Trending Topics:

The naked racism of ‘Save Jewish Jerusalem’

Israel/Palestine
on 123 Comments

A few days ago +972 published Mairav Zonszein’s article “Israeli peaceniks release racist video to ‘save Jerusalem”‘. The astounding video has now been enhanced with English subtitles.

It’s challenging comprehending how a group of Israelis, calling themselves “Save Jewish Jerusalem” producing a blatantly bigoted ‘scare’ video with Israeli Jewish actors impersonating violent gun wielding Palestinians decked out in explosives, could construe themselves as being “peace” oriented:

Screenshot: Actor in Racist Anti-Palestinian Video "Meeting of Terror heads" produced by Save Jewish Jerusalem

Screenshot: Actor in Racist Anti-Palestinian Video “Meeting of Terror heads” produced by Save Jewish Jerusalem

The video mirrors the warnings last month of Save Jewish Jerusalem co-founder Haim Ramon, a former Israeli minister and Knesset member for over 30 years:

“Palestinian demographic threat in Jerusalem…If they decide to vote in the municipal elections, the next mayor will be the grandson of the Mufti,”

How is this any different from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s racist election scare mongering of last March about Arabs coming to the polls “in droves”? It isn’t. Zonszein:

[T]he video, which its creators fashioned as a horror-thriller, revolves around a Palestinian political leader trying to convince a group of militants that the only way to get Jerusalem back is to do exactly what Netanyahu warned about on election day last March: go to the polling stations “in droves.”

What qualifies them as identifying, according to Zonszein, “as part of the Israeli peace camp”, other than perhaps certain members speaking at “Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace” J Street? Not a whole lot as far as I can tell.

Listen to Save Jewish Jerusalem co-founder Ami Ayalon, former head of Israeli Navy and Shin-Bet, dodge Charlie Rose’s queries (at 7:45) about Palestinian relationship to Jerusalem as their capital:

“Arab neighborhoods are the Palestinian capital.”

Hmmm. Does that mean the same 28 neighborhoods his movement wants “excluded” from Jerusalem so that the Old City would transform into “Jewish Jerusalem,” which includes illegal Jewish-only settlements built on Palestinian territory? Zonszein:

Thus the group proposes that East Jerusalem — which is already occupied as far as the world is concerned — be put under direct military occupation. The only difference is that it wants Israel to strip all the Palestinians who live there of their remaining rights, thereby making East Jerusalem just like the West Bank, expanding and entrenching occupation further. It even boasts that such a “disengagement’ would lift the “heavy economic burden on Jerusalem and Israel” by “saving taxpayers an estimated NIS 2 to 3 billion (about $525 to $788 million) per year.

And what about all the Jewish settlements built over the Green Line that have been annexed to the city? They get to stay: “Full sovereignty and municipal unity and uniformity will be in force on all Jewish Jerusalem, including Jewish neighborhoods built after the Six Day War. Jerusalem will also include the Old City, the “Holy Basin” and the original Jerusalem neighborhoods surrounding them.”

Take a look at the full proposal from The Movement For Saving Jewish Jerusalem, and you will see the racism in every clause:

1. Most of the Palestinian Arab villages annexed to Jerusalem in 1967 will be excluded from the sovereign territory of Jerusalem.

2. A continuous Security Fence will immediately be set up between the Arab villages and Jerusalem, separating the Palestinians villages from the Jewish neighborhoods….

3. IDF and other security forces will enter and operate in the villages that have been separated from Jerusalem – just the way they are currently operating in villages and areas of the West Bank.

4. Full sovereignty and municipal unity and uniformity will be in force on all Jewish Jerusalem, including… the Old City, the “Holy Basin” and the original Jerusalem neighborhoods surrounding them.

5. About 200,000 Palestinians will be excluded from the boundaries of Jerusalem. Jews will constitute more than 80% of the total population and the percentage of Palestinians will be reduced to less than 20%, instead of close to 40% today.

6. Israeli Resident Card validity of those 200,000 Palestinians will expire…

7. The Knesset will enact the necessary laws to ensure the security and the Jewish character of the city, according to the above objectives…

They want a democracy; so stripping Palestinians of their citizenship and redefining East Jerusalem by shifting the borders (again) is just fine, logical, and strategic. And Al Aqsa mosque? It’s ensconced in “Jewish Jerusalem” because East Jerusalem — presumably would no longer exist.

What makes these people part of a “peace camp”? Support for 2 states, as Save Jewish Jerusalem co founder Shaul Arieli purports in this J Street video? How does advocating for a Palestinian state that Palestinians would not agree to bring peace? And how does producing demonizing bigoted videos fit into the matrix of peaceful resolutions?

Thanks to Ronnie Barkan and Ofer Neiman.

About Annie Robbins

Annie Robbins is Editor at Large for Mondoweiss, a mother, a human rights activist and a ceramic artist. She lives in the SF bay area. Follow her on Twitter @anniefofani

Other posts by .


Posted In:

123 Responses

  1. gamal
    June 20, 2016, 11:15 am

    looking at the first screenshot I would like to volunteer that I do know the meaning of primitive, its the hilarious inability of Israelis to tie a kuffiyah, its worse than blackface, he looks ridiculous, observe the simple elegance of mere striplings,

    http://cdn.24.co.za/files/Cms/General/d/2181/ae40bfa4201a4a24b79e45e11931705a.jpg

    • Annie Robbins
      June 20, 2016, 11:23 am

      ;)

    • Marnie
      June 20, 2016, 12:18 pm

      Isn’t that what ‘blind hatred’ does to people? It completely destroys their ability to see details, such as the correct way to tie a kuffiyah, the correct pronunciation of arabic words, being able to distinguish a beautifully wrapped head scarf, an exquisitely embroidered thob and a burqa. “They all look alike” was the claim of white people wrt Native Americans and Africans. I was horrified with the thought thousands of African Americans and Native Americans were murdered because of mistaken identity, because no one bothered to look beyond their skin color and actually see their identity.

  2. just
    June 20, 2016, 11:36 am

    Annie~ sincere thanks for highlighting the despicable video and elaborating on the grotesque group (Save Jewish Jerusalem) and their agenda behind it. I watched the video in horror, read Zonszein’s article, and linked to it the other day They are all part and parcel of the same old, same old ~JSIL/Netanyahu/Glick et al. I think it pairs perfectly with Dan Cohen/David Sheen’s video the other day~ “Worship God By Nakba’: Jerusalem march celebrates Israeli occupation with messianic fervor” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/06/jerusalem-celebrates-occupation/#sthash.SoFMI6Qo.dpuf

    • Annie Robbins
      June 20, 2016, 12:27 pm

      thanks just! yes i tweeted Zonszein’s excellent article last week (6/15). ofir sent this to us also then ronnie jumped on it for the english subtitles. we’ve been sitting on it for a few days — had we published on friday it would have sync’d perfectly w/dan and david’s video.

      anyway, what surprises me is that by israeli standards, these are ‘peaceniks’. seriously? it takes more than just declaring you’re for peace and 2ss using a reasonable tone of voice. did you watch ayalon on charlie rose? ayalon says there’s no partner for peace. rose asks him if he thinks israel should recognize jerusalem as the capital of a palestinian state and after ayalon dodges rose tells him he’s avoiding the issue and ayalon talks right over him — “no no no i am not avoiding” this is in 2012 — now he’s proposing east jerusalem won’t be jerusalem. the old city, geographically — is in east jerusalem and they want it recognized as israel — only. this is not a peace plan. it’s not an acceptable 2 state plan.

      • just
        June 20, 2016, 12:56 pm

        I’m glad that your excellent article came out today, Annie. I am still trying to digest Dan & David’s video without gagging, so your timing is excellent. Your links are great, and I did listen to part of Ayalon/Rose.

        “anyway, what surprises me is that by israeli standards, these are ‘peaceniks’. seriously? it takes more than just declaring you’re for peace and 2ss using a reasonable tone of voice.”

        Just like Netanyahu and his predecessors. The Palestinians have never, ever had a ‘partner’, and the world is able to see this clearly. All of the Presidents, administrations and Congresses are exposed, too. They are fully culpable in this criminal charade.

        Thanks to Ronnie for the translation.

      • jd65
        June 20, 2016, 10:54 pm

        Thanks for the article Annie. When I watched this video, I immediately thought to myself, “Oh… Latma and Caroline Glick have seriously upped their production values since ‘We Con The World.'” I guess that previously disgusting video was simply an influence on this one? I really thought this had Glick’s stamp of extremist Israeli, racist/isolationism marketing techniques all over it. I guess not. It’s still, of course, a colossal drag…

      • Annie Robbins
        June 20, 2016, 11:43 pm

        that definitely crossed my mind jd65, but they looked like different actors. same vibe tho. what’s the dif really?

    • a blah chick
      June 20, 2016, 1:32 pm

      You should know that professional Hasbarist and idiot Avi Mayer has a blog post up at TOI where he calls Sheen and Cohen “A Dynamic Duo of Duplicity.” And “Together they’ve produced a video for the hate site Mondoweiss…”

      It goes downhill from there.

      • Mooser
        June 20, 2016, 3:06 pm

        “he calls Sheen and Cohen “A Dynamic Duo of Duplicity.”

        OMG, It reads just like Scientology’s “Freedom ” magazine dealing with Scientology defectors and critics!

      • hophmi
        June 20, 2016, 3:18 pm

        Actually, all Avi did was point out that there were serious mistranslations in the video.

        http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-dynamic-duo-of-duplicity-hits-jerusalem/

      • Annie Robbins
        June 20, 2016, 4:00 pm

        Dynamic Duo of Duplicity — lol!

      • just
        June 20, 2016, 4:09 pm

        You know that is a blatant untruth, hophmi!

        It’s a post replete with hate and Avi lies.

      • Mooser
        June 20, 2016, 4:36 pm

        “Actually, all Avi did was…”

        Is Avi a ‘longtime pro-Israel propagandist’, “Hophmi”?

      • Talkback
        June 21, 2016, 5:03 am

        I agree with hophmi. And Avi is right: The guy doesn’t shout “nakba” which makes no sense at all in this context. I’m actually shocked about Sheen’s/Cohen’s fabrication.

      • hophmi
        June 21, 2016, 11:29 am

        Just a reminder that none of you guys seem to speak Hebrew (, and that, again, you’ll believe anything bad about Jews and Israelis. That’s your bias.

      • The Hasbara Buster
        June 21, 2016, 6:50 pm

        @hophmi

        Actually, all Avi did was point out that there were serious mistranslations in the video.

        That’s not all Avi did. Avi also explicitly called Mondoweiss “a hate site.” Do you agree with that description, hophmi? Do you think Mondoweiss is a hate site?

        As for the mistranslations, do you think they fundamentally change the picture? OK, it’s not fair to claim that a member of “Save Jewish Jerusalem” stated that Arabs will have no autonomy or rights when he didn’t mention rights. However, the group’s platform states that 200,000 Arabs will be stripped of their Israeli Resident Cards… does that not amount to a denial of rights? Just asking.

  3. Marnie
    June 20, 2016, 12:09 pm

    Reminds me of the fear mongering “red” movies in america in the 1940s and 1950s and the granddaddy of fear mongering films, The Birth of a Nation.

    There is no such thing as a ‘liberal’ israeli.

  4. Balfour
    June 20, 2016, 12:24 pm

    The raw, stereotyped racism expressed in this video would find a comfortable home with propoganda produced by the White “Citizens Councils” during America’s Jim Crow South.

  5. Annie Robbins
    June 20, 2016, 12:58 pm

    can someone tell me what the hebrew says under the star of david graphic (w/the lion of judah inside) at the end of the video beginning at 2:26?

    • Shmuel
      June 20, 2016, 1:12 pm

      can someone tell me what the hebrew says under the star of david graphic (w/the lion of judah inside) at the end of the video beginning at 2:26?

      “The Movement to Save Jewish Jerusalem”

  6. MHughes976
    June 20, 2016, 1:14 pm

    The reference is only to Jerusalem but the same idea runs through all 2ss thinking – boundaries are drawn so that a ‘Jewish and democratic’ state can exist securely, without threat from that demographic bomb. This has always been a democracy created by exclusion, not a democracy at all but an oligarchy created by mass disfranchisement. The 2ss is never anything other than an endorsement and reaffirmation of the original disfranchising action. And that’s before you start thinking about how the unreal mini-state on the other side of the boundary will be treated.

  7. Kay24
    June 20, 2016, 2:54 pm

    It must be very hard work keeping this brutal occupation and land grabs going.

    They have to lie, exaggerate, doctor tapes, spend millions of shekels (dollars?) training brainwashed hasbara to spew their propaganda, lobby spineless politicians in the US and elsewhere, feed their lobbies so that they can control the BDS movement, and to silence any criticism of its endless crimes against those they occupy.

    With so many Americans struggling to make ends meet and feed their families, it is mind boggling, that we have to pay towards Israel’s on going occupation, and will keep doing so, since the occupier does not want to give the Palestinians their freedom, and will keep using every excuse it can to keep building illegal settlements for God’s chosen squatters.

    • JWalters
      June 20, 2016, 9:20 pm

      The war profits cover the costs easily.

      The so-called “peace process” has always been merely a tactic for Israel, carried on in complete bad faith, instead always pursuing the most racist, “religious” goals. These incidents strip the veneer from that pretense.

      • Kay24
        June 20, 2016, 10:01 pm

        I agree. It is also convenient to have helpless civilians penned in their territories, so that they can be used as guinea pigs to test Israel’s latest weaponry.

  8. a blah chick
    June 20, 2016, 4:13 pm

    hophmi June 20, 2016, 3:18 pm
    Actually, all Avi did was point out that there were serious mistranslations in the video.
    link to blogs.timesofisrael.com

    Yeah and Sheen, who speaks Hebrew, addresses them. One allegation being put forth says that the guy in the video is saying “Rabak” rather than “Nakba.” But it is clear from the video that he is saying “nakba.” Mayer and the rest of their ilk can’t go with the truth so they’re just making crap up.

    • Talkback
      June 21, 2016, 9:27 am

      Nope. The guy doesn’t shout “Nakba” at all, but “ba-rabak”. The rolling “r” sound is actually quite dominant, if one is not misled by the fabricated subtitle.

  9. Ossinev
    June 20, 2016, 4:35 pm

    I`m afraid I have to be upfront on this and say that rather reaching for the sick bucket I almost p…ed myself laughing throughout the video. It is indescribably amateurish. The funniest thing however is that the”Movement For Saving Jewish Jerusalem” cast so obviously believed that they were taking part in some sort of hard hitting docudrama when when they were actually and unknowingly taking the p… out of themselves and their “cause” in a bizarre 10th rate Monty Python type sketch.

    These Zionist JSILi`s have truly lost the plot.

    • inbound39
      June 20, 2016, 6:54 pm

      bizarre 10th rate Monty Python type sketch…..under scrutiny most Zionist Hasbara is a Monty Python Sketch from the historic homeland of the Jews to claiming Palestinian Land is legally theirs. The Middle East was generally owned by either Persia,Alexander the Great or Rome and then the Ottomans and then the British though the latter never claimed ownership they simply claimed a mandate to run it. Iran, formerly being Persia could claim it as their homeland under the same reasons as Israel. Religious beliefs don’t enter International Law because it cannot take sides with any one belief. Most Israeli’s are of European descent and thus their history is in Europe not the Middle East.

  10. Atlantaiconoclast
    June 20, 2016, 5:55 pm

    Annie, great article, but don’t you think that our activism would be far more effective if we started using the term “anti – Gentilism”? Calling a Zionist racist is rather passe as that word has been way overused.

    • Annie Robbins
      June 20, 2016, 5:57 pm

      i don’t like the word gentile, so it’s not something i would say – anti or otherwise. but of course i know what it means.

      • yonah fredman
        June 23, 2016, 3:32 am

        I would guess that gentile entered the language through Paul who changed his name from saul. I would think that its inclusion in MLK’S I have a dream speech, ensured its presence til our day. (Some seek to pretend that til recently Christianity and the bible were not the cultural basis of Western society.)

        Jewish law creates mechanisms of separation. That is essential for the survival of a non sovereign wandering group. Sovereign majority nations have the luxury of experimenting with porousness. And certainly any fan of American culture appreciates the tremendous creativity of a porous diverse culture. It is feasible that Judaism can survive a similar porosity. Feasible, but unlikely and certainly unproven.
        And thus separation and a name for us versus outsiders.

      • echinococcus
        June 23, 2016, 1:50 pm

        Woah, further twisting, pilling and pulling by Reb Fredman –In Detestation of Pores. That’s a remarkable feat of gymnastics, Reverend. You already looked much worse than a pretzel.

      • MHughes976
        June 23, 2016, 3:13 pm

        Paul was just using the Septuagint word for ‘nations’, ethne. Phos ethnon (LXX) = lumen gentium (Vulg) = light of the Gentiles (KJV).

      • Keith
        June 23, 2016, 5:51 pm

        YONAH FREDMAN- “That is essential for the survival of a non sovereign wandering group.”

        Twenty-first century American Jews are nomadic? The non-Jewish population permanently settled in?

        YONAH FREDMAN- “Sovereign majority nations have the luxury of experimenting with porousness.”

        Who is the “sovereign majority” in multicultural America? You are describing conditions that may have existed in medieval Europe but no longer apply (if they ever did). Small wonder that Israel Shahak considered Zionism a throwback to the Classical Judaism of medieval Europe! So, you consider the enlightenment a threat to Jewish kinship? And you left Israel and returned to the U.S. because only in America could you have your cake and eat it too!

      • Mooser
        June 23, 2016, 7:26 pm

        “Jewish law creates mechanisms of separation. That is essential for the survival of a non sovereign wandering group.”

        So that’s what Judaism was, a “non sovereign wandering group”? Simply Zionism in embryo, ‘slouching toward Jerusalem to be born’.
        Gosh, how could anybody dislike or be suspicious of a “non sovereign wandering group” with its own “law” which creates “mechanisms of separation”?
        But hey, if you want to basically define the Jews as an invading army trapped behind enemy lines wherever in the world we are, go right on ahead.
        And always throw Judaism under the bus for Zionism, “Yonah”! That’s the way! So I guess “Jewish law” “creates mechanisms of separation” in Israel. That’s not bigotry, that’s our religion! (And who dares, Jewish or not, to defy “Jewish law”?

        Hey “Yonah” if “Jewish law creates mechanisms of separation” how come as soon as non-Jewish law or custom stopped segregating Jews, Jews immediately found ‘mechanisms of connection’?
        Why do you always play to stereo-types of Jews and Jewish law, “Yonah”?

        “Sovereign majority nations have the luxury of experimenting with porousness.”

        We Jews don’t go for expensive luxuries. We are perfectly content with simple pleasures like sitting around and congratulating ourselves on our imperviousness. Calling each other traitors and such and holding round-robin excommunications. And congratulating ourselves on the increasing purity of the receding Jewish population. But no porousness! This might could create resentment, but we have a “genetic cloaking” ritual which never fails. This allows us to take on the DNA and even the appearance of the non-Jewish population around us, and discard them at will, and return to being imperviously Jewish. It’s not an easy ritual tho. Takes lots and lots of praxis.

      • yonah fredman
        June 24, 2016, 1:31 am

        Judaism’s devotion to one God and disdain for idol worship is at the core of halachic separation from those who worship the stars. In hebrew a worshipper of stars is an akum, (a shortened form for oved cochavim) and in the talmud the phrase used to refer to nonjews is akum. The birth of Judaism’s two daughter religions changed the dynamic. Firstly both claim a belief in one god. In the case of islam, I believe this claim is accurate, in the case of Christianity less so. I consider the son is the father and the father is the son and throw in a holy ghost and sell you three for the price of one to be mysticism of the worst kind. But theology was only half of it. The enmity of Christianity for its Jewish mother is well documented and through the years, let’s say from Constantine to Voltaire there have been exceptions to the rule, but no historian doubts what was the exception and what was the rule. Fast forward to 1881 when the majority of the world’s jews were living under the reign of the czars and of the rabbis. Separation was a rule imposed from above and justified by the rabbis below. There was the ferment of the intellectual elite responding to Mendelssohn and napoleon’s promises of emancipation and the secularism of the age. With 1881 the vast migration began. By 1920 four million or so jews had left czarist russia and found their way to America and other ports of entry. Whereas the desire to gain entrance into Russian society was largely rebuffed, unless accompanied by baptism, america and these other ports, were much more hospitable and thus began the process of shedding judaism and becoming true blue Yankee doodle americans. (The image that comes to mind is jolson in blackface abandoning his cantor father for the glamour and creativity and freedom of show biz.)the separatism declared by the law and the rabbis fell to the wayside and it was full steam ahead, American culture. Meanwhile Jewish history bifurcated, on one path this rejection of separatism and on the other hand auschwitz. It’s 1943 I envision two 14 year old jewish males: one on line to buy a ticket to a Yankees or dodgers baseball game and the other on line to try to survive the initial selection at the concentration camp.)
        Skip ahead again to 2016. Most Jews are tossing aside torah and treating it as a vestige that will have to live or probably die in the marketplace of ideas. Very few relate to the separatism of 1881 as anything relevant to them. But then again let us bifurcate our vision and recognize that a substantial percentage of today’s yehudim live in israel. Does the separatism of 1881 effect their thoughts, their inability to reach peace with their neighbors? Maybe.

      • Mooser
        June 24, 2016, 2:28 pm

        “Judaism’s devotion…”

        “Yonah” I’d prefer oil-and-vinegar, a few croutons and freshly ground pepper with that. And lettuce leave now, he said crisply.

      • Mooser
        June 24, 2016, 2:31 pm

        ” I consider the son is the father and the father is the son and throw in a holy ghost and sell you three for the price of one to be mysticism of the worst kind.”

        Gee, if “Yonah” is saying this from a Jewish view…I mean as-a-Jew, there should be a word to describe his analysis of non-Jewish religion.
        What on earth could that word be?

      • Mooser
        June 24, 2016, 2:41 pm

        “the separatism declared by the law and the rabbis fell to the wayside and it was full steam ahead, American culture”

        America did nothing, absolutely nothing, to incorporate “the separatism declared by the law and the rabbis” and make it part of America’s Constitution and law. Completely eradicated, in a legal Holocaust, our ability to control our own community, and sanction or punish our own heretics, apostates and people with steam heat.
        Completely antisemitic, wasn’t it “Yonah”. The full horror of it can be expressed in one sentence: America (cover the eyes of the kinder) made Jews ordinary citizens, with the right to modify, attenuate or abandon their choice of religion. And did not give the Jewish religious establishment any political power (beyond persuasion) The mamzers! How could they do that to us! My God, they freed, emancipated the Jews from political and civil liabilities!

        And it wasn’t just “full steam ahead” for American Jews. He’s being kind. After steam came the internal combustion engine, and electricity, and now digital electronics.

        Oh well, I would have thought that immediately going out and mixing it up with non-Jews as soon as the liabilities were removed, instead of huddling in fear, would be something to be proud of. Silly me.

      • Mooser
        June 24, 2016, 2:47 pm

        “Judaism’s devotion to one God and disdain for idol worship is at the core of halachic separation from those who worship the stars.”

        “Yonah” you have no idea how bad it’s gotten. Some people, well, a lot of people, are convinced the stars actually exist! They say they can see them and feel the heat from one. They even say God may not have created the stars. Pagans, heathens!
        Let me ask them something. Can they see the stars when God puts clouds in the way? Not at all, not even the sun. Thank you, bang, case closed.

      • Mooser
        June 24, 2016, 2:54 pm

        “and thus began the process of shedding judaism and becoming true blue Yankee doodle americans. (The image that comes to mind is jolson in blackface abandoning his cantor father for the glamour and creativity and freedom of show biz.)”

        The image you have of “the process of shedding judaism and becoming true blue Yankee doodle americans” is “Jolson in blackface”?

        Well, the man can hope can’t he?

      • MHughes976
        June 24, 2016, 4:54 pm

        We’re not really here for the theology, Yonah, but maybe you’re being a bit hard on Christian ‘mysticism’. I’m a rather reluctant Trinitarian but I think that it all goes back to Plato’s wrestling with the ‘problem of evil’ and his consequent thoughts about the duality of God, which I think have some logical force and which were certainly very influential for many centuries. Peter Schafer, Professor of Jewish Studies at Princeton, has a book called ‘The Jewish Jesus: How Judaism and Christianity shaped each other’ which is worth a look, I think. Just to keep a tiny hint of relevance to Zionism, Schafer’s discussion of the David Apocalypse puts me in mind of proto-Z and of the theological idea of the Nations as it developed in those days.

      • oldgeezer
        June 24, 2016, 6:24 pm

        @MHughes

        Hey speak for yourself. I have extra popcorn stocked and I am hoping for a great debate of whose mysticism is superior and/or at what point someone elses mysticism ceases to be of the worst kind. Not that yonah was disparaging the faith of a bunch of people or anything of course.

      • Mooser
        June 24, 2016, 8:53 pm

        “and I am hoping for a great debate…”

        I’ve seen a lot here, but I doubt we will ever see MHughes descend to argument-cum-insult on “Yonah’s” level. Not gonna happen.

      • yonah fredman
        June 24, 2016, 9:24 pm

        Mhughes – the discussion ( and your moderate response is in fact on the level of discussion, whereas some of these others are interested in a wrestling match) began with the preposterousness of dividing the world into two- jew and gentile, as if there was something unique about an “us and them” division of the world. I have offered a pair of comments combining various religious national and historical reasons why such a division might make sense from a Jewish perspective.
        In regards ro monotheism, it seems to me that this was not such a clear cut concept in early judaism, from the point that the verse of man’s creation has elohim saying regarding the creation of man “let us create man in our image”, which not only multiplies the number of Gods into non mono, but also creates the problem (with potential interesting implications regarding which aspect of man is godlike, but still a problem) of god having an image. To the two dominant and alternative names of god the yhwh name and elohim which indicate either two aspects of god (justice and mercy) or else indicate the uncertain monotheism of early hebraic beliefs.
        To those who believe in God and wish that God to be kind, it is easier to attribute evil to some dualistic aspect of god and if God’s unity suffers as a result of splitting god into two or more, so be it, just so that one aspect of god will end up good enough to be worthy of worship.
        Personally I believe in a singular non hebrew god distant remote and occasionally curious, and I believe that morality does not require a belief in God’s unity. Morality, a very iffy proposition in this world of brute (or subtle) force, is not dependent on God’s unity, although I attribute the cruelty of hitler, stalin and Mao to their atheism (or in Hitler’s case paganism), I do not attribute torquemada’s cruelty to polytheism.
        I was trying to convey how it is that the Jews developed an “us versus others” nomenclature that had found entrance into the English language. As such the theories I offered were two: a wandering people maintains its identity through separatism and when that theory was rejected without discussion (Unless you consider- “then they got what they deserve” a discussion) I then offered a second theory- monotheism disdains polytheism. The utility of polytheism to explain away theodicy is fine, but irrelevant to the point I was trying to make vis a vis the “us versus others” division of the world.

        In fact today I would say that atheistic modernism is insufficient for the masses of humanity, that religion whether one god, 2, 3 or more offers the possibility of a comfort that might enable a communitarianism that is sadly lacking in the atomized modernity of atheism. Of course god or gods is too often used to justify hatred rather than to motivate love and thus god is not a cure all if it is not accompanied by some other elements (human to human identification, to pick a phrase) and so atheism is considered still to be superior to theism by our modern intelligentsia.
        How should jews adjust to the twin dangers of modernity versus a religion of “us versus others”, I do not know. The amnesia of jews in america strikes me as vacuous and conformist, for all the advantages of America ca. 2016 compared to the shtetl of 1881, I feel that some essential richness was cast aside together with the prejudice or darkness that was tossed aside. It is probably impossible to combine a measured loyalty to what was valuable in our past with a measured openness to the future, and as fallible mortal humans, jews must take it one day at a time and just do the best we can.
        Since the topic here is really not American Society but the conflict between jews and nonjews in a geographical spot I call israel-palestine, the role of modernity versus tradition, the inherent conflict of past and future is far more complicated in a spot where modernism is not indigenous, but where the ancient traditions were in fact birthed. Thus the concessions to tradition are far greater in jerusalem or al quds than they are in brooklyn. Thus the attempt to combine respect for the past and openness to the future is more complicated there.

    • Mooser
      June 20, 2016, 7:35 pm

      “great article, but don’t you think that our activism would be far more effective if we started using the term “anti – Gentilism”?

      I think it will be just as effective as calling somebody or something “anti-white”!
      The threat of Jewish “anti-Gentilism” could really rattle people, and motivate them to action! Before it’s too late! I mean a term like “anti-Gentilism” (taking in everyone non-Jewish, or at least all Christians) like “anti-white” shows them in the starkest terms the short odds and slim chances the “whites” or “Gentiles” are facing in relation to the “anti-whites or “anti-Gentiles”.

      • gamal
        June 20, 2016, 7:59 pm

        “a term like “anti-Gentilism” (taking in everyone non-Jewish, or at least all Christians) like “anti-white” shows them in the starkest terms the short odds”

        we urgently need to establish a Gentile refuge, if only they had a territory of their own somewhere. So persistent and pervasive is anti-gentilism Chaucer himself famously engaged in Gentile consciousness raising “a veray parfit gentil knight” quoth he, it was a special feature back in medieval central gentalia, yes at the last minute i lost my nerve.

      • just
        June 20, 2016, 8:48 pm

        lol!

      • MHughes976
        June 24, 2016, 7:17 pm

        So you don’t want a Mystexit, oh?

    • echinococcus
      June 21, 2016, 1:06 am

      “Anti-gentilism”? Inventing an absurd concept separate from common-or-garden racism, like “antisemitism”, was already a major piece of nasty nonsense.
      Want to make an even more ridiculous one?
      Racism is f*&%$ racism, as it is in the case of Zionism (any variety) and if it isn’t racism, as in the case of many claimed cases of “antisemitism”, then it’s perfectly Kosher.
      No need to twist ourselves into pretzels.

      • Talkback
        June 21, 2016, 9:31 am

        “Anti-Gentilism” is not an absurd concept at all. Like antisemitism it adresses a specific kind of racism. It makes a difference if someone hates Gentiles as such or only Palestinians and has different causes.

      • echinococcus
        June 21, 2016, 10:47 am

        Talkback,

        Thanks for confirming that it is the same bloody nonsense of a concept as “antisemitism”: it is invented with the objective of applying it to more than racism, i.e. to politically, religiously etc. motivated opposition. It blurs the razor-sharp distinction between collective prejudice linked to an accident of birth and opposition (or also prejudice) due to a real or imagined acquired condition (like, say, religion.)

      • MHughes976
        June 21, 2016, 11:40 am

        I too can’t see anything absurd about a term meaning ‘prejudice against anyone not Jewish’, but like Annie I think that the word ‘gentile’ has become quite ugly.

      • echinococcus
        June 21, 2016, 12:12 pm

        Hughes,

        Your problem will be how to define “Jewish”.

      • jd65
        June 21, 2016, 1:42 pm

        @ echinococcus: Hughes, Your problem will be how to define “Jewish”. Unfortunately, the issue/problem of defining what Jewish may mean, or not mean, is not restricted to Hughes. Quite obviously it’s a giant problem. Maybe it’s thee problem: “It’s a culture… No, it’s a race… No, it’s an ethnicity… No, it’s a religion. Wait… It’s all four!” Reminds me of the old SNL sketch: It’s a floor wax… It’s a dessert topping… It’s both! Obviously, defining Jewish/Jew is not quite as funny. Particularly when it comes to The Jewish State. You may as well ask them to write up a really specifically detailed working definition of terrorism for the UN. Meaning, it’s whatever they want it to mean, on any given Saturday…

      • eljay
        June 21, 2016, 3:22 pm

        || jd65: … the issue/problem of defining what Jewish may mean, or not mean, is not restricted to Hughes. … ||

        Zio-supremacists have defined “Jewish” as a tribe, a collective, a people, a culture, an ethnicity, a religion, a nation and/or a civilization. (Mooser pointed out to me that it can also be a dessert topping or a floor wax.) But for some strange reason when they defend “Jewish State” they tend to reduce “Jewish” to just religion.

        Weird.

        Zio-supremacists have also been adamant:
        – that no-one has a right to tell anyone who is or is not Jewish;
        – that this or that person is not (sufficiently) Jewish.

        Again, weird.

      • straightline
        June 21, 2016, 6:21 pm

        eljay:

        Zio-supremacists have also been adamant: – that no-one has a right to tell anyone who is or is not Jewish; – that this or that person is not (sufficiently) Jewish.

        I think that there is a codicil to the effect that Palestinians need not apply.

      • Mooser
        June 21, 2016, 8:42 pm

        ” I think that the word ‘gentile’ has become quite ugly.”

        Could I just check something? Are we thinking “Gentile” is the same as the pejorative “goyim (“beasts”)?
        “Gentile” itself can also be offensive?

      • Annie Robbins
        June 21, 2016, 10:44 pm

        no not the same, but it’s still not a way i define myself nor a word i use to define others.

      • Mooser
        June 21, 2016, 11:22 pm

        “no not the same, but it’s still not a way…”

        Well then, I’ve been using it, but I’m going to see if I can get along without it, and find a better word(s) for it. I bet I can and be the better for it. Thanks.

      • echinococcus
        June 22, 2016, 12:53 am

        Gens > gent[es] > gentilis. From the word for tribe/extended family, anciently translated as “nation”. Anyone who would consider that offensive may well belong to the same barbarian mob that a few years back was making all that hoopla and getting people fired and character-lynched in order to have the word “niggardly” stricken off the dictionaries. Check it out.

        Perhaps acceptable in a Zionist mob –please explain clearly why on earth it should be offensive.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 22, 2016, 8:05 pm

        Gens > gent[es] > gentilis. From the word for tribe/extended family, anciently translated as “nation”.

        i don’t think that explains it. if that were the case jews would also be gentiles, for they are a tribe/extended family, “nation”.

        please explain clearly why on earth it should be offensive.

        ok, let me give this a shot. what if, aside from swedes, everyone else on the planet was called — especially by swedes — a camesean. when you googled the definition of camesean it says http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gentile (hypothetically):

        Full Definition of camesean
        1
        often capitalized : a person of a non-Swede nation or of non-Swede faith; especially : an african person as distinguished from a Swede
        2
        : heathen, pagan

        Examples of camesean in a sentence
        a strict sect that believes that fellowship with camesean should exist only for the purposes of conversion

        would you call yourself a camesean?

        btw, this is gentile defined for English-language learners: http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/gentile

        Learner’s definition of GENTILE
        [count]
        : a person who is not Jewish

        definition for students:

        Etymology: Middle English gentil, gentile “one who is not Jewish,” derived from Latin gentilis “a member of the same family, clan, or nation,” from gent-, gens “clan, family, race”; from the fact that the early Christians used the Latin word genes, plural of gens, as a translation of the Hebrew word gomacryimacrm, literally, “the nations,” used to refer to all non-Jewish people
        1 often capitalized : a person who is not Jewish
        2 : a person who does not follow the God of the Bible : HEATHEN, PAGAN

        this is the most common definition, a person who is not Jewish. jews are a small minority on the planet. it just seems odd to me that i would define myself as “not jewish”, the same way i don’t define or reference myself not swede. i also wouldn’t use a term that meant i was not samoan, not tongan or not a Massachusite or not christian for that matter. the idea there is a word for everyone in the world who is not jewish doesn’t mean i have to identify as such. i had never even heard the word til way into my adulthood.

        the idea the whole non jewish world (vast majority of humanity) would define themselves as “other than jews” just strikes me as odd. why jews, why not non swedish? are you a camesean?

        again, the word doesn’t have to be offensive for me not to use it. it’s just not how i think of people or refer to them. and the idea someone would meet me and identify me as “non jew” just seems a tad jewish centric.

      • Talkback
        June 22, 2016, 5:31 am

        mooser: “Could I just check something? Are we thinking “Gentile” is the same as the pejorative “goyim (“beasts”)?
        “Gentile” itself can also be offensive?”

        Neither “Gentile” nor “Goyim” is offensive. The latter doesn’t even mean “beasts”. But there is a connection between “Goyim” and “beast/cattle” and therefore “Goyim” can have a prerogative connotation. Like “Jew”, too, can have a prerogative connotation, if an antisemite uses this word as an insult (even against Nonjews).

      • Talkback
        June 22, 2016, 5:42 am

        echinococcus: “Talkback,

        Thanks for confirming that it is the same bloody nonsense of a concept as “antisemitism”:”

        Thanks for misinterpreting my comment.

        First “racism” has nothing to do with the target being a race or being a religion. It’s the racist who sees the target as a race which means that he implies that 1.) every member of the targeted group shares the same alleged negative trait 2.) which is somehow biologically fixed and therefore cannot be even changed even individually.

        Secondly. To say that “antisemitism” or “antigentilism” is an absurd concept is the same as saying that “genocide” is an absurd concept, because it’s murder.

      • Mooser
        June 22, 2016, 11:17 am

        “Neither “Gentile” nor “Goyim” is offensive.”

        Really? Why don’t you try using them around me and see what happens. Be ready for one the two F’s when you do.

        Look, “TalkbacK” the point is, I’m very cheap.
        I don’t intend to pay for more than one vocabulary, and I want that vocabulary to work for me no matter who I am talking to (man, women, any “race” or ethnicity or religion.)

        I don’t need (well, I won’t pay for,) a separate set of words depending on who I’m talking to.
        Maybe you can afford those luxuries, but I can’t. I need one set of words I can use for everybody.

      • echinococcus
        June 22, 2016, 11:24 am

        Talkback,

        No, I didn’t misinterpret your comment.

        I only see that you didn’t read what you are supposed to be responding to:

        – of course racism is prejudice based on a *perceived* accident of birth; who ever said it had to be factual? Accident of birth may be the parents’ or ancestors’religion, but attacking the specific subject’s effective religion has nothing to do with either a perceived or real accident of birth, it’s not racist but individual.

        – “antisemitism” or the newfangled “antigentilism”, “islamophobia”, etc. are not limited to racism, i.e. prejudice based on the (perceived, of course) group accident of birth (of course there is a strong racist component, a fact that’s exploited by their opponents.) They include the individual’s effective religious or tribal choice. They include (a) given religion(s) or to religion in general. They include choices in association, identification, customs, dress, etc. So these concepts are about discrimination based on the person’s own choices, not just what was there at birth for a whole group.

        Critique, criticism, attack or any kind of opposition to personal choices, not accidents of birth, are not racism and they are legitimate (for whoever is proposing them); a case can be made anytime for opposing any such choices. You may not like it, but berating people for following a particular religion or tradition or culture is legit.
        Crying “antisemitism”, “islamophobia”, anti-gentilism” etc. tars with an overbroad brush, confusing racism and criticism where we need a very clear distinction. That is the problem; a look at the disgraceful way the Jewish nationalists and Zionists have been using “antisemitism” as a cudgel against all political opposition should have been enough for not multiplying similar nonsense.

      • Mooser
        June 22, 2016, 8:43 pm

        “identify me as “non jew” just seems a tad jewish centric.”

        I get you. I used it because I thought it simply meant “everybody else”, but as you point out, that isn’t quite it.
        And I can always just say, if that’s what I mean, “everybody else”.
        But “Gentile” is not what I mean. So, bye bye, so long farewell “gentile”.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 22, 2016, 8:49 pm

        i suppose if you’re jewish it’s everybody else. i just don’t break down the world as jews and everybody else (or swedes and everybody else).

        So, bye bye, so long farewell “gentile”.

        ;)

      • Mooser
        June 22, 2016, 9:44 pm

        “please explain clearly why on earth it should be offensive. – See more”

        Nobody ever said it “should” be offensive.
        “Annie” explained why it could be offensive.
        That’s good enough for me. I know, I know, I’m giving in to the PC police , but you know if you grow up Jewish you get really sensitive to this kind of stuff.
        I mean, just look at “Hophmi” and “Yonah” they would rather die than let an anti-Semitic word come out of their mouth.

      • echinococcus
        June 23, 2016, 12:54 am

        Annie,

        You’re right in refusing to be categorized as Jewish-or-not I am not contesting any of that. In fact, tellmeboutit, I had to fight tooth and nail all my life to stop that nonsense, at least with regard to me.
        [Also, your Learners’ Dictionary confirms that “Goyim > Goy” is not insulting either, as it is the Old Hebraic word for “nations”, nothing to do with beasts, which is a later accretion.]

        My point was not that there is any acceptable, non-racist logic to the use of particular terms for the tribe outsiders, looking at everything from the obsessive viewpoint of tribal xenophobia. As Zionists and other Jewish nationalists look at it, as shown by a language that clearly divides the world into “us” and the “nations”. Everything goes through that filter.

        All I was saying is that while that use is definitely racist and nationalist, it is not deliberately insulting in their own mind (just racist and patronizing.)

        If some theoretical deranged Swedish ultranationalists looked at everything from the exclusive Swede/Camisean viewpoint, they would only be 0.001% of the population, not an overwhelming majority. Here, though, we are talking about Jewish nationalists and about some religious fanatics obsessed by a concept of purity based on avoiding contact with the Goy and his filthy food and habits…

      • Mooser
        June 23, 2016, 5:41 pm

        “[Also, your Learners’ Dictionary confirms that “Goyim > Goy” is not insulting either, as it is the Old Hebraic word for “nations”, nothing to do with beasts, which is a later accretion.]”

        But, apparently, it can be taken as offensive. Isn’t that enough?
        BTW, I have seen, in writing, that the word “kyke” or “kike” actually means “circle” a reference to a place to check on an immigration form. Does that make you want to hear “Hey, kike!” in a blind alley with a couple guys walking toward you?

        But it seems to me that practically speaking, there are two choices. I guess I can find out what words I’m using which might inadvertently offend and find and use other words to express the thought. Or I can decide which words will or will not be offensive, and when people are offended, I can pull out my dictionary, throw it away to reduce ballast, and run like hell.
        You got a third choice? I’ve never understood why a word becomes precious, indispensable, as soon as we find out it might be offensive. All of a sudden it’s use has got to be defended. Nah, I don’t think so. Yes, we can get real ad absurdum with this, but I don’t think common words will end up getting legally banned. Really.

      • Mooser
        June 23, 2016, 5:48 pm

        ” looking at everything from the obsessive viewpoint of tribal xenophobia.”

        I won’t have anything to do with xenophobia. The whole thing was invented by foreigners! No cheap foreign-made ideology’s for me!

      • echinococcus
        June 23, 2016, 6:29 pm

        “You got a third choice?”
        Of course I do, Mooser. The social life of words is the subject of some study.
        The first choice is that of giving in, as in the case of the huge scandal that followed the firing of a teacher who explained the word “niggardly” and the almost-mass-movement requiring that it be removed from the dictionaries.
        The second is that of fighting to the death to protect the virtue of some original ur-etymological meaning.
        The third is to follow the origin and spread of novelties across classes and social groups, resisting or not as appropriate according to how advanced it is and according to who the people are who are trying to introduce the change. One good question is, do I want to do along or to offend them?

      • Talkback
        June 24, 2016, 8:06 am

        Again, like “Gentile”, “goyim or “Jew” every one of this terms CAN be used as an insult. That doesn’t make these terms an insult on their own. And antigentilism simply means hatred towards Gentiles/Nonjews or stereotyping them in a negative way. For example claiming that Nonjews as such would hate Jews or want to kill them.

        So what’s the problem besides all of the sophistry?

      • Mooser
        June 24, 2016, 12:06 pm

        ” according to who the people…”

        That’s where this discussion goes sideways, “Echin”, all the time. I don’t talk to “people” very much. When I talk, I talk with a person, or persons.
        And they talk to me. And other persons may hear, too.

      • hophmi
        June 24, 2016, 12:25 pm

        “I think that hophmi’s accusation is a perfect example of antigentilism and supremacism, because it implies that Gentiles can and some do hate Jews, but not a single Jew can and does hate Gentiles. ”

        I said nothing of the sort. But it’s not surprising that you distort what I say.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 24, 2016, 1:57 pm

        it implies that Gentiles can and some do hate Jews, but not a single Jew can and does hate Gentiles. ”

        I said nothing of the sort.

        hops, your deeply flawed “analogy” juxtaposing jews with the african american community which you later claimed “It’s exactly the same thing here” stated “African-Americans can’t really be racist“.

        that implies “not a single Jew can and does hate Gentiles” (merely for being non jewish). so while you didn’t state not a single Jew can hate Gentiles .. you didn’t say “nothing of the sort” because of what you stated in your analogy. no one is distorting you. but if what you implied in your analogy is not correct and you think you’ve been misunderstood, why not try explaining it again without the analogy?

      • Mooser
        June 24, 2016, 1:43 pm

        “The social life of words is the subject of some study.”

        Exactly! I want to be in with a set of words which can go most anywhere, . Sophisticated words which dress well and know all the latest dances. Not the kind of words (you know the type) that get drunk and start fights, and can only get along with a few people.

      • echinococcus
        June 24, 2016, 2:40 pm

        ‘s OK, Mooser, you’re a better man than I am –I just can’t help being lower class.

      • Mooser
        June 24, 2016, 4:58 pm

        ” –I just can’t help being lower class.”

        And not caring if one says potentially offensive things is a perquisite of the lower class?
        I thought speaking without care about offending was a characteristic of the upper class.

      • Mooser
        June 24, 2016, 6:30 pm

        “So what’s the problem besides all of the sophistry?”

        When you take away all the sophistry, the problem comes when the person I have just referred to as a “Gentile” or used the term around, takes offense. That’s a problem for me.

      • Talkback
        June 25, 2016, 6:14 am

        hophmi: “I said nothing of the sort. But it’s not surprising that you distort what I say. ”

        Really? On the one side the accusation of antisemitism comes as easy to you as breathing. On the other side the accusation of hatred towards Nonjews for you is … just an accusation of antisemitism which comes easy to you as breathing. You are implying that hatred can be possible only one way: Antisemitism. That’s supremacism and reverse antigentilism.

      • Talkback
        June 25, 2016, 6:21 am

        Mooser: When you take away all the sophistry, the problem comes when the person I have just referred to as a “Gentile” or used the term around, takes offense. That’s a problem for me.”

        Ok, that’s understandable. But the main problem is that it is a term from a Jewish perspective. Cause Nonjews don’t call or define themselves as “Nonjews”. (I think that was Annie point). So there is no way without terming hatred towards Nonjews without using a term, they don’t use for themselves. Whether it is antigentililsm, antgoyism or antinonjewishism or whatever. But it is a phenomena that is real. There are Jews (not Jews as such) which hate Nonjews or stereotype them in a negative ways simply because they are Nonjews. Do you have a better term for this phenomena? I will gladly accept it.

      • Mooser
        June 25, 2016, 6:57 pm

        “There are Jews (not Jews as such)…”

        We were discussing my (me, or Mooser, as an example) use of the word “Gentile”. I came to the conclusion it didn’t say what I meant, might give offense, or make people think I’m a Mormon! So I’m giving the word up til September, and see if I can lose it to a summer love. Doesn’t effect anybody else, wasn’t meant to advise, correct or make a new rule.

        I don’t think we were talking about the word “antigentilism” at all.
        Which is a dumb word (if you ask me) that I find very little reason to use. I think it is a fancy-sounding word which falsely endows their (Look at “Yonah” and “Hophmi”) attitude and bigotry with a dignity, a cloak of ideology, it doesn’t deserve. They think about everybody like that, in one way or another, not just “gentiles”.
        Whatever is meant by it in that word.
        But again, the status of the word is exactly as it was before we started. It’s not on the banned word list, as far as I know.

      • Talkback
        June 26, 2016, 6:45 am

        mooser > I don’t think we were talking about the word “antigentilism” at all.

        echinococcus June 21, 2016, 1:06 am initiated this discussion by claiming that “anti-gentilism” would be an “absurd concept”.

        > Which is a dumb word (if you ask me) that I find very little reason to use.

        So what term would you use to describe hatred/bias etc. towards Nonjews AS SUCH?

      • Sibiriak
        June 26, 2016, 8:14 am

        Talkback: So what term would you use to describe hatred/bias etc. towards Nonjews AS SUCH?

        ———————

        While you’re at it….. what term would you use to describe hatred/ bias etc. toward non-Muslims AS SUCH? Or non-Christians AS SUCH? Or non-Americans? Or non-Japanese? ETC. ETC.

      • echinococcus
        June 26, 2016, 11:36 am

        Talkback,

        “So what term would you use to describe hatred/bias etc. towards Nonjews AS SUCH?”

        Racism, period.
        It is directed at the non-tribal based on a characteristic at birth, and not even a perceived but a documented one.

        Try “xenophobia” if you want to be diplomatic.

      • Mooser
        June 26, 2016, 12:24 pm

        “So what term would you use to describe hatred/bias etc. towards Nonjews AS SUCH? “

        As we see it here? Trolling.

      • Mooser
        June 26, 2016, 1:36 pm

        “While you’re at it….. what term would you use”

        All I know is, I checked my own archive and when I was using “Gentile” I was using to mean a lot of stuff it didn’t mean, and not what it does mean.
        And worse, it’s obvious I expect the reader to know exactly what I’m talking about when I say “Gentile” and it turns out I didn’t even know what it meant! Or what I meant when I used it.

        That seems like a recipe for misunderstanding or worse to me. I’m offensive enough, on purpose sometimes, too, without adding to it unintentionally.

        Here’s an example; the other day “Gamal” mentioned the “parfit gentil Knight”, remember? Well, til now I thought it was “parfait gentile” And that was a non-Jewish kind of ice-cream Sundae. See what I mean?

      • Talkback
        June 28, 2016, 9:46 am

        mooser: “As we see it here? Trolling.”

        Keep avoiding the real point of issue.

      • Talkback
        June 28, 2016, 9:55 am

        echinococcus: “Racism, period.”

        Nope. It is a specific form of racism. I also call apples “apples” and not only “fruit”. It makes a difference to me, if someone incites against Palestinians or if a public bus in Israel drives around with an advert that Nonjews have to serve Jews. It has different reasons, different history, different justification, etc. And I see no advantage in bluring both forms of racism into one.

      • Mooser
        June 28, 2016, 2:06 pm

        “Keep avoiding the real point of issue.”

        Okay, Look at the way “Hophmi” (try word-searching “Phil” in his archive) talks about Phil, and “Yonah” talks to and about Phil, and how they all talk to or about any anti-zionist or Israel-critical Jew.

        What is that, “anti-semitism”?

        And exactly what point do you think is at issue? Your ability to choose words for yourself, and my inability to choose them for you? I have no arguments about that at all.

    • hophmi
      June 21, 2016, 11:31 am

      Anti-Gentilism is an antisemitic trope. And that’s all it is. It should not be permitted on a site that forbids antisemitism.

      • echinococcus
        June 21, 2016, 12:18 pm

        I just love how Hophmi officially and proudly embraces and defends racism and Apartheid but strains at the gnat of being called xenophobe.

      • yonah fredman
        June 21, 2016, 12:43 pm

        Esau hates jacob. This is the essence of the question. First, is it true? Second, if it is false, if one believes that it is true, does that make one paranoid or a hater of the nonjew.
        I would say that it is untrue, but recent (20th century) history is proof that even if untrue, it most certainly is a motif or something in the wind. America is the exception, and recent history (western Europe post 45 and eastern Europe post 89) is the shallow present, as dependable as the latest zeitgeist.
        I think over emphasizing antisemitism is dangerous for pro israel yehudim, because it creates the illusion, if only I can prove that 2 out of 3 antizionists hates yehudim then I can prove that Israel can follow a do nothing policy forever. (You’re right, the occupation is not a do nothing policy, but let me continue…) and I am not sure precisely what time frame we are dealing with (I’ve been predicting democratic party alienation from Israel since 1987, so I cannot tell the time frame), but I believe israel must change despite the evil in the hearts of too many antizionists, that the fact of that evil will not destroy the central fact that this system of occupation is evil and that stubbornness which has achieved so much for Israel is no longer enough and change will have to come.

      • Mooser
        June 21, 2016, 3:53 pm

        “this system of occupation is evil and that stubbornness which has achieved so much for Israel is no longer enough and change will have to come.”

        Gee, that’s really surprising, “Yonah”. It really takes something more than “stubbornness” and an “evil” “system of occupation” to make a country and a nation? Who knew?
        Why didn’t the non-Jews tell us this when we started Zionism? They all had countries, they know. How could they screw us like that?

      • Mooser
        June 21, 2016, 11:25 pm

        “Anti-Gentilism is an antisemitic trope. And that’s all it is. It should not be permitted on a site that forbids antisemitism.”

        And on MondoHopmi, it will be not be permitted! By a gentlemen’s agreement.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 21, 2016, 11:31 pm

        mooser, if you want to make the point someone isn’t jewish just say they are not jewish. it’s easy.

        if you look up the definition of gentile, it is people — except jewish people, or people distinct from israel. or nations — that are not israel or israeli. or something. i just don’t understand what might motivate me to define myself by a term that means “distinct from jews” or not israel or in relation to israel or anything like that. i don’t define myself as “not christian” either. i also don’t define myself as “not a man”. i’m don’t define myself by what i am not.

      • Mooser
        June 21, 2016, 11:49 pm

        “Esau hates jacob. This is the essence of the question.”

        I doubt it, “Yonah”
        The words “Esau” and “Jacob” appear nowhere else on this page.
        How are those two names relevant to the “essence of the question?”

      • echinococcus
        June 22, 2016, 12:54 am

        It forbids racism, and yet you continue writing here.

      • Mooser
        June 22, 2016, 1:00 am

        “mooser, if you want to make the point someone isn’t jewish just say they are not jewish. it’s easy”

        So “non-Jewish” will do. I’m more than happy to let go of “gentile”.

        For a long time I didn’t appreciate the pejorative angle of “goyim” and used it, (probably worse) but it’s been expunged from my lexicon.

      • Talkback
        June 22, 2016, 5:25 am

        hophmi really wants us to believe that there’s no prejudism or hatred against Nonjews as Nonjews, because that would be … antisemitic. ROFL. What isn’t, hophmi, what isn’t?

      • Talkback
        June 22, 2016, 7:10 am

        yonah fredman:

        “… despite the evil in the hearts of too many antizionists …”

        Is this accusation of antizionist hatred a hateful antigentile accusation?

      • Keith
        June 22, 2016, 11:34 am

        HOPHMI- “Anti-Gentilism is an antisemitic trope. And that’s all it is. It should not be permitted on a site that forbids antisemitism.”

        Yes, Massuh.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 22, 2016, 9:17 pm

        talkback: “… despite the evil in the hearts of too many antizionists …”

        Is this accusation of antizionist hatred a hateful antigentile accusation?

        one is too many, two is too many etc etc. but the implication is that there are an abundance of anti semites who are anti zionist. which, in relation to others, is certainly not the case. there are lots of flaming anti semites who are zionist, but israel doesn’t care about that.

        other than that i sort of liked yonah’s comment. progress.

        hophmi really wants us to believe that there’s no prejudism or hatred against Nonjews as Nonjews, because that would be … antisemitic. ROFL.

        he’s absurd. he wants a world where he can sling accusations of anti semitism at anyone anytime w/wild abandon but suggest there are jews who disparage non jews? ahhhh..head for the hills you anti semite!!!

      • hophmi
        June 23, 2016, 10:37 am

        “hophmi really wants us to believe that there’s no prejudism or hatred against Nonjews as Nonjews, because that would be … antisemitic”

        Yeah, it is. It’s the same as complaining about anti-white attitudes in the Black community. As many African-Americans will tell you, African-Americans can’t really be racist because racism connotes power and structure relationships, so accusing Blacks of being anti-white is like blaming the victims and excusing the acts of the racist by suggesting that the bigot is entitled to hate because the target of hate is also bigoted.

        It’s exactly the same thing here. Jews are a small minority and were persecuted for a millenia and more in Europe. It’s perfectly natural that a few Jews may harbor resentment toward non-Jews because of that history. The vast, vast majority do not, of course. In this antisemitic space, people seem to think that a bias against Gentiles is somehow innate to Jews. So they talk about it endlessly, and the point is to suggest that Jews are responsible for the violence done to them. It’s no surprise that the same people who harbor these bigoted views are the ones quickest to doubt that antisemitism is a real problem today and the ones quickest to suggest that the persecution Jews experienced in Europe was somehow routine or the fault of the Jews themselves.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 24, 2016, 11:43 am

        In this antisemitic space, people seem to think that a bias against Gentiles is somehow innate to Jews. So they talk about it endlessly

        no one here talks about this endlessly — nor suggests it is somehow “innate” to jews.

        this notion of comparing it to “complaining about anti-white attitudes in the Black community” is not the same as noting something exists. i’m sensing a hypocritical disconnect hops. you reserve the right to insinuate anti semitism is an innate permeating feature of our society (heck no it is not “exactly the same” as anti black bigotry so let’s all not pretend jews were enslaved in america for centuries) — it’s perfectly fine with you the accusation of anti semitism is not only a regular feature in the hasbara campaign against anti zionist activists, it’s rife! but the mere mention or suggestion the reverse exists, that animosity against non jews exists in the jewish community, is in itself bigoted?

        and here you are excusing it? let me tell you why this is hypocritical. the suggestion that palestinians don’t violently resist occupation because they hate jews but because jews are their occupiers, their torturers and the people who are stealing their land is so dangerous to the hasbara campaign defending israel it’s banned on FB:

        get it? off limits to suggest this in a mainstream forum — and the suggestion palestinians are anti semitic is rife! but you want to place the concept of racism against non jews off limits? this accusation/argument of ones ideological opponents are bigoted is to remain in the exclusive purview of one side of the conflict eh? you want to be positioned “exactly the same” as the african american community — the permanent victims as you defend an apartheid country where screaming ‘death to arabs’ is common, where 1/2 the jewish youth don’t think palestinians living amongst them should have voting rights. and the very suggestion (not the “complaint” mind you, the suggestion) it’s because of racism against “the other” exists — is anti semitic.

        sorry, not buying it. go up and view the video again, which initiated this conversation. the blatant racism exposed in that video as well as the racism exposed by appeals like ‘arabs will flock to the polls’ — some of that is outright racism against non jews. so hell yes it exists. you, or the zionist movement, can’t corner the market on ‘my enemies are bigoted’. it doesn’t work like that. the very structure of zionism — the bones of it — prejudices against palestinians because their ethnicity is “other than jew” > non jewish. acknowledging that is not racist or anti semitic.

      • Talkback
        June 24, 2016, 7:56 am

        I think that hophmi’s accusation is a perfect example of antigentilism and supremacism, because it implies that Gentiles can and some do hate Jews, but not a single Jew can and does hate Gentiles.

      • hophmi
        June 24, 2016, 12:23 pm

        Annie, you’re, as usual, completely distorting what I said.

        “no one here talks about this endlessly”

        The subject of Jewish animus toward non-Jews comes up frequently here. As usual, because you don’t care, you’re not sensitive to it.

        “off limits to suggest this in a mainstream forum”

        Are you seriously asserting that people can’t post things like this on facebook? You must be kidding. Facebook is full of rhetoric like this. By the way, Palestine Info Center is Hamas, so congrats on being friendly with a terrorist organization whose charter says that jihad against Jews is a religious duty and accuses the Jews of being behind a whole host of historical events and of being the merchants of war.

        http://www.acpr.org.il/resources/hamascharter.html

        “you reserve the right to insinuate anti semitism is an innate permeating feature of our society (heck no it is not “exactly the same” as anti black bigotry so let’s all not pretend jews were enslaved in america for centuries)”

        It’s an analogy. Do you understand how analogies work, Annie?

      • Annie Robbins
        June 24, 2016, 1:20 pm

        i understand perfectly how analogies work hophmi, and your analogy is non applicable in this context. scroll to the top of the page and watch the video:

        It’s the same as complaining about anti-white attitudes in the Black community….African-Americans can’t really be racist because racism connotes power and structure relationships …accusing Blacks of being anti-white is like blaming the victims …It’s exactly the same thing here. Jews are a small minority

        now scroll up. the analogous party to the african american community here (in this context regarding the topic under discussion as reflected in this video/article) is not, as you would like to imply, jews — it is palestinians who are oppressed and do not have power in the structure of zionism. by your analogy/standards it would be Palestinians who “can’t really be racist because racism connotes power and structure relationships“. because you can’t imply jews do not have strength in the zionist power structure over palestinians — that is absurd. you can’t draw on some historical precedence of jews being victims to place yourself as some downtrodden permanent underdog, in defense of zionism – not after decades of occupation and oppression. it’s absurd.

        as usual, completely distorting what I said.

        “no one here talks about this endlessly”

        The subject of Jewish animus toward non-Jews comes up frequently

        i distort? no cigar for hops:

        In this antisemitic space, people seem to think that a bias against Gentiles is somehow innate to Jews. So they talk about it endlessly

        i can’t really recall anyone here ever making the argument bias against non jews was “innate to jews” — and you were not making the claim (as you are now) this is “frequent”, you claimed we talked about it “endlessly”. and now you take a victim posture and claim i am distorting your words, by quoting you? and again with the ad hominem suggestion i am not “sensitive” and i am “uncaring”.

        you seem incapable of making a counter argument based on the points i made, instead, you just accuse me of distorting you, being insensitive and not comprehending what an analogy is. i offer an example of a norm finkelstien quote that was banned at FB and you suggest it was banned because PIC “is hamas” which is illogical because if FB was banning a post based on who PIC is then they would ban every post, which they do not.

        “off limits to suggest this in a mainstream forum”

        Are you seriously asserting that people can’t post things like this on facebook?

        i’m seriously asserting you’re more than suggesting the very idea of broaching the topic of racism against non jews exists in the jewish community be made off limits (you: “an antisemitic trope. And that’s all it is. It should not be permitted on a site that forbids antisemitism.”) while you think absolutely nothing of accusing the pro palestinian activist community of rampant anti semitism (“tens of millions who support the Palestinians because they hate Jews” — your recent unpublished absurdity — and you complain of insensitivity!).

        your argument is completely hypocritical hops. you want free reign to spread your ad hominem accusatory filth (tens of millions my a**) while advocating complete silence for your adversaries. and your so called analogy suggests jews “can’t really be racist”?

        is this a joke? again, i’m not distorting — i’m quoting you. and i am not doing it because i am insensitive, i am doing it because i am warrior engaged in an online dispute and quoting you is the easiest way to decimate your radically flawed hasbara.

      • MHughes976
        June 24, 2016, 5:06 pm

        Genesis 33 has Esau forgive Jacob and call him brother. It is Jacob who refuses to use ‘brother’, using ‘lord’ instead, and declines to restore fraternal relations, even though it is he who was in the wrong.

      • Mooser
        June 24, 2016, 5:58 pm

        “Genesis 33 has Esau forgive Jacob and call him brother. It is Jacob who refuses…” “MHughes976”

        Do you think “Yonah” is going to let a little thing like an entirely inadequate and wrong conception of how the text plays out and how it is interpreted prevent him from reasoning from the self-evident proposition:
        “Esau hates jacob. This is the essence of the question.” http://mondoweiss.net/2016/06/racism-jewish-jerusalem/#comment-168304
        Heck no, he wouldn’t let that stop him.

      • Talkback
        June 25, 2016, 7:06 am

        Annie: “I can’t really recall anyone here ever making the argument bias against non jews was “innate to jews””

        Everytime someone accuses one, some , many or most of the humans who happen or chose to be Jewish hophmi only sees it as an accusation against “Jews as such” and tries to find a corresponding antisemitic trope. That’s his way of spreading antisemitism on Mondoweiss.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 27, 2016, 1:19 pm

        now that it’s been a few days, i’ll take his silence as a concession.

  11. Mooser
    June 20, 2016, 8:53 pm

    Thanks “Gamal”. I wasn’t sure I could elucidate that understandably.

  12. ohplease
    June 21, 2016, 2:52 pm

    maybe if they keep making these videos they can ultimately tie the Palestinians in the Hateful Media vs. the Other Olympics.

    Of course, none of the antiJewish vitriol from the Palestinian and Arab world matters, only what Israel does matters. Duh!!!!

    Queue what-aboutism accusations, which miss the forest for the trees.

    • Misterioso
      June 21, 2016, 5:34 pm

      “Of course, none of the antiJewish vitriol from the Palestinian and Arab world matters, only what Israel does matters. Duh!!!!”

      Sigh.
      What’s your point?

      As history attests, those (e.g., Israeli Jews, comprising the world’s fourth most powerful military power) who ethnically cleanse, illegally occupy, dispossess, expel, kill en masse, brutalize, imprison without charge, torture, oppress and inflict collective punishments upon others (e.g., defenseless Palestinian Arabs) are always subject to vitriol from their victims and supporters for perfectly understandable reasons.

    • Mooser
      June 21, 2016, 5:57 pm

      “Of course, none of the antiJewish vitriol from the Palestinian and Arab world matters, only what Israel does matters.”

      I’m sorry, but didn’t your Mom explain to you that the world is not always fair?

      • ohplease
        June 21, 2016, 9:14 pm

        That’s a bit ironic coming from a social justice activist

      • eljay
        June 21, 2016, 9:35 pm

        || ohplease: maybe if they keep making these videos they can ultimately tie the Palestinians in the Hateful Media vs. the Other Olympics.

        … Of course, none of the antiJewish vitriol from the Palestinian and Arab world matters, only what Israel does matters. Duh!!!!

        Queue what-aboutism accusations, which miss the forest for the trees. ||

        All injustices matter. But instead of concluding that the solution to all injustices is the universal and consistent application of justice, accountability and equality, Zio-supremacists see injustice and conclude: Murderers exist, so it’s OK to rape.

        It’s baffling to watch Zio-supremacists proudly defend their “moral beacon” and “light unto the nations” state by comparing it to bottom-of-the-morality-barrel states they despise.

        Z-S: Joe is the best! A real stand-up guy!
        Person: Ummm…Joe is a wife-beater and child molester.
        Z-S: Oh, yeah?! Well at least he’s not a rapist or a serial killer!

    • echinococcus
      June 23, 2016, 1:21 am

      Of course, none of the antiJewish vitriol from the Palestinian and Arab world matters

      Oh, please!
      First, vitriol is severely (and illegally) blockaded by the Zionist entity that considers H2SO4 a chemical weapon, although I suppose it can be easily made at home. Second, none of the contumely (only words, alas!) is directed at me or any other Jews, offspring of Jews or biological Jews or even imagined Jews who are not Zionist invader criminals, in fact no one who is outside the Zionist invaders of Palestine, all already criminals against humanity. I never had a Palestinian or even an Ayrab throw acid at me.

Leave a Reply