nkusa.org/activities/Demonstrations/2015/20151017/big/2.jpg

        or, considering that the number of times one prays is a significant factor, those who pray more often should be the best Zionists, like here:

        http://img1.aksam.com.tr/imgsdisk/2014/07/26/260720141101541662957.jpg

      • Bumblebye
        April 5, 2016, 2:08 am

        Mooser

        https://lostmessiahdotcom.wordpress.com/

        not as good as the original, but something of a phoenix.

      • Mooser
        April 5, 2016, 10:57 am

        Failed Messiah, the ‘Mclellin papers’ of modern Orthodox Judaism.

      • jonrich111
        April 5, 2016, 6:15 pm

        “The staunchest supporters of Israel today are Modern Orthodox Jews who pray three times a day, send their kids to day school, and generally practice their religion with fervor.”

        Why should we think that the Orthodox and the Zionists are more “authentic” than other types of Jews? Judaism is a living tradition that is therefore open to interpretation. We are free to engage with Jewish tradition in whatever extent works for us, and in ways that we find personally fulfilling and meaningful. In my mind, those who interpret Judaism in a way that is insular, exclusionary, ethnocentric, racist, supremacist, militant, and fundamentalist are the least “authentic” Jews. That type of Judaism is certainly not the type of left-wing, intellectual, prophetic, Diasporic Judaism that I care about.

      • yonah fredman
        April 6, 2016, 5:56 am

        Jonrich111- the word authentic, if taken as related to its etymological root: related to the word authority (and inferring canonical) would certainly not fit your description of using Judaism as a tool to pick and choose cafeteria style however it will help you or the anonymous individual in your individual lives. Even assuming that that would be the best choice for you and even assuming that that was the original purpose of God or moses or the rabbis, certainly that lacks authority and is anti canonical. Whereas modern orthodoxy bases itself on the authority of canonical texts, so its claim on authenticity has some merit.

      • Sibiriak
        April 6, 2016, 10:29 am

        yonah fredman: the word authentic, if taken as related to its etymological root: related to the word authority.
        ———————
        Etymology can provide semantic insights but cannot replace a full investigation of word’s rich network of meanings as expressed in actual usage .

        Besides, according to one source I consulted, the adjective “authentic” derives directly from:

        Medieval Latin authenticus, from Greek authentikos “original, genuine, principal,” from authentes “one acting on one’s own authority,” from autos “self” (see auto-) + hentes “doer, being,” from PIE *sene- “to accomplish, achieve.” Sense of “entitled to acceptance as factual” is first recorded mid-14c. [emphasis added]

        http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=authentic

        Digressing for a moment: perhaps that sense of “acting on one’s own authority” informed the technical use of the word in existential philosophy and other fields:

        In existentialism, authenticity is the degree to which one is true to one’s own personality, spirit, or character, despite external pressures; the conscious self is seen as coming to terms with being in a material world and with encountering external forces, pressures, and influences which are very different from, and other than, itself. A lack of authenticity is considered in existentialism to be bad faith.[2]

        The concept of authenticity is often raised in the punk rock and heavy metal musical subcultures, in which people or bands are criticized for their purported lack of authenticity by being labeled with the epithet “poseur”.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authenticity_%28philosophy%29

        Using that sense of the word, one might reasonably question the authenticity of a number of posters here at MW.
        ————————————————–

        Whereas modern orthodoxy bases itself on the authority of canonical texts, so its claim on authenticity has some merit.

        1) There are many ways of interpreting texts, including symbolically and allegorically. There is no straight, authoritative path from scripture to Orthodoxy.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exegesis
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_hermeneutics

        2) Texts are not the only “authorities”. On what authority, for example, do you base your claim that Orthodox Judaism is more authentic than the forms of Judaism that Jonrich finds personally fulfilling and meaningful and NOT insular, exclusionary, ethnocentric, racist, supremacist, militant, and fundamentalist?

        Reason?

      • Mooser
        April 6, 2016, 12:02 pm

        “Even assuming that that would be the best choice for you and even assuming that that was the original purpose of God or moses or the rabbis, certainly that lacks authority and is anti canonical. “

        “that lacks authority and is anti canonical.”??

        “Yonah” are you sure what religion you belong to?
        “anti-canonical”? “lacks authority”? We have those things?
        We’ll write to Jerusalem, and put our disagreements before the Thief Rabbi!

      • yonah fredman
        April 6, 2016, 12:08 pm

        Sibiriak- I attempted to attend an anti Zionist forum at Brooklyn college three years ago and outside neturei karta yidden held a sign that read, “authentic jews have always opposed zionism” and by that I assume they meant the old school (the real thing, the original thing). If Jonrich111 tells me of some authority other than texts, I would be willing to listen and consider, but the gist of his point was that pick and choose judaism, is just as valid as traditional judaism, and to that I can say maybe valid, but it certainly does not sound at all related to any concept of authority that I am aware of and it certainly seems divorced from what “old school” people mean when they use the word authentic.

        Canonical, certainly refers to texts, and that is another meaning I came across while researching authentic

      • Mooser
        April 6, 2016, 2:55 pm

        “Yonah” Are we climbing back down to: “and by that I assume they meant the old school (the real thing, the original thing).?”

        Gee, right up here where I’m typing my comment you say we should be searching to become “ideal Jews”, but by now it’s back down to ‘whatever the alter kockers tell me, must be true’

        EDIT: Sorry, that was a slip above, should be “Chef Rabbi”

  3. Keith
    April 2, 2016, 3:49 pm

    “The magnitude of this change is difficult to overstate.”

    Indeed, at the time of the Six Day War who could have predicted the unprecedented rise in Jewish Zionist power and that the Holocaust would be a more potent symbol in 2016 than in 1956?

  4. Citizen
    April 2, 2016, 4:11 pm

    I don’t disagree with the commenters who minimize the difference as a practical matter, but, nevertheless, when’s the last time a POTUS candidate even touched upon what the Establishment lambasts as wild-eyed “moral equivalency” by publicly supporting the Palestinians by name, not just the self-described Jewish state of Israel?

    • ritzl
      April 3, 2016, 2:50 pm

      Agree Citizen. In a world where strenuous, coerced indifference/non-difference is THE political way, a small difference can/MAY translate to a huge and meaningful difference.

      My beef with Sanders is that by not being specific and/or blunt about his difference (and yes, dwell on how and why his Jewish upbringing made him different), however small, perceptual, latent, or (ugh!) hopeful that difference might be, he leaves himself open to being “Goldstoned”/coerced back into biz-as-usual. Biz-as-usual is perpetual war which would suck (is sucking) the funding/life out of all his great and much needed domestic ideas.

      Even Russ Feingold, as much of a public/political moral giant as there was in office, got “gotten to”/PEPd such that he refused to outright condemn the slaughter that was “Protective Edge.” Sanders faces those same pressures and if he doesn’t draw his distinction early and often enough to create political space for FP change, his domestic agenda goes away (is unrealizable) and his candidacy is meaningless (except as a foil for Clinton, which I understand was the original agreement for his inclusion in the Dem primaries).

      He is being MORE blunt and specific because his crowds tell him he’s onto something, but is it enough? Is it meaningful?

      In an election between a psychopath, a raving lunatic, and an idea guy (so far), who do you vote for?

      ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

      Go Bernie! Be the change! But I think I’m back to Jill Stein in the general (voted for Sanders in the primary), come what may.

      Probably my last Presidential election so, heavy sigh on the “come what may” part. I fear for today’s “kids” and the Victorian (or worse) scratch and claw world they’re heading into — if not outright crafting given their choices.

      FWIW. Had to say it. Won’t say it again. Depressing.

    • JWalters
      April 3, 2016, 8:24 pm

      I agree. Bernie can only get out in front of public awareness a certain distance without being crucified. He’s doing a very delicate dance. It seems me he needs a massive covering firepower of facts on all Establishment Media website discussions, hammering the facts into the public discussion. That would enable Bernie and other politicians who would break with the Zionist chokehold to step up their resistance.

  5. Krauss
    April 2, 2016, 5:47 pm

    I didn’t like the piece. It was reflective of an Ashkenazi cultural domination. Just as Jesse accuses Zionists, and rightly so, of taking Judaism hostage, he is guilty of the same by talking of a general “Jewish tradition” and then only refers to Ashkenazi history.

  6. yonah fredman
    April 2, 2016, 6:39 pm

    The blacks of nyc 68 were fighting for community control of their schools and the right to fire white jewish teachers were nationalists, black nationalists, anti white nationalists. They were not universalists or socialists. They were not progressives, they were tribalists.

    And the Jewish teachers they sought to summarily fire without regard to contract were not suburban, they were largely local, residents of NYC not Scarsdale or great neck. If myerson has numbers that prove otherwise, let him or Phil Weiss who quotes him provide statistics regarding the residency of NYC teachers in 68. Otherwise they are printing falsehoods.

    • Mooser
      April 2, 2016, 7:16 pm

      The blacks of nyc 68 were fighting for community control of their schools and the right to fire white jewish teachers were nationalists, black nationalists, anti white nationalists. They were not universalists or socialists. They were not progressives, they were tribalists.

      “White Jewish teachers”? So you’re pretty confident about that, “Yonah”? All of a sudden, look who likes assimilation!

      • Philemon
        April 2, 2016, 8:09 pm

        If myerson has numbers that prove otherwise, let him or Phil Weiss who quotes him provide statistics regarding the residency of NYC teachers in 68.

        See you next Tuesday, Myerson.

      • hophmi
        April 3, 2016, 7:29 pm

        Yes, that’s exactly what happened, as anybody familiar with the 1968 strike can tell you.

        But you know, around here, maybe people think that being White and Jewish means that they deserved to be fired.

      • talknic
        April 4, 2016, 8:00 am

        @ hophmi ” … you know, around here, maybe people think that being White and Jewish means that they deserved to be fired”

        If you say so hophmi. No one else has.

      • hophmi
        April 4, 2016, 11:20 am

        That’s what it meant to people who struck in 1968. That’s what started the strike. The school board in Ocean Hill/Brownsville summarily dismissed teachers and administrators, almost all of whom were Jewish.

      • Keith
        April 4, 2016, 3:49 pm

        HOPHMI- “The school board in Ocean Hill/Brownsville summarily dismissed teachers and administrators, almost all of whom were Jewish.”

        Since almost all of the teachers and administrators were Jewish, it stands to reason that the dismissed teachers would mostly be Jewish. By the way, any ideas as to why almost all of the teachers and administrators in this overwhelmingly black district would be Jewish? Didn’t the system used to be predominantly controlled by the Irish until the 1940s?

      • Mooser
        April 4, 2016, 5:14 pm

        ” The school board in Ocean Hill/Brownsville summarily dismissed”

        Reassigned them. Spent the afternoon reading about the strike. Here’s an interesting view, from a NY teacher:

        “In the white backlash that followed and engulfed the city, teachers found themselves in new and unusual company. Some found a home in the emerging neo-conservative, neo-liberal world, most notably Albert Shanker, but working teachers found their union emeshed in a “shotgun marriage” with an elite that would soon lay off 20,000 teachers and gut public education for a generation.” http://sdonline.org/34/the-strike-that-changed-new-york-blacks-whites-and-the-ocean-hill-brownsville-crisis/

      • echinococcus
        April 4, 2016, 5:47 pm

        What a stupid attempt at diversion by Hophmi! As Keith correctly observes, the majority of the Brownsville personnel was Jewish or “Jewish” but this is totally irrelevant to their function in this labor conflict, where they participated in their quality of White people against the requests by the Black population.

        So “Jewish” is an entirely irrelevant attribute here.

        These teachers obviously served in the role of gravediggers of community control over schools and are remembered with disgust by everyone who remembers these times.

      • Keith
        April 4, 2016, 9:17 pm

        MOOSER- “Reassigned them. Spent the afternoon reading about the strike. Here’s an interesting view, from a NY teacher:”

        Thanks for taking the time to research this. The link was very informative. I don’t have the time to get into it, but Albert Shanker was a real jerk. He was a member of the right-wing Committee on the Present Danger, a cold war monstrosity. Probably a CIA asset, etc.

      • Mooser
        April 5, 2016, 11:57 am

        “Thanks for taking the time… “

        Time well spent. I came up with the aphorism “Poddy training” while laughing hysterically over “Yonah’s recommendation (!!) of “My Negro Problem”

      • hophmi
        April 5, 2016, 2:46 pm

        “Didn’t the system used to be predominantly controlled by the Irish until the 1940s?”

        Many Jews became teachers because they faced less discrimination as teachers than they did in the private sector.

        “Since almost all of the teachers and administrators were Jewish, it stands to reason that the dismissed teachers would mostly be Jewish.”

        Except that a Black teacher who was originally on the list of dismissed teachers was quickly reinstated. Look, there’s really no debate about what happened; the teachers were dismissed primarily because of their race, and then the situation devolved from there. The firing violated their contracts. One of the teachers was an NAACP member. This was not a debate between white liberals and inner-city Blacks. It was a debate between radicals in liberals, in both the Black and Jewish communities, about the nature of affirmative action, in the Black community about whether to follow MLK’s legacy, or Malcolm X’s legacy, and many other issues. The Black/Jewish civil rights coalition was already falling apart by 1968, but the strike is generally thought to have been the straw that broke the camel’s back.

        “By the way, any ideas as to why almost all of the teachers and administrators in this overwhelmingly black district would be Jewish?”

        Because the system is citywide, not local. That was why Ocean Hill/Brownsville wanted community control.

        “the majority of the Brownsville personnel was Jewish or “Jewish” but this is totally irrelevant to their function in this labor conflict, where they participated in their quality of White people against the requests by the Black population.”

        It was not irrelevant, though their Jewishness was probably less important than the fact that they were white. It took on some relevance because there was quite a bit of antisemitic rhetoric thrown around during the strike.

        “These teachers obviously served in the role of gravediggers of community control over schools and are remembered with disgust by everyone who remembers these times.”

        First of all, community control was seen by many as reinstating de facto segregation, and many of those who supported it were members of the black power movement and followers of Malcolm X, like the Superintendent of Ocean Hill/Brownsville, Rhody McCoy. The community board tried to reassign them, in complete violation of the teachers’ contract, for being white. They had every right not to be removed, and the courts found that the causes offered for their removal were meritless. The notion that the 1968 was “one of the most self-defeating ill-advised labor strikes in U.S. history,” is a controversial viewpoint. Striking for the right not to be removed is something that benefited all teachers. (It was also a disaster at JHS 271; McCoy’s results were significantly worse than what came before).

        The UFT strike was supported by the NAACP, Bayard Rustin, and Black labor leaders like A. Philip Randolph, and the teachers are certainly not remembered with disgust by everyone who remembers those times; they were, if anything, pawns. As far as affirmative action goes, debate was over whether affirmative action should be race-based, as advocates of community control preferred, or class-based, as liberals like Albert Shankar, the UFT union head, preferred, but few would say that it meant firing or reassigning people solely based on their race or religion. So it is not at all true, as this long opinionated book review that Mooser posted claims, that Shankar opposed affirmative action, or that opposing racial quotas in the Bakke case was the same thing as opposing affirmative action. Shankar was a civil rights activist who led a contingent of teachers to the March on Washington and marched with King in Selma. Shankar also argued that support for community control by upper-class Protestants like Mayor Lindsay and McGeorge Bundy of the Ford Foundation was essentially a way of making policy that would not challenge their own dominant position in American society; they condemned middle-class white teachers for not giving up their jobs for Black advancement, but they wouldn’t think of giving up some of their wealth for the same cause.

        Shankar also unionized the mostly-minority paraprofessionals, and created a career ladder with stipends to enable them to get their degrees and to become teachers in order to increase the number of minority teachers in New York. You’ll find that quite a number of the many minority school leaders in NYC today began as paras; they are the beneficiaries of that program.

        See: Ocean Hill-Brownsville, 40 Years Later
        Kahlenberg, Richard D. The Chronicle of Higher Education 54.33 (Apr 25, 2008): B7-B10

        http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:qIjAc5w65cAJ:www.thenation.com/article/tough-lessons-1968-teacher-strikes/+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

      • Keith
        April 6, 2016, 1:12 am

        HOPHMI- “Many Jews became teachers because they faced less discrimination as teachers than they did in the private sector.”

        Had trouble getting jobs as bus drivers, day laborers, and domestic help did they?

        HOPHMI- “Look, there’s really no debate about what happened….”

        Correct! If you actually read the links provided by Mooser and Sibiriak, it is quite clear that the notorious right -wing Albert Shanker was determined to sabotage community control even though that eventually cost the teachers union dearly.

        HOPHMI- “The firing violated their contracts.”

        Firing? What firing? Did you not read Sibiriak’s quote, or don’t you care anything for facts?

        “At first— and this appears to be a fact that is not generally known— McCoy tried to reassign the nineteen within the experimental district. According to the Niemeyer Report, McCoy had the authority to do that based on oral information he had received. Yet when some teachers refused to be transferred, the Board of Education refused to back up McCoy’s authority. Apparently it was clearly within McCoy’s authority to transfer personnel within his district until he actually tried to exercise it.”

        Hophmi, you are a liar for Zionism. Let us be honest about that.

        HOPHMI- “Shankar was a civil rights activist….”

        Have you no shame? Shanker was the Jewish head of a Jewish fiefdom, who did his utmost to advance the corporate agenda. He was a member of the Committee on the Present Danger, a cold war monstrosity that had close ties to the CIA and pursued a corporate/imperial agenda.

        HOPHMI- “First of all, community control was seen by many as reinstating de facto segregation….”

        Yes sir, boss! Those uppity Negroes were attempting to institute segregation just like MLK advised them to so as to protect their power and privilege from Jewish multiculturalists. How long will these Black supremacists keep the downtrodden Jews from upward mobility? And when will you flee to Israel to escape all of the Black racism and subjugation of Jews?

      • hophmi
        April 6, 2016, 11:40 am

        “Had trouble getting jobs as bus drivers, day laborers, and domestic help did they?”

        Do you have a point? They had trouble getting professional jobs.

        “Correct! If you actually read the links provided by Mooser and Sibiriak, it is quite clear that the notorious right -wing Albert Shanker was determined to sabotage community control even though that eventually cost the teachers union dearly.”

        The “right-wing Albert Shanker?”

        LOL. Even the polemical links that they provided don’t refer to the civil rights activist Al Shankar, who marched on Washington, in Selma, and was supported during the strike by Bayard Rustin and A. Philip Randolph, would describe him as “right-wing.”

        “Firing? What firing? Did you not read Sibiriak’s quote, or don’t you care anything for facts?”

        They were dismissed from their positions, in violation of the contract. There is no other source I’ve seen that makes the claim that McCoy had the ability to transfer teachers without due process or that he tried to bring them back. It’s a laughable claim. The teachers tried to return, since the Board’s dismissal had no legal basis, and they were blocked by hundreds of activists. As usual, you’re hearing what you want to hear, and ignoring any source (which in this case is every source other than the one you’re citing) that would challenge your beliefs.

        “Have you no shame? Shanker was the Jewish head of a Jewish fiefdom”

        Again, your antisemitism is showing, and the moderator is facilitating it by allowing you to post nonsense like this. Shankar was indeed a civil rights activist, and there is no one who disputes this except antisemites like you. Lines like this are per se antisemitism.

        I think I’ll go back to not dealing with you, Keith. You’re a recalcitrant bigot, and you should be banned from posting here. No wait, this is Mondoweiss, where antisemites are welcome. So it’s totally unsurprising that you continue to be permitted to post antisemitic lines about Jews and “Jewish fiefdoms” to describe Jewish civil rights activists who marched on Washington, in Selma, and worked to expand opportunity for Blacks and Hispanics who wanted to teach.

      • Keith
        April 6, 2016, 8:44 pm

        HOPHMI- “They were dismissed from their positions, in violation of the contract.”

        Obviously, you have a reading problem. I referred you to two sources, both reliable. To refresh your memory, I will re-quote from Sibiriak regarding Ira Glasser of the New York Civil Liberties Union discussing this.

        “McCoy’s transfer of nineteen staff members to central headquarters was hotly disputed. While the UFT claimed that the local board had violated due process procedures, the New York Civil Liberties Union jumped to McCoy’s defense, underwriting a press release by the organization’s associate director, Ira Glasser. He wrote:

        At first— and this appears to be a fact that is not generally known— McCoy tried to reassign the nineteen within the experimental district. According to the Niemeyer Report, McCoy had the authority to do that based on oral information he had received. Yet when some teachers refused to be transferred, the Board of Education refused to back up McCoy’s authority. Apparently it was clearly within McCoy’s authority to transfer personnel within his district until he actually tried to exercise it.

        Glasser added that when McCoy had then asked to transfer the nineteen to another district, Superintendent Donovan denied the request. The local board was forced to send notices to the group of employees, referring them to Board of Education headquarters for reassignment. “This transfer was interpreted by the professional staff, the community at large, and the press as a dismissal,” said Glasser. He wrote in the local board’s defense:

        Dismissals must be accompanied by the requirements of due process, including written notice of charges, right to a hearing, right to confront witnesses, right to call witnesses, right to introduce evidence, right to receive transcript, right to appeal, etc. The bylaws mandate these requirements for regular teachers, and the UFT contract extends the requirements to substitute teachers. But neither the bylaws nor the contract mandate the requirements of due process for mere transfers. Article II, section 101.1 of the bylaws says: “Transfers of members of the teaching and supervising staff from one school to another shall be made by the superintendent of schools, who shall report immediately such transfer to the Board of Education for its consideration and action.”

        The purpose of these provisions, argued Glasser, was to allow the superintendent maximum flexibility to transfer teachers. They also illustrated that teachers’ job rights did not include the right to choose their own assignments. Many hundreds of such transfers took place each year without objection or even note. Despite this, the UFT demanded a due process hearing.

        Glasser noted that at the same time as these demands were being made, the UFT had sent representatives to Albany to lobby against community control. “It certainly seem[ ed] abundantly clear,” he concluded, “that the due process issue as used by the UFT was nothing but a smokescreen behind which the effort to discredit and destroy community control could go on.”

        The union never admitted that it had made special allowances for teachers to transfer out of the experimental district whenever they wished to do so. Under normal conditions, teachers are required to remain in a school in which they are placed for a minimum of five years before requesting a transfer.” (Jane Anna Gordon , “Why They Couldn’t Wait: A Critique of the Black-Jewish Conflict Over Community Control in Ocean-Hill Brownsville, 1967-1971” pp. 97-100) http://mondoweiss.net/2016/04/sanders-is-in-jewish-tradition-that-rejected-exceptionalist-nationalism-of-zionism/#comment-833548

        And to refer to a right-wing union president as a civil rights activist is an insult. He may have marched with King in Selma, but he was on the opposite side of the line in New York. Shanker was part of the AFL-CIA nexus.

      • Philemon
        April 6, 2016, 9:18 pm

        Boy, you take one yonah quote about: “If myerson has numbers that prove otherwise…”

        And you add one movie quote, and jeepers.

        You know, the thing that gets me is that yonah never even noticed that I was quoting him. (I meant to put in quotation marks, but my editor was asleep.) But you would think the exact wording might have clued him in. Apparently other people got it, but not yonah.

      • Sibiriak
        April 6, 2016, 10:51 pm

        Keith: Shanker was determined to sabotage community control …
        ———————

        Everything I’ve read on these events supports that assertion.

        And Hophmi is completely wrong to argue that the transferred teachers/administrators were targeted because they were Jewish. They were targeted because they were actively opposing the community control project. One could honestly argue that opposition to local control was not a valid reason for transfer–that’s debatable–but it is completely dishonest to say that anti-Semitism was the motive.

        The fact is, when the local board went to find replacement teachers, they went to university campuses among other places and found many young eager, progressive, pro-community control advocates–many of them Jews:70% of the district’s new hires were neither Hispanic nor black, and half of these were Jewish” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_teachers'_strike_of_1968#cite_note-Pritchett.2C_2002_p._233-69

        And, btw, another interesting fact: Mayor John Lindsay backed the teachers’ transfer to other districts–there was no question of being fired–and he understood that the issue was being manipulated by the UFT to undermine the community control movement.

        The UFT, [Lindsay] said, lacked “understanding of the causes of the deep community frustrations” that led to the letters of May 9. Had the Board of Education given the local board the powers it deserved, Lindsay argued, “this would not have happened.”

        The mayor also put pressure on the recipients of the letters to quietly accept transfers into another district. In late May, the six administrators, who were members of the Council of Supervisory Associations and not the UFT, agreed , along with two nontenured substitute teachers. The ten UFT teachers who remained would press their challenge to McCoy and the local board for the duration of the controversy. [emphasis added]

        Jerald Podair, “The Strike That Changed New York: Blacks, Whites, and the Ocean Hill-Brownsville Crisis” 2002 Yale University

      • Sibiriak
        April 7, 2016, 12:13 am

        Hophmi: there was quite a bit of antisemitic rhetoric thrown around during the strike.
        ————————–

        There was some anti-Jewish rhetoric in the black community and some anti-black rhetoric in the white/Jewish communities.

        But the accusation that the Black community control project was pervaded by anti-Semitism was a completely false charge drummed up by Shanker & Co. in order to further the UFT anti-community control agenda.

        To provide some details on how this played out, I will quote at length from
        Jane Anna Gordon’s” Why They Couldn’t Wait: A Critique of the Black-Jewish Conflict Over Community Control in Ocean-Hill Brownsville, 1967-1971” (pp. 82-83) (emphasis added)

        MW readers will note many familiar patterns and themes related to false charges of anti-Semitism.
        ————————————

        The representation of the community as single-mindedly black because of the Black Power advocacy of some of their leadership was a gross mischaracterization. The Black Power movement, as a nationwide movement, had brought many blacks, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Native Americans, and Asian Americans together. 33 These groups often shared neighborhoods faced with similar problems.

        The governing board was itself comprised of blacks, Puerto Ricans, and whites, and it was heavily supported by most of its new white and Jewish employees and by leaders of the Community Studies Program at Queens College. Likewise, many teachers and community leaders in other parts of the city championed their efforts, supporting their attempts to keep the eight schools in the area open during UFT strikes and writing extensive articles refuting the negative ways in which individual members of the school community and their work was represented.

        This reality was obscured in most UFT writings as it is in the long excerpt from Walzer above. This distortion is due in part to the ways in which liberal conceptions of conflict fail to leave room for the role of power and political accessibility. They saw Black Power as excluding Colored Power, which could be translated as Disadvantaged Community’s Power. Why should the achievement of Jewish Power in New York City be treated as more inclusive than the struggle for Black Power, when it was clear that the practice of colored exclusion remained under white Jewish rule as it did under other white ethnic groups that preceded them?

        The attack on Black Power collapsed into the characterization of the board and its supporters as violent and anti-Semitic. The efforts of the governing board to dispel these charges were to no avail

        . When a set of explicitly anti-Semitic pamphlets mysteriously emerged, the UFT reproduced and disseminated them throughout the city. Earl Lewis and Charles Isaacs have protested that the documents had not been produced by a local organization, as the union claimed, and despite suspicions that they had instead been written by a few non-affiliated individuals, by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Covert Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) employees, or the union itself, the union and its supporters claimed that the content was truly representative of what was going on in Ocean Hill– Brownsville schools.

        My goal here is not to discredit the legitimacy of the angered Jewish response to anti-Semitic writings. Rather it is to uncover and make sense of the discrepancy between the local board’s statement on anti-Semitism, the content of the pamphlets, and what the UFT insisted was “the view” advocated by teachers and administrators of the Ocean Hill– Brownsville schools.

        On November 11, 1968, the New York Times published an advertisement, “Anti- Semitism?— A Statement by the Teachers of Ocean Hill– Brownsville to the People of New York,” written and submitted by a group of recently hired Ocean Hill– Brownsville teachers. It said:

        We state unequivocally that by their words and actions the local board and Ocean Hill– Brownsville administrators] have shown that they will not tolerate any form of anti-Semitism. Furthermore, we resent the continued allegations that are being made against the governing board when we know that they are untrue.

        Here are the words of the Ocean Hill– Brownsville governing board on this matter: “The Ocean Hill– Brownsville governing board, as well as the entire Ocean Hill– Brownsville demonstration district, has never tolerated nor will it ever tolerate anti-Semitism in any form. Anti-Semitism has no place in our hearts or minds and indeed never in our schools.

        “While certain anti-Semitic literature may have been distributed outside our school buildings, there is absolutely no connection between these acts and the thought and intents of the Ocean Hill– Brownsville governing board. We disclaim any responsibility for this literature and have in every way sought to find its source and take appropriate action to stop it.

        The authors concluded:

        The acts of the board, however, are more important than their words. When the governing board recruited 350 new teachers last summer, more than 50 percent of them were Jewish. Are these anti-Semitic actions?

        It is interesting to note that without the teachers’ republication of the local board’s statement against anti-Semitism, it was unlikely for it to have been heard. Although reiterated by McCoy in a public interview, the local board’s pronouncement was not widely reportedEven though the November 11 statement by teachers invoked some response, it was still rather limited in comparison to the press given to Jewish outrage over the content of the pamphlets. Perhaps the most often repeated section of these was the following: .

        If African American History and Culture is to be taught to our Black Children it Must Be Done by African-Americans Who Identify With and Who Understand the Problem. It is Impossible for the Middle East Murderers of Colored People to Possibly Bring to This Important Task the Insight, The Concern, The Exposing of the Truth That is a Must If The Years of Brainwashing and Self-Hatred That Has Been Taught To Our Black Children By These Bloodsucking Exploiters and Murderers Is to Be Overcome … Get out, Stay Out, Staff Off, Shut Up, Get Off Our Backs, Or Your Relatives In The Middle East Will Find Themselves Giving Benefits To Raise Money To Help You Get Out From Under The Terrible Weight Of An Enraged Black Community.

        It is implausible that a group of sophisticated school leaders and experienced activists would express their views in such a way, especially given their aims to work with the predominantly Jewish Board of Education. Although Black Power advocates had offered strong criticisms of the nation of Israel and its policies in relation to Palestinians, it should be borne in mind that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are not identical. Many liberal Jews, however, saw the two as equivalent. .

        In a similar way, this writing clearly contradicts what the local board had said about and done in terms of hiring practices. McCoy had offered a more nuanced description of what black-controlled schooling meant. While highly critical of the white “stranglehold” on black communities, he had never suggested that some whites (or Jews) were incapable of being allies in and to the experimental district

        *****
        […]One Jewish teacher in Ocean Hill-Brownsville, Charles Isaacs, states that he had never seen any “hate” literature in his school besides that distributed by the UFT. He suggested that the union had in fact used the contrived issue of anti-Semitism to exploit the real fears of the liberal Jewish community.

        He wrote:

        The community and the governing board have demonstrated again and again that these fears [of anti-Semitism] are unfounded.

        On the day before Rosh Hashanah, the governing board distributed to all the children in our schools a leaflet explaining the holiday, what it means to Jewish people, and why all the city schools are closed on that day. As far as I know, no other school district has taken the trouble to do this. 37

        Anti-Semitism in this context had become so wedded to anti-liberalism, that all efforts at rational argument proved futile.

      • Keith
        April 7, 2016, 12:14 am

        HOPHMI- “…was supported during the strike by Bayard Rustin and A. Philip Randolph, would describe him as “right-wing.”

        Good Lord, Hophmi, do you check anything? Bayard Rustin (deceased), former President of the A. Philip Randolph Institute was a fellow member of the Committee on the Present Danger, where he and Albert Shanker rubbed elbows with the likes of Jeanne Kirkpatrick. There are ties to the National Endowment for Democracy. Shanker was on the board of Freedom House, the National Endowment for Democracy and (gasp) ” Social Democrats, USA (SD/USA), a neoconservative group that sees labor as the cutting edge for social and political change.” This is the spawning ground for the neoconservatives, for gawd sakes! And you claim that he is not right-wing? He is social civil rights activist? You are nothing but a Zionist propagandist, empirical reality your enemy, a problem to be dealt with through deception and feigned outrage. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Committee_on_the_Present_Danger

      • hophmi
        April 7, 2016, 12:50 pm

        “Good Lord, Hophmi, do you check anything? Bayard Rustin (deceased), former President of the A. Philip Randolph Institute was a fellow member of the Committee on the Present Danger, where he and Albert Shanker rubbed elbows with the likes of Jeanne Kirkpatrick.”

        Good lord, can you read numbers or understand basic logic? The CPD was founded in 1976. The strike was in 1968. But, hey, he must have been a right-winger, and so was everyone who disagrees with Keith on a particular political issue. Keith also appears to believe that Rustin, who taught MLK how to organize non-violent protests, Randolph, who headed the March on Washington and prevailed on FDR to ban discrimination in the armed forces, and Shankar, who marched with MLK and designed a scholarship program for minority paraprofessionals to become teachers, were not civil rights activists. It gives you an idea of how Keith can latch onto to something, and then blow it out of all proportion so that it somehow confirms his own crazy antisemitic views. Usually, though, it just makes him look like the moron that he is. The silly logic. A, B, and C were members in the 1970’s of a hawkish foreign policy organization. Therefore, they could not have been civil rights activists in the 1960s. Yeah, that makes perfect sense. A,B, and C were anti-communist. Therefore, they could not have been civil rights activists. Again, makes perfect sense. LOL. Oh, and pointing out these logical flaws makes me a “Zionist propagandist.”

      • Keith
        April 7, 2016, 4:38 pm

        HOPHMI- “…blow it out of all proportion so that it somehow confirms his own crazy antisemitic views. Usually, though, it just makes him look like the moron that he is.”

        Whenever you make yourself look foolish, you double down on the insults, your only real argument. Albert Shanker (not Shankar) has a long history of neocon friendly activity and CIA/State Department collusion, and was involved in the Reagan terror campaign in Central America. If that isn’t right-wing, the words have no meaning. And I don’t care what you say his relationship with MLK was, I don’t trust what you say about anything. Got any quotes from reputable sources? Or are we talking Daniel Goldhagen, or perhaps the Albert Shanker Institute press release? Or maybe it is just Hophmi says this and Hophmi says that. Hell, you can’t even copy and paste the correct spelling of Albert Shanker from my comments. As for his sudden conversion from Saint to Sinner, it appears to have happened more or less concurrently with the Social Democrats USA (Kirkpatrick,et al) switching from Trotskyists to neocons. Birds of a feather, kiddo. Right-wing. Extreme right-wing. Cold war militarists.

      • Mooser
        April 7, 2016, 4:45 pm

        “There was some anti-Jewish rhetoric in the black community and some anti-black rhetoric in the white/Jewish communities.”

        There was also an incident of what I can only think of as malign stupidity. A Mr. “Campbell”, a teacher, used his radio-interview opportunity to read a poem which (he says) was written by a student, (well below the age when people are expected to be responsible for their words, and did the author know it would be made public?) which wished Shanker dead. So everybody went nuts. Not a smart decision by this “Campbell”, (I think that was his name) if he was trying to help in any way.

      • Dan
        April 7, 2016, 7:31 pm

        “And I don’t care what you say his relationship with MLK was, I don’t trust what you say about anything. Got any quotes from reputable sources?”

        For those curious the attached links from the Martin Luther King center might be of interest.

        http://www.thekingcenter.org/archive/theme/59561

        http://www.thekingcenter.org/archive/document/telegram-mlk-albert-shanker#

        For the second link, click the NEXT button to see the second part of the Telegraph from MLK.

      • Keith
        April 8, 2016, 12:01 am

        DAN – “For those curious the attached links from the Martin Luther King center might be of interest.”

        The letter from King in support of the 1967 strike in no way relates to the anti-community control strikes of 1968. Since I assume you are aware of this, my obvious conclusion is that you are a Zionist propagandist attempting to misrepresent the reality of the situation. Any quotes from the King center supporting the 1968 strike? And are you suggesting that Albert Shanker wasn’t a right-wing imperialist in bed with the neocons?

      • Sibiriak
        April 8, 2016, 2:30 am

        Mooser: I came up with the aphorism “Poddy training” while laughing hysterically over “Yonah’s recommendation (!!) of “My Negro Problem” “
        ——————–

        Mooser, I don’t know if you are a professional, but you certainly are a linguistic genius!!

        Btw, if you haven’t already, you can read the seminal “My Negro Problem” here:

        http://www.bernardavishai.info/Podhoretz

        It does appear that Yonah can rightfully claim a place of honor among its distinguished progeny.

      • hophmi
        April 8, 2016, 11:18 am

        “Albert Shanker (not Shankar) has a long history of neocon friendly activity and CIA/State Department collusion, and was involved in the Reagan terror campaign in Central America. If that isn’t right-wing, the words have no meaning.”

        So, in history, 1968 occurred before 1980. So you can’t retroactively define a person’s politics in the 1960’s based on a position that he took in the 80’s. As usual, and exactly as I said, you’re very upset about this guy Shankar, over a position he took in the 1980’s, so you’re unable to believe that he was a civil rights activist. In any case, this is another issue that you greatly simplify in order to fit your political agenda. Labor leaders like Shankar opposed the Sandinistas because they were non-democratic and because they persecuted the trade unionists. He did not, like Reagan, support the right-wing dictatorships in El Salvador or Nicaragua. Believe it or not, opposing authoritarian communism isn’t the same as being right-wing.

        ” And I don’t care what you say his relationship with MLK was, I don’t trust what you say about anything. Got any quotes from reputable sources?”

        The Nation and the Chronicle of Higher Education aren’t reputable sources? You don’t believe that Shankar marched on Washington and marched at Selma? I posted a link to the article in the Nation and the cite for the piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

        Here are the relevant quotes from Richard Kahlenberg’s article in CHE:

        They were the pink slips that helped change American liberalism.

        “Forty years ago — on May 9, 1968 — the local school board in Brooklyn’s black ghetto of Ocean Hill-Brownsville sent telegrams to 19 unionized educators, informing them that their employment in the district was terminated. Eighteen were white. One black teacher was mistakenly included on the list but reinstated almost immediately after the error was discovered. Although there was some ambiguity in the notices about whether the teachers were being terminated or merely transferred to another district, members of the Ocean Hill-Brownsville board repeatedly said they had “fired” the teachers, and Rhody McCoy, the local superintendent, told The New York Times: “Not one of these teachers will be allowed to teach anywhere in this city. The black community will see to that. . .”

        “But a second camp of liberals, led by Albert Shanker, the 39-year-old head of the UFT, took a different view. Shanker, the son of a newspaper deliverer and a seamstress, was a strong advocate of civil rights, had traveled with a contingent of teachers to hear King’s address at the 1963 March on Washington, and had marched with King in Selma in 1965. A supporter of school integration and magnet schools, Shanker had gotten into some trouble with his union’s members for being too concerned about civil rights and not sticking to bread-and-butter issues like wages and working conditions.”

        Richard D. Kahlenberg is a senior fellow at the Century Foundation and author of Tough Liberal: Albert Shanker and the Battles Over Schools, Unions, Race, and Democracy (Columbia University Press, 2007).

      • talknic
        April 8, 2016, 11:33 am

        Bizarre

        @ hophmi keeps waffling on about Albert Shankar, despite having been corrected and his own citations on Mr Shanker

        http://mondoweiss.net/2016/04/sanders-is-in-jewish-tradition-that-rejected-exceptionalist-nationalism-of-zionism/#comment-164620

        Must be something in the water

      • Sibiriak
        April 8, 2016, 12:45 pm

        hophmi: Richard D. Kahlenberg is a senior fellow at the Century Foundation and author of Tough Liberal: Albert Shanker and the Battles Over Schools, Unions, Race, and Democracy
        ——————————

        Kahlenberg wrote a fawning, uncritical rehabilitation-biography of Shanker, who was a trustee at the same Century Foundation. Kahlenberg has continually pushed the falsehood –which has taken on mythic proportions–that Ocean Hill- Brownsville teachers were fired without cause. This is clear evidence of his fundamental dishonesty.

        For example, this PBS interview with Ben Wattenberg:

        RICHARD KAHLENBERG: Yes, well the– the– the high point of the criticism of Al Shanker came in 1968 with the strikes– in– in Ocean Hill Brownsville– New York. There was a– a movement which involved– people who were part of the Black Power– agenda. And then kind of the– the white shoe establishment, Mayor John Lindsey and McGeorge Bundy, who came together and said, ‘We ought to give more control to– African Americans for their– for their own schools.’

        Well, all hell broke loose in May 1968 when– the– local black school board in Ocean Hill-Brownsville fired a number of– white teachers, most of the them who were Jewish, also and– gave no– cause for their– their firing. They– they felt they didn’t to give a rationale. They just wanted to have– more diversity in the– in the schools.

        And Al Shanker stood up to that. He said, ‘That’s not what– liberalism has stood for all these years.’ And so he led– a series of strikes that shut down the entire New York City– public school system. A million students were thrown outta school for a total of 36 days– in September, October of–

        BEN WATTENBERG: And that’s where the Woody Allen thing comes in, is that right?

        RICHARD KAHLENBERG: That’s right, that’s right. And– and Woody Allen thought that he was a bit of a madman for– for doing that. But Al Shanker said This is a very simple question. “You know, my teachers were part of a union. They have a right to know why they’ve been fired.” You know, you have to give a good reason. You can’t just fire them for– for no reason.

        BEN WATTENBERG: Right.

        RICHARD KAHLENBERG: And– and yet for that– taking that stand, he was– charged– with the– the racist epithet. I mean, it was– incredible for someone who’d marched with Martin Luther King, and who had been part of the– anti-segregation movement to– to then see–

        BEN WATTENBERG: It’s very– interesting situation. There was this huge anti-Semitic aspect to it. But he was basically behaving like a union leader, saying my– my– my folks were fired without cause.

        RICHARD KAHLENBERG: That’s right. Yes [emphasis added]

        http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript1284.html
        —————————–

        As I said, Kahlenberg is not just uncritical, he’s a dishonest mythologizer.

      • Mooser
        April 8, 2016, 1:39 pm

        “Mooser, I don’t know if you are a professional…”

        Some people say I’m a cunning linguist, but nobody has ever offered me money.

      • Sibiriak
        April 8, 2016, 2:01 pm

        Here’s another example of Kahlenberg propagating a mythic version of the Ocean Hill-Brownsville events:

        The Forward interview (2008):

        [Kahlenberg]: […]You had the community control board in the African-American ghetto of Ocean Hill-Brownsville firing a number of white teachers without cause. Moreover, the local superintendent, Rhody McCoy, had as an end goal an all-black teaching force. This was a huge departure from the classical liberal position, which was that hiring and firing ought to be based on merit and be colorblind. [emphasis added]

        http://forward.com/articles/13438/al-shanker-revisited-01903/#ixzz45G1Z14rA

        In terms of facts, there was no firing of white teachers and McCoy did not have an end goal of an all-black teaching force.

        Kahlenberg reduces the whole complex conflict to a false dichotomy of unreasonable racial quotas vs. liberal meritocracy.

        Nowhere in the entire interview does Kahlenberg provide the slightest insight into what motivated the community’s demand for greater control of its schools in the first place. The word “racism” doesn’t appear even once–but there are at least six references to anti-Semitism.

        Kahlenberg leaves no doubt about his DLC/ “New Democrat” type ideological agenda, neatly summing it up in this line:

        it’s the folks who betrayed liberalism on issues like racial quotas and national defense that have sunk liberalism for the last 30 years, not Al Shanker.

      • Keith
        April 8, 2016, 6:35 pm

        HOPHMI- “Here are the relevant quotes from Richard Kahlenberg’s article in CHE:”

        Sibiriak did a critique of Kahlenberg which puts much of what he says in perspective. I would like to mention that the Century Foundation where he works is one of many Beltway think tanks existing on establishment grants and utilizing current and ex-government employees. His colleague Morton Abramowitz stands out as yet another right-wing imperialist posing as a progressive. And before that, Kahlenberg worked at the Center for National Policy, another imperialist think tank where Madeleine Albright used to be president. Some “progressive” references. In other words, his puff piece is basically dishonest establishment propaganda. And no, I don’t take his version over the version of Ira Glasser when he was with the New York Civil Liberties Union.

        HOPHMI- “So, in history, 1968 occurred before 1980. So you can’t retroactively define a person’s politics in the 1960’s based on a position that he took in the 80’s.”

        This all started when I referred to Shanker as right-wing. I never specified when he adopted those views. You are the one trying to make a big deal out of certain events from the 1960s as somehow contradicting my labeling Shanker as right-wing. Apparently you feel that Shanker was a goody two shoes prior to his despicable career with the AFL-CIO, where he eagerly participated in imperial machinations that were terrorist. The AIFLD was notorious for this. I seriously doubt that this was some sudden conversion. And don’t forget that he was a labor leader, not a civil rights activist. His marching with MLK had political undercurrents. And I have never doubted that organized Jewry (including Shanker) supported civil rights at that point in time when it was good for the Jews, later to do an about face when opposing affirmative action was now considered good for the Jews. Israel Shahak discusses this.

        “The apparent enthusiasm displayed by American rabbis or by the Jewish organisations in the USA during the 1950s and 1960s in support of the Blacks in the South, was motivated only by considerations of Jewish self-interest, just as was the communist support of the same Blacks. Its purpose in both cases was to try to capture the Black community politically, in the Jewish case to an unthinking support of Israeli policies in the Middle East.” (p103, “Jewish History, Jewish Religion,” Israel Shahak)

        Yes, yes, Hophmi, civil rights champion in the South, defender against reverse discrimination in the Bronx. And since you are so concerned with time lines, a quote from the Albert Shanker Institute concerning this American union president using his office to fundraise for and otherwise support Israel in 1967 and thereafter. A Zionist, an imperialist and a militarist. A true Hophmi type liberal.

        “The second organization that drew Shanker’s backing was the American Trade Union Council for Histadrut (ATUCH), which rallied support among U.S. trade unionists for Israel and its labor movement, the Histadrut. Shanker actively supported the ATUCH’s exchanges which brought Jews and Gentiles together for trips to Israel. (Shanker later organized similar trips for AFT leaders.) Following the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel was faced with a financial crisis and Histadrut faced bankruptcy. The ATUCH organized a $1 million fundraising campaign and Shanker supported it with contributions from the UFT, solicitations to other unions and to individual UFT members, and a request for an AFT contribution. He joined the ATUCH board of trustees in 1968 and had a strong relationship with its long-standing director, Gregory Bardacke.” http://www.shankerinstitute.org/sites/shanker/files/Democracys-Champion_Shanker_AFT-International-Impact_Eric-Chenoweth_20132.pdf

        A final quote to emphasize that Shanker was part of the SD/USA, neocon,Scoop Jackson, cabal of right-wing warmongers. Lastly, what do I have to do to get you to spell Shanker’s name correctly? It is Albert Shanker, not (Ravi) Shankar.

        “Among the prominent newer figures of a rightward-leaning union power,none was quite as strident or influential as Albert Shanker, leader of New York’s United Federation of Teachers (UFT) and soon to become president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT).

        ….

        Meany, recognizing a leader of his own caliber and style, passed over AFT President David Seldon in 1972 to add fellow hawk Shanker to the AFL-CIO executive council.” (p190, 192, “Taking Care of Business: Samuel Gompers, George Meany, Lane Kirkland and the Tragedy of American Labor,” Paul Buhle)

      • Sibiriak
        April 8, 2016, 10:44 pm

        KEITH: This all started when I referred to Shanker as right-wing. I never specified when he adopted those views. You are the one trying to make a big deal out of certain events from the 1960s as somehow contradicting my labeling Shanker as right-wing.
        —————————-

        Shanker was absolutely right-wing in the ways you have described–and his right-wing foreign policy position was just as naturally married to establishment Liberal civil rights positions as was Lyndon B. Johnson’s horrific Vietnam policy. LBJ’s “Great Society” policies at home went hand in hand with Operation Rolling Thunder in Vietnam, and many other murderous interventions abroad.

        We have to recall that this was a period prior to the ascendance of neoliberalism when a Big Labor/Big Capital/Big Military coalition was still intact within Establishment Liberalism.

        And as you have indicated, Big Labor, working with the U.S. military/intelligence networks, was active all around the world supporting brutal “pro-Western” dictatorships and undermining progressive labor movements.

        We also need to recall that while Shanker, along with George Meany & Co., was becoming ever more vociferous in his support of the genocidal Vietnam war, Martin Luther King was strongly opposing that war and expanding his conception of the civil rights movement; he was now linking the immorality of the war in Vietnam and corporate control of America to the plight of minorities in the U.S. and the plight of Third World peoples in general.

      • Mooser
        April 8, 2016, 10:51 pm

        “Keith” and “Sibiriak”, thanks for staying on this and seeing it through.

    • Keith
      April 3, 2016, 6:17 pm

      YONAH FREDMAN- “The blacks of nyc 68 were fighting for community control of their schools and the right to fire white jewish teachers were nationalists, black nationalists, anti white nationalists.”

      Suppose that there was a school district in the deep South where the overwhelming majority of the student body were black, yet the overwhelming majority of the teachers and administrators were white. Now suppose that the school board and parents organization attempted to significantly increase the number of black teachers and administrators. Historically, the so-called Jewish civil rights organizations have always supported this as affirmative action which, coincidentally, weakened the power of the Southern non-Jewish elites. Good for the blacks, but more significantly from their perspective, good for the Jews. Alas, now the tables are turned. The overwhelming majority of teachers and administrators in these overwhelmingly black districts are not Southern whites, they are Jewish whites. What was once progressive and good is now reverse discrimination and bad because it is bad for the Jews. By and large, Jewish organizations support civil rights when it is good for the Jews, and oppose these actions when they are bad for the Jews. The Jews are and remain the tribalists, the blacks are fed up with being the untermenschen. And this has nothing to do with black nationalism, and everything to do with an overly rigid de facto caste system where organized Jews act as birthright mandarins, and now birthright Brahmins. And you, Yonah, are a tribalist to the core.

      • yonah fredman
        April 4, 2016, 12:33 am

        Keith- typical of the low grade arguments of this comments section. Not an argument in favor of affirmative action, but rather a taunt against Jewish hypocrisy. Why grandma, what David duke like teeth you have!

        Firstly as any true liberal knows affirmative action is anti liberal. Liberal is as dr. King stated in 63 at the Lincoln Memorial: to be judged by the content of one’s character not by the color of one’s skin. Affirmative action is the precise opposite of King’s formulation. (The theory is that to make up for past prejudice or built in systemic prejudice blatant counterbalance prejudice is necessary and justified.) But no one says affirmative action is liberal, cuz it aint.

        Affirmative action normally takes the route of preferential hiring rather than prejudiced firing. Can you cite one case when prejudiced firing has been backed by any court in the US of A. No. Because no matter how illiberal affirmative action may be, tolerating prejudicial firing is beyond acceptance, except in the world of Keith.

        Affirmative action was in fact not the issue, but rather community control. Are you going to pretend that the firing of teachers in Ocean Hill Brownsville was not accompanied by antisemitic rhetoric. No. Because it clearly was. That’s part of history, too inconvenient for you to refer to. Why cite history when it’s so much easier just to call me names. No matter how tribalist i am does not alter one iota how tribalist and anti liberal was the black community in firing those teachers and for Myerson to pretend that the cause of liberalism was being served by firing those teachers without due cause is sheer ignorance. And your inability to back their cause on liberal grounds but merely attack the jews is a sign of the illiberality of the act of the firing and the paucity (junior high school, budding david duke) of your argument.

      • Keith
        April 4, 2016, 10:35 am

        YONAH FREDMAN- “Keith- typical of the low grade arguments of this comments section.”

        What is this, the pot calling the snowflake black?

        YONAH FREDMAN- “Not an argument in favor of affirmative action….”

        Feel free to read the court briefs of the Jewish lawyers advocating for affirmative action back in the day when the did that sort of thing. And, yes, I still support affirmative action until such time as past historical injustices are redressed fully and completely.

        YONAH FREDMAN- “Why grandma, what David duke like teeth you have!”

        This is your idea of a “high grade argument”? Considering the source, perhaps it is your best effort.

        YONAH FREDMAN- “Affirmative action normally takes the route of preferential hiring rather than prejudiced firing.”

        I am unfamiliar with all of the details of this particular case, however, I do know that in the long struggle of labor, the courts were usually on the side of the company. Picket lines could get rough. When you cut through the BS, the law fundamentally codifies existing power relations. I do know that the NYC administration is now more diverse than it used to be in 1968.

        YONAH FREDMAN- “…a taunt against Jewish hypocrisy.”

        If the shoe fits, wear it.

      • hophmi
        April 5, 2016, 2:55 pm

        “Now suppose that the school board and parents organization attempted to significantly increase the number of black teachers and administrators. ”

        Not the same thing, and as usual, 100% wrong. No Jewish civil rights organization would oppose initiatives aimed at adding more minority teachers to the educational system, and Shankar himself worked hard to do so. What they would oppose is removing or firing teachers without cause as a way of getting there. And yes, in the context of the time, supporting that approach to community control had a lot to do with separatist approaches to Black advancement advocated by Black power activists like Stokely Carmichael and also with Malcolm X. Black liberals and more traditional Black leftists like Randolph and Rustin supported the strikers, because they saw the strike as protecting Black teachers from dismissal in a mostly white neighborhood as well as protecting against the dismissal of white teachers in a mostly Black neighborhood.

    • hophmi
      April 3, 2016, 7:27 pm

      Yonah of course has it right; Myerson has no sense of history except as it entitles him to bash his parents and grandparents.

      • MHughes976
        April 4, 2016, 8:33 am

        (Great-) grandparents good, parents bad or morally ambiguous, perhaps. This is perhaps a bit mythological, a bit like Freud on the murder of the wise Moses by the younger Israelites.
        I went to a lecture by the late Mike Marqusee who spoke of his grandfather’s papers, which he said revealed more than anyone needed to know about left-wing factionalism in 1930s New York and also horrible attitudes towards the non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine. This is one illustration of the fact that Myerson rather overlooks, that few people over much of the twentieth century, Jewish or non-Jewish, saw much conflict between left-wing and Zionist ideas. Abraham Heschel certainly did not. Myerson does not cite much in the way of left-wing sympathy for those whom the Zionists were, in Kushner’s more graphic phrase, screwing over. Deutscher seems on the face of it more concerned with the Zionists’ intellectual error than with their victims.
        On theology, which Marqusee also discussed, it’s quite true that the scriptures say that the stranger is to be loved as oneself. But one also needs to consider Joshua and the consuming and devouring fire. I don’t forget that Joshua is a sacred book for Christians.

      • yonah fredman
        April 5, 2016, 6:31 am

        Yesterday was Dr king’s 48th yahrzeit and as good an opportunity as any other to add personal anecdotes to this discussion. (Myerson’s article was very superficial on the topic of Jewish politics in 68 and was reprinted by Phil Weiss without any attempt to deepen the discussion, so anything, even superficial blanket approval of the teachers strike, deepened the discussion. And so personal anecdotes are welcome if they add some dimension to a topic insufficiently covered by Myerson or Weiss.)

        The black Jewish alliance of the early 60’s was fraying by 68. Partially this was the work of the black power movement when kwame toure aka Stokely Carmichael told the whites to go home and let the blacks handle their own liberation without white participation. I have no numbers, but white participation in the Movement was overwhelmingly jewish.

        But let us not confuse a liberal elite of jews with the entirety of the American Jewish population of the 60’s. Read Norman Podhoretz’s seminal work “my negro problem” and it reveals the real tensions between blacks and jews in NYC and other urban northern locations. Jews and blacks “shared” many neighborhoods and the exploding crime rate of the 60’s led to Jewish flight from those neighborhoods.

        The riots of 65, 66 and 67 burnt down many Jewish owned stores in mixed neighborhoods and jews who could afford to moved out to better neighborhoods.

        Til 66 I lived in winnipeg in Canada which had a miniscule black population. In the summers my family which came from Illinois would visit the states and as a kid when I would discuss my empathy with blacks politically with my st. Louis cousin he said that he supported the blacks in their struggles in the deep south, but regarding st. Louis, he was against them, for they embodied crime. (Not his words, but the essence of his words.)

        When Dr king was killed the US was deep into the presidential campaign of 68. I was supporting rfk, for I had idolized his dead brother, many Chicago classmates (I moved from winnipeg to Chicago in 66) were supporting gene McCarthy because of the war in vietnam, but most were supporting lbj like their parents, or Humphrey after lbj’s withdrawal from the race (lbj withdrew on Sunday night March 31st and King was killed on Thursday night April 4th). Only one kid in my class supported nixon. He lived in a mixed neighborhood and black crime was something he had to deal with on a daily basis, or fear of it, and he considered the rest of us, who lived in white neighborhoods to be limousine liberals, not his words, but the essence of his sentiment.

        In chicago the riots that followed king’s murder burnt down many Jewish businesses on the west side, which had been a Jewish neighborhood in the 40’s, but due to flight was already by 68 an almost all black neighborhood but many jews still had businesses in that neighborhood and many were burnt down.

        In September 68 we moved from Chicago to Queens nyc. (Technically Queens is part of nyc, but maybe myerson would consider it suburban.) Many of my classmates in Queens were first generation, that is their parents were born in Europe and they were the first born in america. Whereas in chicago most of my classmates were democrats, in queens, there were almost half who rooted for nixon. Partially this was due to their shallower American roots, but also due to changing neighborhoods in Queens and those who had fled changing neighborhoods in the bronx, for example.

        September 68 was the teachers strike. Community control of the schools is an interesting idea. It is now 48 years later. Has community control proved successful anywhere in the US? The strike was accompanied with reports of anti Jewish rhetoric and the city was tense.

        The tension had nothing to do with zionism, although later when kwame toure would talk about struggle against Jewish store owners he would call them zionists. That was an instance of using anti zionism as a cover for antisemitism.

      • Sibiriak
        April 5, 2016, 7:48 am

        yonah fredman: Read Norman Podhoretz’s seminal work “my negro problem”…
        ————

        Ah yes, Podhoretz’s “My Negro Problem”– that reminds me of this statement by Ira Glasser:

        I have always thought that there were (to oversimplify somewhat) two kinds of Jews in American political life — those who saw Jews’ experience with discrimination and persecution as an example of a broader and more generic phenomenon that embraced similar discrimination and persecution based on skin color, gender, sexual orientation and other categories of invidious discriminations; and those who, like Podhoretz, saw Jews’ experience with discrimination and persecution as exceptional and singular, and worse by far than all others’.

        For the first group, the support of a wide range of civil rights movements was a natural extension of the Jewish experience, even when such support seemed to conflict with their own immediate interests, as happened with certain aspects of affirmative action.

        For the second group, self-interest was predominant, to the exclusion of serious, which is to say, operational sympathy for others who had suffered and were still suffering similar or even worse discriminatory persecutions. Podhoretz is a caricature of this second group, beginning with his confession and, yes, embrace of racism in his essay “My Negro Problem — and Ours,” published in Commentary in 1963.

        He has now become a man so self-centered in his own sense of exceptionalism that he cannot understand why everyone in the first group doesn’t rush to join him. He has not only lost the ability to feel for or identify with the persecution of others; he has lost all ability to see why anyone else would.

        http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/books/review/Letters-t-WHYAREJEWSLI_LETTERS.html?_r=0

        Interestingly, when the 19 teachers at Ocean Hill-Brownsville were transferred , Ira Glasser stood on the side of the black community and vigorously defended Rhody McCoy, the district unit administrator and central figure in the conflict:

        McCoy’s transfer of nineteen staff members to central headquarters was hotly disputed. While the UFT claimed that the local board had violated due process procedures, the New York Civil Liberties Union jumped to McCoy’s defense, underwriting a press release by the organization’s associate director, Ira Glasser. He wrote:

        At first— and this appears to be a fact that is not generally known— McCoy tried to reassign the nineteen within the experimental district. According to the Niemeyer Report, McCoy had the authority to do that based on oral information he had received. Yet when some teachers refused to be transferred, the Board of Education refused to back up McCoy’s authority. Apparently it was clearly within McCoy’s authority to transfer personnel within his district until he actually tried to exercise it.

        Glasser added that when McCoy had then asked to transfer the nineteen to another district, Superintendent Donovan denied the request. The local board was forced to send notices to the group of employees, referring them to Board of Education headquarters for reassignment. “This transfer was interpreted by the professional staff, the community at large, and the press as a dismissal,” said Glasser. He wrote in the local board’s defense:

        Dismissals must be accompanied by the requirements of due process, including written notice of charges, right to a hearing, right to confront witnesses, right to call witnesses, right to introduce evidence, right to receive transcript, right to appeal, etc. The bylaws mandate these requirements for regular teachers, and the UFT contract extends the requirements to substitute teachers. But neither the bylaws nor the contract mandate the requirements of due process for mere transfers. Article II, section 101.1 of the bylaws says: “Transfers of members of the teaching and supervising staff from one school to another shall be made by the superintendent of schools, who shall report immediately such transfer to the Board of Education for its consideration and action.”

        The purpose of these provisions, argued Glasser, was to allow the superintendent maximum flexibility to transfer teachers. They also illustrated that teachers’ job rights did not include the right to choose their own assignments. Many hundreds of such transfers took place each year without objection or even note. Despite this, the UFT demanded a due process hearing.

        Glasser noted that at the same time as these demands were being made, the UFT had sent representatives to Albany to lobby against community control. “It certainly seem[ ed] abundantly clear,” he concluded, “that the due process issue as used by the UFT was nothing but a smokescreen behind which the effort to discredit and destroy community control could go on.”

        The union never admitted that it had made special allowances for teachers to transfer out of the experimental district whenever they wished to do so. Under normal conditions, teachers are required to remain in a school in which they are placed for a minimum of five years before requesting a transfer. [emphasis added]

        Jane Anna Gordon , “Why They Couldn’t Wait: A Critique of the Black-Jewish Conflict Over Community Control in Ocean-Hill Brownsville, 1967-1971” pp. 97-100

      • Mooser
        April 5, 2016, 11:23 am

        “yonah fredman: Read Norman Podhoretz’s seminal work “my negro problem”… “

        Eww, did you have to say “seminal”? Every time I think about Podhertz, I hear the sound of one hand thwapping.

        Well, as “Yonah” his own self says: “I was trained in Podhertz-think”
        Yup, “Yonah” you have certainly had some good ‘Poddy training’!

      • Mooser
        April 5, 2016, 1:39 pm

        “Has community control proved successful anywhere in the US?”

        “Yonah”, you better sit down, while I explain about local “School Boards”. Got ’em all over the US.

      • hophmi
        April 5, 2016, 3:11 pm

        “Has community control proved successful anywhere in the US?”

        I assume you’re referring to cities. Of course, every suburbs has its own board. Community control wasn’t very successful in Ocean Hill/Brownsville. In principle, it sounds like a good idea; local teachers have more of a stake in the community and understand the students better. Those who argued that Black students needed more Black role models were not wrong. But in practice, it can reinforce segregation and parochialism, rob a district of the opportunity to get better teachers, and run afoul of antidiscrimination law. It also can lead to a lot of corruption.

    • yonah fredman
      April 7, 2016, 11:31 am

      The teachers strike of 68 still conjures much emotion. There is no teachers union that would go calmly ceding it’s power to whatever community to kick teachers out of a classroom on the say so of something without due process. The argument against unions or specifically municipal unions or specifically teachers unions has been heard before in other contexts other than community control.

      The question that I posed re community control has not been answered. Pick the ten largest school systems in america or in the world and tell me the status and or success of community control in the context of diverse big cities. Was the theory regarding community control really buried in68? Sounds ridiculous.

      Last I heard education in america is in crisis and community control is just a flavor of the month and no cure and certainly no panacea.

      So then the teachers union was doing what any union does: protect its power, protect its turf and
      protect its members. People who are pro union need to explain why this one case of union self assertion is evil, but all other such union self assertions are good.

      Unions are not angelic, nor is community control an idea of the Devil. To divorce the conflict from the times of white versus black conflict also decontextualizes. It was 1968 for gosh sake. A time of disorder and exploding crime rates and assassinations. not give peace a chance, but give me my piece of the pie. I think the rational historian would wish to shine a light on a variety of aspects.

    • Sibiriak
      April 8, 2016, 2:49 pm

      hophmi: [quoting Kahlenberg:] there was some ambiguity in the notices about whether the teachers were being terminated or merely transferred to another district.
      ——————–

      There was no ambiguity. The notices included the unambiguous line “You will report to Friday morning to Personnel, 119 Livingston Street, Brooklyn for reassignment.

      The Mayor of New York himself was actively working to get them to accept positions in other districts. No one was fired. Kahlenberg is dishonest.

      • Mooser
        April 8, 2016, 3:09 pm

        “The notices…/…for reassignment.”

        And the gnashing of teeth and the rending of garments was heard all the way to Manhattan as those teachers lamented losing such a plum assignment as Brownsville.

      • Keith
        April 9, 2016, 1:00 am

        SIBIRIAK- “No one was fired. Kahlenberg is dishonest.”

        Well, that is a big part of the problem isn’t it? When Zionists like Kahlenberg and Hophmi can lie and get away with it, they do. For them, truth is what works. A successful lie far better than an inconvenient truth. We are dealing with propagandists with zero intellectual integrity.

  7. DaBakr
    April 2, 2016, 6:55 pm

    @pw

    you really missed your boat. your in love with the myth of the old socialist/communist workers party where jewish immigrants dominated and were influential in propping up the oppressive soviet workers nation (dictators) maintaining fidelity to a mythical utopia while blithely turning a blind eye to mass murder on a scale that surpassed hitler by the late 30s. i can imagine you sitting around watching ‘reds’ for the 87th time and tearing up with identification with the reed character.

    • Mooser
      April 2, 2016, 8:03 pm

      ” i can imagine you …”

      You sure can! And your imaginings tell us so much about Phil Weiss, while revealing so little about you! I don’t know how you manage it!

      • DaBakr
        April 2, 2016, 8:34 pm

        @m

        big surprise: -ms comes off as the most self absorbed and zealous pw fanboy/prætorian as well as the resident inane comic wannabe mostly reminiscent of a left wing dan quayle

  8. Kay24
    April 3, 2016, 9:37 am

    Sen. Leahy stands up to Booby, showing his colleagues in Congress how it should be done:

    Senator Leahy to Netanyahu: Investigating Alleged Israeli Abuses ‘Only Fair to U.S. Taxpayers’
    U.S. senator rebuffs criticism by Netanyahu, who earlier suggested that U.S. should probe violations by Palestinian terrorists, not by Israeli forces: ‘the United States does not provide weapons or other aid to Hamas.’
    read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.711900

  9. pabelmont
    April 3, 2016, 10:03 am

    I’ve spent 35 years (since 1980, roughly) immersed in I/P. My views have not changed but my sense of proportion tells me that the TWO great political goals (for me anyhow) are interconnected: [1] starting urgent work to avert daily-worsening (mostly future) climate change and [2] getting big money out of politics.

    Sanders has the “right stuff” on big-money and climate change. Clinton is “more of the same”.

    For whatever it matters, I think that there is a world of importance in Sanders’s refusal to kow-tow to AIPAC. think how easy it would have been for Sanders to “do a Trump” at AIPAC. I think the Sanders-I/P-skeptics are misled.

    • Kay24
      April 3, 2016, 10:18 am

      To your point, this article about the atrocities committed by Myanmmar Buddhists, the role (or the lack of any role) by Aung San Suu Kyi, and the US/Clinton involvement, shows just how disingenuous Clinton is:

      “When asked if a future President Clinton could turn things around, Maung Zarni does not mince words: ​“Hillary Clinton is one of the most unprincipled and uncaring politicians,” he charged. “You can expect virtually nothing progressive or emancipatory from her, if you are a part of what Fanon called the ‘wretched of the Earth,’ the oppressed. She is for herself and for the Wall Street that pays her.”

      http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/how-aung-san-suu-kyi-and-her-us-allies-deny-burmese-anti-muslim-atrocities

      Sanders unfortunately, is sort of a dark horse, and no one really knows how if he will cave in to the tremendous pressure he will face if he becomes President. Sometimes I feel that Presidents must kow-tow to the zionist lobbies, or risk members of his party not being elected to congress.
      Or else why must President after President keep doling out the aid, showing unwavering support, and defend Israel terrible crimes against humanity?

    • echinococcus
      April 3, 2016, 11:21 am

      Pabelmont, no matter ho many years you have been thinking, neither big money nor climate change are directly the topic that brings us together here on Mondoweiss. In fact, Mondoweiss would be totally useless if we had to agree on things that are not directly related to Palestine.

      As for not “doing a Trump” at AIPAC, you know perfectly well that Sanders is a consistent supporter of the Zionist Bloc (ex-Labor) and JStreet line. Tell me again in which way, exactly, being subjected to slow genocide by “liberals” instead of the more straightforward Likud helps Palestinian resistance.

  10. just
    April 3, 2016, 5:14 pm

    Hurray! Stand strong UN and World!!!

    “UN Disqualifies Parts of Israeli Exhibit, Israeli Envoy Says

    Calling the decision ‘outrageous’ the Israeli ambassador to the world body, Danny Danon, accuses the organization of undermining country’s existence as a Jewish homeland.

    The United Nations has disqualified about a quarter of Israel’s displays for an exhibition opening on Monday at the organization’s main headquarters, Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador to the world body, …

    Three out of 13 displays were ruled out, including one about Jerusalem, another about Israel’s Arab population and another about Zionism, The Jerusalem Post reported.

    The poster for the Jerusalem exhibit presents which presents the city as a capital of the Jewish people says the Jews are “indigenous” and have “maintained a continuous presence in the land since 1000 BC.”

    The display on Israeli Arabs calls them “the largest minority in Israel, making up 20 percent of Israel’s population” and describes them as “equal citizens under the law in Israel.”

    Zionism is described as “the liberation movement of the Jewish people, who sought to overcome 1,900 years of oppression and regain self-determination in their indigenous homeland.”

    Danon called the decision “outrageous” and urged that the exhibits be permitted to go ahead. “By disqualifying an exhibition about Zionism the UN is undermining the very existence of the State of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people,” he told Israeli media. 

    Danon also reportedly accused the UN of trying to censor that “Jerusalem is Israel’s eternal capital.” Most of the world does not recognize the city as Israel’s capital, nor Israel’s capture of East Jerusalem in a 1967 war and its subsequent annexation of the area. Palestinians want Jerusalem to be capital of a state they want to establish in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

    Shahar Azan, executive director of StandWithUs in New York, the organization which provided the displays said “anti-Israel resolutions in the main bodies of the UN have become a sad, albeit common, phenomenon.”

    The UN has once again exposed its deep bias against the State of Israel,” was quoted …”

    read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.712529?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

    • just
      April 3, 2016, 7:20 pm

      Lookie here:

      “Official Map of Jerusalem’s Old City Omits Key non-Jewish Sites …

      The official map the Tourism Ministry distributes to those visiting Jerusalem’s Old City highlights one Muslim site and five Christian sites – as well as dozens of synagogues, yeshivas and Jewish-owned buildings, many of which local tour guides have never heard of.

      The legend of the English-language map lists a total of 57 sites in the Old City. Along with the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the Western Wall and the Temple Mount, it also notes places like Wittenberg House, Eliyahu House, IDF House, Danon House, Reut House, Habad House and others. All these are buildings purchased by Jews in the Old City’s Muslim Quarter, usually through the Ateret Cohanim nonprofit organization, and it isn’t clear why they might be relevant to tourists.

      The only Muslim site listed is the Dome of the Rock. It’s clear that the map’s editors took pains to omit the Arabic names of sites in the Old City. For example, it uses the terms “Har Habait,” “Temple Mt.” and “Mt. Moriah” for the Temple Mount area, but omits what most Old City residents call it – Haram al-Sharif, or Al-Aqsa. In fact, the Al-Aqsa Mosque is illustrated but not named; the area east of it is marked as Solomon’s Stables.

      Where the map key gets truly absurd, however, is in its list of all the buildings occupied by Jews in the Muslim Quarter. Of the 57 sites marked by number on the map, no less than 25 are such buildings, along with synagogues and yeshivas that even experienced tour guides have never heard of.

      By contrast, there was no room on the map to mark the Church of St. Anne, near the Lion’s Gate, nor is the Church of the Redeemer, which has the highest spire in the Old City, listed on the legend, although it appears on the map. While the Via Dolorosa is listed as a site, none of its stations along the road are marked, even though millions of pilgrims march between them every year. Other important Christian buildings, like the San Salvador Franciscan Monastery, don’t appear at all.

      While the Old City doesn’t have that many Muslim sites open to tourists other than the Temple Mount, there are several sites that are notable in terms of the city’s history and tourists’ interest. “There are 37 madrasot [schools], sebils [decorated public water fountains], and Lady Tunshuq’s Palace, perhaps the largest building in the Old City,” said researcher and tour guide instructor Dr. Shimon Gat.

      The bias toward the settler narrative continues outside the Old City walls. On the Mount of Olives the Maaleh Zeitim neighborhood of some 100 Jewish families is illustrated and marked, while no mention is made of the thousands of Palestinian families living in the area. The Beit Orot yeshiva and the City of David visitors’ center get listings, while the large Palestinian neighborhoods of A-Tur and Ras al-Amud are absent from the map, replaced by empty green hills.

      There are numerous errors and tendentious renderings on the map. In the middle of the Christian Quarter there’s a Jewish building marked as “Neot David,” alongside a street by that name, which does not exist. The font marking the Jewish Quarter is large, while the Muslim, Christian and Armenian quarters are marked in a smaller font that’s harder to distinguish; the arrow pointing tourists toward the Garden Tomb, considered by Protestants to be Jesus’ burial place, is pointing in the wrong direction, among other errors.

      The map bears the logo of Israel’s Tourism Ministry, which does not deny its connection. It would not say who commissioned the map and who edited it. The map was produced by a company called Atir Maps and Publications Company. A company executive refused to address the details on the map, but said it was not ordered by a government agency. Nevertheless, as noted, this is the map given to any tourist who stops at the main tourism office at Jaffa Gate and asks for a map in English.

      Tour guides who looked at the map were sharply critical of it. “Not only did the Tourism Ministry test me on my knowledge of those Muslim sites that are missing from this map, it also expects me to conduct ‘public diplomacy’ for Israel,” said Shalom Bogoslavsky, a tour guide in Jerusalem. “How am I supposed to do that? ‘Oh yes, Mr. Tourist, we still haven’t decided if we’re a country or a shtetl, and that’s why some clerk made 1,300 years of Jerusalem history disappear from the map and instead marked his friends’ homes.”

      The Tourism Ministry said, “The Tourism Ministry of the State of Israel stands behind what’s presented on the map. The map, which was produced in cooperation with tour guides and took into account their recommendations and the vast knowledge they’ve accumulated, is useful and convenient, listing the main tourist sites.””

      read more: http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.712551?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

      OK, is it crystal clear to the thieving visitors to MW and their supporters yet??? The world and Nir Hasson is on to all of you……

      Thank you, Shalom Bogoslavsky.

      • Misterioso
        April 4, 2016, 10:47 am

        For the record:

        Land ownership in West and East Jerusalem in 1947:

        The total land area of West Jerusalem (the New City) in 1947 was 19,331 dunams (about 4,833 acres) of which 40 per cent was owned by Palestinian Muslims and Christians, 26.12 per cent by Jews and 13.86 per cent by others, including Christian communities. Government and municipal land made up 2.90 per cent and roads and railways 17.12 per cent.

        East Jerusalem (the Old City) consisted of 800 dunams (about 240 acres) of which five dunams (just over one acre) were Jewish owned and the remaining 795 dunams were owned by Palestinian Muslims and Christians. (“Assessing Palestinian Property in the City,” by Dalia Habash and Terry Rempel, Jerusalem 1948: The Arab Neighbourhoods and their Fate in the War, edited by Salim Tamari, The Institute of Jerusalem Studies, 1999, map, pp. 184-85)

  11. Spring Renouncer
    April 3, 2016, 7:50 pm

    Oh my god! I was about to comment about this amazing piece after reading it a few days ago. It’s great that you found time for the Village Voice. The NYT will be late to the party, as always…but they will have to arrive sooner or later.

  12. RobertHenryEller
    April 4, 2016, 8:53 am

    Sanders does not seem anti-Zionist, so much as anti-Netanyahu, anti-Likud, anti-AIPAC, anti-occupation, and anti-embargo.

  13. Ossinev
    April 4, 2016, 9:54 am

    @hophmi
    “It is an appropriate critique of Sanders’ habit of omitting his Jewishness altogether, as he routinely does by referring to himself as the child of Polish immigrants, without mentioning the fact of his Jewishness”

    You have got him bang to rights old son. Why it`s nearly as bad as children of Italian immigrants not mentioning their Catholicness or the children of Japanese immigrants not mentioning their Shintoisness.

    KUTGW

    • hophmi
      April 4, 2016, 11:23 am

      “Why it`s nearly as bad as children of Italian immigrants not mentioning their Catholicness or the children of Japanese immigrants not mentioning their Shintoisness.”

      Because for most people, the two examples you mention are basically synonymous. Most people identify Italians with Catholicism. Not so with Polish and Jewish. But I know people here love this because for them, Jewishness is best kept in the background, except of course, when it comes to their anti-Zionist politics, when it becomes the very first thing that they mention.

  14. afmeyers
    April 4, 2016, 10:50 am

    Yes, agreed, this is a fine piece. So: is there a way for Jewish anti-Zionists to stand up and be counted? I’ve yet to find a Jewish anti-Zionist group that’s looking for members (IJAN does not appear to be a membership organization). Has anyone attempted to tally the proportion of Jews (U.S., worldwide) who identify as anti- (or, at least, non-) Zionists? Does anyone else think it would be a worthwhile endeavor to at least attempt something like this? Could it help to advance the broad front of the struggle for justice for Palestinians, or could it backfire if the results were underwhelming?

  15. [email protected]
    April 4, 2016, 11:24 am

    I call it being an “old fashioned Jew.” I found that term in a wonderful book by the late Ira Levin called “Boys from Brazil.” I use it to describe myself. There is actually a Jewish anti-Zionist League in the US, and Jewish Voice for Peace is anti Zionist in all ways except officially. I choose to work primarily with a mixed group in my home county, called North Coast Coalition for Palestine. We are Jews, Christians, Muslim and atheists.

  16. genesto
    April 4, 2016, 11:54 am

    —– and that growth in awareness still has a ways to go. Zionism is, always has been and will continue to be, a racist ideology. Period!

  17. Kay24
    April 5, 2016, 5:17 am

    Interesting. It seems Sanders has some guts to NOT go with the zio narrative, as shamelessly seen with other “I love Israel the mostest” politicians:

    Sanders Says Positive U.S.-Israel Ties Contingent on Improving Relations With Palestinians

    During the meeting, Sanders said that if Israel wanted “positive” ties with the U.S. then the government was “going to have to improve their relationship with the Palestinians.”

    Sanders aslo explained his position to demand from the Israeli government halt construction in West Bank settlements, and maybe even withdraw from them before a peace settlement is reached. ”If the expansion was illegal, moving into territory that was not their territory, I think withdrawal from those territories is appropriate,” he said.
    “I lived in Israel. I have family in Israel. I believe 100% not only in Israel’s right to exist, a right to exist in peace and security without having to face terrorist attacks,” the Jewish senator from Vermont explained. “But from the United States’ point of view, I think, long-term, we cannot ignore the reality that you have large numbers of Palestinians who are suffering now, poverty rate off the charts, unemployment off the charts, Gaza remaining a destroyed area. And I think that for long-term peace in that region, Israel cannot just simply expand when it wants to expand with new settlements.”

    read more: http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/u-s-election-2016/1.712778

  18. Krendall Mist
    April 5, 2016, 8:08 pm

    Sometimes, when I read Mondoweiss, I wonder whether ordinary, middle-class, run of the mill, “assimilated,” average Jewish “Joes in the street” even exist anymore–or if they ever did. If they do, however, I am pretty sure they’d be disgusted by the obsession prevalent among the writers and commenters to classify “Jews” according to this, that and the other particular intellectual, ideological, or sectarian “Jewish” tradition. In fact, the more you dwell and expound on all these ostensible unique nuances of “Jewishness,” the more the “Other” scratches his head and wonders why a collection of people cling to atavistic tribalism.

    • Mooser
      April 5, 2016, 10:42 pm

      “I wonder whether ordinary, middle-class, run of the mill, “assimilated,” average Jewish “Joes in the street” even exist anymore–or if they ever did. “

      They did once, I’m pretty sure (I’m 60+) but were made obsolete by the 67′ war.

  19. just
    April 5, 2016, 10:52 pm

    Bernie gets another win!

    “Hillary … is congratulating rival Bernie Sanders on his win in Wisconsin.

    “Congrats to @BernieSanders,” she wrote on Twitter. “To all the voters and volunteers who poured your hearts into this campaign: Forward!”

    Sanders is campaigning in Wyoming, which holds its caucuses Saturday. Clinton spent the evening fundraising in the Bronx.”

    read more: http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/u-s-election-2016/1.712972

    AND~ “Clinton spends primary night at NY fundraiser hosted by former AIPAC VP

    Hillary … wasn’t greeting voters at a rally, town hall or diner as votes rolled in from Wisconsin. Instead, she was spending her evening with top donors in New York City.

    She raised at least $60,000 Tuesday night at a fundraiser hosted by Jack Bendheim, the owner of a company that manufactures veterinary health products and nutritional supplements. Benheim, a former vice president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, has deep ties to New York’s orthodox Jewish community.

    The event underscores how costly the primary race has become for Clinton. Though she holds a significant delegate lead, Bernie Sanders has vowed to take his campaign to the party convention in July. That forces Clinton, who’s more reliant on traditional fundraising than Sanders, to criss-cross the country raising funds.”

    read more: http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/u-s-election-2016/1.712972

    • just
      April 6, 2016, 7:27 am

      AIPAC mouths off again!

      “AIPAC Says Latest Iran Sanctions Are ‘Too Weak’ …

      The American Israel Public Affairs Committee dismissed as “weak” recent U.S. sanctions on Iran for testing ballistic missiles, a sign of continued tensions between the influential lobby and the Obama administration in the wake of the Iran nuclear deal.

      “These limited sanctions are too weak to affect Iran’s behavior,” AIPAC said Monday of the new sanctions, which target an industrial group involved in manufacturing the missiles, the missile command of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps, and companies providing support to Mahan Air, which is affiliated with the Guards Corps.

      “America must respond to Tehran’s recurring provocations with swift and meaningful penalties,” the prominent Israel lobby said.

      AIPAC called for “crippling sanctions” that would “cast a wider net and target entities providing material support to Iran’s illicit ballistic missile program, including within financial and transportation services.”

      The AIPAC statement was notable for its rarity both for blasting an action targeting Iran and because AIPAC generally opposes administration policy through the backing of congressional legislation, shying away from public statements.

      AIPAC, however, in recent months has not been able to identify bipartisan Iran-related legislation suitable for backing. There are a number of bills backed by either Democrats or Republicans, but AIPAC abjures backing purely partisan bills.

      The “crippling” sanctions AIPAC calls for, targeting third parties, are precisely the category that the Iran nuclear deal has for now removed. The Obama administration is unlikely to reimpose them as long as Iran is complying with the sanctions relief for nuclear rollback deal.

      U.S. officials, including President Barack Obama, have said the missile testing violates the spirit of last year’s Iran nuclear deal, but say Iran is observing the letter of the agreement.

      The U.S. Treasury announced the new sanctions on March 24, months after Iran had tested the missiles, and after weeks of pressure from pro-Israel groups, U.S. allies in the region, and congressional Republicans and Democrats.

      AIPAC said the entities named by the Treasury are subsidiaries of already targeted entities, rendering the sanctions “largely symbolic.” …

      … The Obama administration has sought to reassure Israel and other allies in the Middle East that it continues to act against Iran for its hostile actions unrelated to the nuclear deal. On Monday, the U.S. Navy reported that on March 28, it intercepted an Iranian arms shipment for the third time in recent weeks. This time, the shipment was likely bound for Houthi insurgents in Yemen.”

      read more: http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/1.713005?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

      Sanction Israel.

      • eljay
        April 6, 2016, 8:07 am

        … AIPAC called for “crippling sanctions” …

        Zio-supremacists complain that BDS against Israel is anti-Semitism, “Jew-hatred”, Holocaust and a whole host of other things because it targets the world’s only “Jewish State”.

        But then they turn around and scream not for sanctions but for “crippling sanctions” against the world’s only Iranian state.

        Smells like typical Zio-supremacist hypocrisy.

  20. Ossinev
    April 6, 2016, 9:52 am

    @hophmi
    “Because for most people, the two examples you mention are basically synonymous.”

    You really are KUTGW

    When” most people” think of Italians I hazard a guess that they think of spaghetti. When” most people” think of Japan I hazard a guess that they think of Tokyo.

    “But I know people here love this because for them, Jewishness is best kept in the background, except of course, when it comes to their anti-Zionist politics, when it becomes the very first thing that they mention”

    Sorry sunshine I have looked at this one north south east and west and I haven`t a clue what you are talking about – but then I doubt you have.

    KUTGW

    • hophmi
      April 6, 2016, 11:17 am

      Well, first of all, you’re wrong. John Kerry certainly discussed his Catholicism when he ran for President. Whether a Japanese candidate would discuss their religion, I don’t know. And no one is suggesting that Sanders should be like Joe Lieberman and mention G-d in every speech. But for Jews, and particularly for Jews who grew up in Brooklyn, to hear him make no reference without prompting seems odd. Americans aren’t the French. It’s not a secular melting pot here. The glory of America is the ability to fit in and to retain one’s identity at the same time.

      When Jews with Polish heritage talk about immigrating to the United States, they usually refer to themselves either as Jewish immigrants from Poland or as Polish-Jewish immigrants, and not simply as Polish immigrants. That seems deliberate to me.

  21. Ossinev
    April 6, 2016, 10:38 am

    To get some idea of just how screwed up American Zionists and their Evangelical supporters are have a look at this hilarious leading article in today`s Arutz Sheva Israeli newspaper.

    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/210425#.VwUeD_krKUk

    “Israel is the only country in the world with a title deed from the Almighty!,” emphasized Pastor Cruz, noting on the divine promise to the Jewish people.”

    FFS !! No mortgage,no lease agreement,no estate agents,no solicitors – the Almighty just gave them the title deed no questions asked.

    Do you think if I went to Church more often , upped the ante with my praying etc he might consider giving me and my family the title deeds to a nice little Caribbean island. Might just be worth a try.

    • eljay
      April 6, 2016, 11:02 am

      || Ossinev: … “Israel is the only country in the world with a title deed from the Almighty!,” emphasized Pastor Cruz … ” ||

      A title deed from the Almighty “In God We Trust” Dollar.

      • Boomer
        April 6, 2016, 11:20 am

        re: “with a title deed from the Almighty!,” emphasized Pastor Cruz … ” ||

        Say, I didn’t know about that. That could change everything. I’d love to see Her signature.

Leave a Reply