The politics of Jewish ethnocentrism

US Politics
on 94 Comments

How can Bret Stephens, who is so sensitive to any slight he perceives against his own people, use the phrase “disease of the Arab mind” when writing about hundreds of millions of other people? That is what Stephens, the Pulitzer prize winning columnist for the Wall Street Journal, did in his recent article about the Egyptian Olympic athlete who refused to shake hands with with his Israeli opponent.

Similarly, how can David Horowitz, who like Bret Stephens, is so quick to assign prejudice when Jews and  Israel are criticized, write something like this?

How do we have a culture that allows these type of moral and ethical contradictions to go, without even a discussion about it?

I think a good place to start in solving this riddle is with a recent  Judi Rudoren quote (that Adam Horowitz pointed out).  The deputy international editor and former Jerusalem bureau chief for the New York Times said that Israelis are

“blunt and racist in a way that’s just different from America… It’s blunter there, but it is also more rooted in experience. It’s not based on some stereotype. It’s based on, ‘Every Israeli I know has acted in this way.’ Or, ‘My cousin was killed by a suicide bomber.’ It’s not based on kind of an idea, it’s based on experience.”

Let me unpack that. Rudoren said there is a lot of prejudice and racism in the world but unlike other people who are racist and prejudiced the world over, we Jews are justified in our prejudices. This sophisticated editor turns out to be  so ethnocentric she can’t separate her subjective reality from reality itself. When she feels pain when Jews are killed after a Palestinian attack that pain she experiences makes her understanding of what happened totally “prejudiced”. But according to her it isn’t prejudice it’s reality. This in spite of  every racist thinking exactly the the same way Rudoren does, that they have a REASON for their own  racism, that their prejudice is warranted by the real world. (Just listen to David Duke some time.) But Rudoren believes that what goes on in her head, unlike the fantasies of the racists out there, is objective reality. And remember she is considered one of the “good guys,” a liberal from the liberal NY Times.

This is not just the view of one top Jewish editor at the New York Times. It is a powerful force in the world and an Orwellian force in U.S. culture. It allows the obscene double standards practiced by the two Jewish fanatics above. 

It’s the same ethnocentrism Jeffrey Goldberg exhibited when Jews applauded Donald Trump at AIPAC. “Stop being surprised,” he ordered his twitter followers.

Nothing to see here. Because Jews are always allowed, according to Goldberg. And don’t make Goldberg tell you why. All delirious Trump crowds must be looked at askance, except when Goldberg’s people do it. It’s how he experienced the world from when he was young

Jews are always better! And so Jeffrey Goldberg fit every experience in his life to make himself feel comfortable as an ethnocentric Jew in the modern world. Actually more than comfortable. His whole career is an attempt to defeat “reality” with an ethnocentric Jewish reality.

And since, unsurprisingly, in Jeffrey Goldberg’s reality, he represents “moral clarity,” and since his own identity is what is ultimately at stake here, he becomes a Torquemada type figure in all his “debates.” He makes people who see the world as it actually is defend themselves to Goldberg, because Goldberg is such an insecure Jew.

The result is an Orwellian world where Goldberg is publicly assessing whether Andrew Sullivan is an anti-Semite. 

Because when an  Irish-Catholic raises his voice when speaking about Benjamin Netanyahu, it somehow makes Goldberg feel like it’s Kristallnacht all over again.

Goldberg and others have been telling themselves the same preposterous self-serving story for many years. And meanwhile tormenting people who see the world as it actually is. That’s how Jeffrey Goldberg deals with his cognitive dissonance. Why go to a shrink like everyone else does, when Jeffrey Goldberg can drive everyone else nuts instead.

Not only is it necessary for him to convert other people to the Goldberg ethnocentric view of the world, he does it by the sword. He will defame anyone who disturbs the childlike equilibrium he has in his brain. So utterly clueless about the world, yet not letting that ignorance restrain his pomposity one bit, he must bully/cajole/convince “reality” to fit into the view of his delicate Jewish psyche.

When the AIPAC Jews applauded Trump, Peter Beinart reacted in a justly angry way in Haaretz. He was inspired right from his headline: “Trump at AIPAC: A Jewish betrayal of the U.S.”

“Thank you, Donald Trump. Unwittingly, you’ve done something important. You’ve exposed AIPAC’s indifference to the well being of the country in which it thrives. My country. The United States.”

Peter Beinart is not living his life worrying about phantom neo-Nazis celebrating every bad bit of publicity Jews get, the way Jeffrey Goldberg is.  

But then Jeffrey Goldberg doesn’t consider himself like every other journalist who merely reports the news. He is a historical figure who was put in this world to help the Jewish people.  So he tries to censor reality with his tweets because it sure looks bad for the Good and Moral side, the Jewish side, Jeffrey’s side. And like all fanatics, personal ethics mean little to him.

Censoring reality is also what the late A.M. Rosenthal did when he famously censored Thomas Friedman’s report of “indiscriminate” Israeli bombing of Beirut in 1982. Rosenthal and Goldberg know the truth: Israel and the Jews are “good,” their enemies “evil”.

So if they to have to cover up certain nasty facts that give a mistaken impression about what “the overall context of the events” actually is, and what their moral clarity tells them, well, that ain’t a decision at all.

“The overall context of the event” may be familiar to you as the words of another leading voice of Jewish ethnocentrism. It was how Benjamin Netanyahu reacted to the video that came out of an Israeli army medic executing in cold blood a prone and wounded Palestinian in occupied Hebron in March, a man who had minutes earlier injured another Israeli soldier with a knife.

Netanyahu said this:

As the father of a soldier and as Prime Minister, I would like to reiterate: The IDF [Israel Defense Forces] backs its soldiers…. Our soldiers are not murderers. They act against murderers and I hope that a way will be found to balance between the action and the overall context of the event.

And he said this:

“Questioning the IDF’s morality is outrageous and unacceptable… IDF soldiers, our children, maintain a high moral standard when they deal with bloodthirsty murderers… IDF soldiers deal with bloodthirsty murderers under difficult operational circumstances.”

The question that immediately comes to mind is what possible “overall context of the event,” or mitigating circumstances argument, can possibly be made with a straight face to even to the most sympathetically inclined judge? This is what is called an open and shut case. Thanks to the video, we see the crime from beginning to end. We even have the bonus footage of the murdering medic shaking hands with his Hebron Sabbath host Baruch Marzel (who Larry Derfner tells us is “monster in chief… the leader of a movement that produces and glorifies Arab-killers.”)

But Netanyahu’s meaning was clear to those it was intended, his Israeli audience. The extenuating circumstances in the murder seen in the video are that our children including the murdering medic are good and their children are bloodthirsty murderers.

This is part of the elephant in the room, the 21st century “Jewish question” that so many people now have a hand on, but don’t know what they’re actually touching. The lack of personal ethics shown by these ethnocentric Jews, while lecturing and condemning far and wide, all under the banner of “moral clarity,” has caused perplexity and rage. Robert Wright expressed both after they smeared Chuck Hagel for having used the words “Jewish lobby.”

“These people are blinded by their passions, and the fact that their smears are wild and unfounded doesn’t mean they’re insincere.”

I say that this blindness is Orwellian because it is everywhere and uncontested. So Rep. Hank Johnson uses the word “termites” to describe the settlements, and to him it is just a word. It means nothing to anyone in the room in Philadelphia he is addressing, and the whole world understands “termites” exactly the way he used it.

But the next thing a bunch of ethnocentric Jews are explaining what a terrible thing he said.

This is also the untold story of the Iran deal a year ago: the head-on collision between actual reality and ethnocentric Jewish reality. Between every leading country in the world and honest journalists like Andrew Sullivan and James Fallows and an almost unanimous chorus of Israeli security experts on one side, representing reality– and Netanyahu and Goldberg and Jamie Kirchick and other ethnocentrics representing what is only in their head, on the other. 

What a circus it was. Netanyahu was allowed to make the world crazy over the non-Iran threat to Israel. Why? Because the ethnocentric Jewish “perception of reality,” even if it is as far removed from reality as it often actually is, gets to sit at the table with reality. In fact at the head of the table.

And it is a fascinating story. To my mind the most humorous collision between the real world and the Jewish ethnocentric fantasy world was the breakup of Rabbi Shmuley Boteach and his “soul friend” Senator Cory Booker after Booker came out for the Iran deal. Booker lives in the real world. He got all the briefings. He knows that Iran, as ex-Mossad head Efraim Halevy  put it, is “1000 years” away from threatening Israel’s existence.

But Booker had to contend with a totally deranged tribal fantasy. I love how Booker refused to meet the late Elie Wiesel and Ron Dermer. Few politicians would do that. He deserves respect for that.

This was what Booker was subject to non-stop from his former friendOn Facebook, Boteach wrote that it was “troubling and tragic” that his “soul friend” chose to support the deal despite the fact that he went to Israel at 25 and visited the holocaust museum in Jerusalem, “a trip that I arranged trusting that he would absorb the never-ending Jewish struggle for survival in a world inhabited by the kind of evil represented by the Iranian regime.”

How many public figures can even afford not to be indoctrinated in Jewish ethnocentrism? The exceptions are the brave ones. I believe Jewish ethnocentrism is a unique threat to American political life today. It has been ignored for way too long,  and that is the story I am going to keep on telling.

About Yakov Hirsch

Yakov Hirsch is a professional poker player and dog trainer. His twitter handle is @Yakovhirsch and his articles are posted at yakovhirsch.com.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

94 Responses

  1. Atlantaiconoclast
    August 18, 2016, 12:10 am

    Jewish ethnocentrism = Jewish supremacism

    Double standard of Jews being able to spew racist rhetoric without consequence = Jewish privilege

    Why is this in any way controversial? Why aren’t anti Zionists using these terms as often as they reflexively discuss “White supremacy”? Especially when Whites no longer dominate media, finance, government, academia, etc. ?

    Step out of your intellectual bubble for just a moment and be honest about this. Is White supremacism really a bigger thing than Jewish supremacism?

    • Annie Robbins
      August 19, 2016, 3:02 am

      Is White supremacism really a bigger thing than Jewish supremacism?

      i suppose it depends on where you’re coming from. most american jews are as white as the majority of americans and jewish-american supremacists are white supremacists. as far was their impact on the world and our culture, it’s dangerous — of course — like all supremacists.

      • silamcuz
        August 19, 2016, 3:25 am

        Annie,

        Exactly, as powerful as these American and Israeli Jews may seem, people forget that their power comes from their willingness to yield to the framework of White supremacy and pay complete allegiance to its values. Once they stop doing so, they are left just as powerless as any group not aligned with white supremacy. That’s why you rarely see powerful Jews advocating for reparations, decolonisation, anti-war, anti-capitalistic reforms etc, even though there are thousands of Jews dedicated towards these ideals.

        There is also survival bias happening here. For every rich and powerful Jews you see, there are hundreds of Jews struggling and facing all kind of challenges in their lives, that you don’t see. Black Jews, Arab Jews, Yemenite Jews, mixed or POC Jews, many of whom face intense social strife both in the US and Israel, due to racism, colorism, and white supremacy.

      • Annie Robbins
        August 19, 2016, 4:47 am

        people forget that their power comes from their willingness to yield

        oh yeah, the American and Israeli Jews willingness to yield. how could we forget that.

        For every rich and powerful Jews you see, there are hundreds of Jews struggling and facing all kind of challenges in their lives, that you don’t see. Black Jews, Arab Jews, Yemenite Jews, mixed or POC Jews,

        for every rich and powerful person we see, there are hundreds struggling and facing all kind of challenges in their lives that you don’t see.

    • JWalters
      August 20, 2016, 7:48 pm

      Atlantaiconoclast, spot on. I would add that the “chosen people” supremacist fairytale is a scam by rich predators so the rest of the tribe will rally around them when there’s blowback to their predatory practices. “War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror”.

      It’s also a fairytale that is certain to cause resentment among those who are being told they are sub-human, without human rights, and therefore legitimate targets for thefts and killings of convenience.

  2. Raphael
    August 18, 2016, 12:51 am

    How do we have a culture that allows these type of moral and ethical contradictions to go, without even a discussion about it?

    By the degeneration of language. By war mandarins that would usually be working for the government, instead, being employed by the media industry, as journalists.

    See Michael Foucault, Madness and Civilization [New York: 1967]

    Also, Brice Parain about “word sickness” concerning journalism.

    • Boomer
      August 18, 2016, 8:58 am

      Do you have a specific title for Parain? My search turned up mainly items in French, which I can read, but painfully. So I don’t want to struggle through the wrong thing:-)

      • Raphael
        August 18, 2016, 10:18 am

        Good question.

        I’m guessing this topic is in heretic territory; so too properly answer it might take some time.

      • Annie Robbins
        August 18, 2016, 1:27 pm

        boomer, i tried googling word sickness in french w/parain “mot maladie Brice Parain” and a few books popped up. one by Bernard-Henri Lévy — you might try it. but parain’s wiki page says

        He is obsessed with the problems of language . The critic Charles Blanchard nicknamed “the Sherlock Holmes of language.” He continues to scrutinize the mysteries of the origin and evolution of words. Evidenced by later testing as Essay on the Platonic Logos ( 1942 ) research on the nature and function of language ( 1942 ) or on the dialectic ( 1953 ).

        but i don’t think the issue hirsch is discussing is a problem w/language, at all.

      • Raphael
        August 18, 2016, 2:11 pm

        So far it seems to me that the way I interpret it; is that they (reporters) are replaced with “ministers of truth”…. focusing back then on how to influence their audience of newspaper readers.

        I’m guessing that today would be today’s technology… with the TV, and political commentary activists.

        I’m curious about the question myself, so I might have a answer soon.

      • Raphael
        August 18, 2016, 3:46 pm

        Also see George Steiner

        War and the crisis of language
        “See Sartre’s essay on Parain in Situations I [Paris, 1947], p. 192.)”

        http://www.aloha.net/~stroble/merton2.html

        Society Must Be Defended – Rebel Studies Library

        http://rebels-library.org/files/foucault_society_must_be_defended.pdf

        Situation (Sartre)
        From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        He then published his series Situations, with ten volumes on Literary Critiques and What Is Literature? (1947), the third volume (1949), Portraits (1964), Colonialism and Neocolonialism (1964), Problems of Marxism, Part 1 (1966), Problems of Marxism, Part 2 (1967), The Family Idiot (1971-2), Autour de 1968 and Melanges (1972), and Life/Situations: Essays Written and Spoken (1976).

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situation_(Sartre)

      • Boomer
        August 18, 2016, 6:14 pm

        Annie & Raphael, thanks. I appreciate your efforts. Don’t spend more time on it on my account. Don’t let this take us away from the issue at hand.

    • Mooser
      August 18, 2016, 6:38 pm

      “How do we have a culture that allows these type of moral and ethical contradictions to go, without even a discussion about it”

      That’s a good question.

      • rosross
        August 19, 2016, 1:41 am

        All political systems are prone to corruption but perhaps the American system is more prone to corruption because of the lobbying system, something which is illegal in most, perhaps all other developed nations.

        How can something be discussed when someone can always pay to not have it discussed?

  3. Nevada Ned
    August 18, 2016, 1:12 am

    Cory Booker used to be a fervent Christian Zionist, displaying more religiosity than most other US Senators. (Maybe he still is)
    So his support for the Iran deal is a good sign.

    • lysias
      August 19, 2016, 8:02 am

      It’s politics. He felt obliged to support Obama. I’m afraid he’ll go back to his old ways under President Hillary.

  4. lonely rico
    August 18, 2016, 3:08 am

    I believe Jewish ethnocentrism is a unique threat to American political life today. It has been ignored for way too long, and that is the story I am going to keep on telling.

    The story you tell so well Mr. Hirsch.

    I imagine I hear a gnashing of teeth as Stephens, Horowitz, Stephens et al read your story. A pleasing sound.

    Bravo

    • pabelmont
      August 18, 2016, 10:30 am

      LR: Why would you expect these hi-positioned bozos to trouble themselves by gnashing their teeth? They see no problem or they wouldn’t act that way: they have been trained to feel a right to complain about antisemitism, real or imagined or fraudulent; and they have been trained to apply anti-racism rhetoric to others, but to feel themselves immune to such criticism.

      (An internalized sense of, if not the actuality of) immunity and impunity are hall-marks of Israel, of Zionism generally, and of Jewish nationalists (and racists). And why not? They get away with all this crap.

      So why gnash teeth? Gentle smiling or triumphant feelings (usually well hidden behind polite outward appearance) (see picture of Bret Stephens above) is more like it.

  5. Citizen
    August 18, 2016, 3:41 am

    Brave article. Too true. Who can afford to do anything about it? I don’t see anyone on the horizon, do you? Our government has just scolded Israel in public while simultaneously trying to decide whether to give Netanyahu a $45 billion package, or a $50 billion package. The usual $30 billion package was way too stingy, considering how well-off us Americans are.

    • rosross
      August 19, 2016, 1:45 am

      And meanwhile the bridges keep falling down, the roads crumbling, and people still struggle to survive in ways which should simply not happen in a wealthy, developed nation.

  6. Krauss
    August 18, 2016, 4:37 am

    I take the long view. America does not need Jews to interfere, often brutually, in the domestic affairs of other nations. Ask any Caribbean nation about that, or South-East Asia, or any other place.

    That being said, it doesn’t preclude the fact that in 2016, in this day and age, Jewish ethnocentrism, crystallised into Zionism, is a driving force in American Middle Eastern policy. I don’t see any evidence for it in other parts of the world, possibly in some shades in Europe, but mostly just in the Middle East. Certainly not in Asia, Africa, Latin America etc.

    Fundamentally, there is a whole class of people out there who have been telling themselves that they are liberal. They are not. Beinart, Goldberg, Stephens(liberal maybe on gay rights, not liberal on ethnocentrism) even people like Krugman, who often shirks talking about Zionism and pretends that Israel lobby doesn’t exist, instead he just bashes the Koch brothers and similar types. Nothing about Adelson’s Israeli obsession.

    I/P has exposed these people. The neocon convergence around Hillary is based around the same premise. It isn’t concentrated to one party or one organisation. It’s a pathology within the upper echelons of the Jewish community, but it is also generational. You don’t see young Jews act like this in nearly the same way.

  7. Talkback
    August 18, 2016, 7:54 am

    Replace ‘Arabs’ with ‘Jews’ and Stephens et al sound exactly like Nazis.

    • xanadou
      August 18, 2016, 10:14 pm

      Touché! The Nazi rhetoric came back to haunt them in Núrenberg, too. If Israel expects to survive into posterity, a more diplomatic/prudent choice of words would be helpful. The violent images that already flood the Internet will outlive the parochial yahoos in expensive suits, and will stain many generations not yet born. Vide the example of present day Germans.

      I wonder what an honest psychologist/psychiatrist would make of the zios’ pathological obsession with assertions of superiority that demand such hysterical put downs of their savagely persecuted victims?

    • rosross
      August 18, 2016, 10:33 pm

      Bigotry is generic. It has no religion, race or culture. But it can be encouraged in any religion, race or culture.

      • xanadou
        August 19, 2016, 4:41 pm

        Rosross,
        Quite. Religion, race, culture are yet more victims of pathocracts obsessed with power, but no concept what REAL power entails or how to handle it. Instead we have an abundance of powermongers of every persuasion, most of whom seldom go outside their borders, to the unspeakable suffering of their countrymen.

        And then there is the first yahoo with a pathological obsession with power. Watching his obscene performances on the local and int’l stages inundated with contempt for humanity, I see a wanna-be übermensch who seems to believe that the world has cheated him out of absolute power over the world or at least, the USA. Coupled with his prejudices, it explains netanyahoo’s unconscionable contempt for Obama and Clinton, a Black man and woman whom he seems to view as unworthy pretenders to his idea of due birth right. Then flunkies such as Stephens, Goldberg, Horowitz, the now-dead rabbi Ovadia joseph, the current army chief rabbi, the first bouncer and the ghastly women in that entourage, and the weak humans who also (ab)use the fig leaf of Judaism and its most extreme teachings to give themselves the aura of superiority over humanity.

        This crap has been tried by others many times before. It did not work then, it is not working now.

  8. Boomer
    August 18, 2016, 8:52 am

    Thanks for this. There seems to be little reason to hope for constructive change, but what hope is depends on people like you who are willing and able to point out the problem.

  9. catalan
    August 18, 2016, 11:53 am

    There is no Jewish ethnocentrism. We have a special hatred for those within the tribe, bigger than any hatred towards outsiders. Think how Sheldon Adelson feels about Sanders or how Sanders feels about the Wall Street Jewish billionaires. I think that Jews despise each other much, so the notion that we are ethnocentric is baloney.

    • oldgeezer
      August 18, 2016, 2:29 pm

      @catalan

      Even if what you say is true, it does not argue against ethnocentrism.

    • Yakov Hirsch
      August 18, 2016, 3:26 pm

      catalan August 18, 2016, 11:53 am
      “ I think that Jews despise each other much, so the notion that we are ethnocentric is baloney.”

      That Jews “despise” each other proves to you Jewish ethnocentricity is baloney. To me it shows how pernicious it is.

      What is Jewish ethnocentrism? It started with the religious belief that Jews are the “chosen people” which has evolved into some secular version of Jewish chosenness. It is ethnocentric Jews experiencing subjective reality (Jews are the best!) AS objective reality. Jeffrey Goldberg “knows” Jews are special. The hatred you mention from ethnocentric Jew to non -ethno-centric Jew is exactly BECAUSE the non-ethnocentric Jews are challenging the Jewish ethnocentric view of the world. It is is in itself the biggest example of ethnocentricity. The experience of being a Jew to Jeffrey Goldberg, is not something you just dismiss so easily as these other Jews are doing. So for Goldberg’s “Jews are the best that ever was, and will ever be” , to make sense, he has to explain how these other Jews are not reacting the same way to being Jewish as Goldberg is. So the “Jeffrey Goldberg’s Jews”, are very threatened by the “Glenn Greenwald Jews” of this world, and the Jill Stein’s, and the Phil Weiss’s. They are a huge psychological threat to people like Jeffrey Goldberg.
      Look at the most antisemitic article of the election campaign.
      Prager on Sanders. Prager uses every anti semitic stereotype on Sanders. http://www.dennisprager.com/bernie-sanders-the-non-jewish-jew-and-non-american-american/
      Why? Its because Sanders and Greenwald cause the most cognitive dissonance for the ethnocentrics. Because these non-ethnocentric Jews act like they just “HAPPEN TO BE” Jews.” Being Jewish doesn’t seem to mean much to them. Nothing like it does to the ethnocentrics. To them being Jewish is the most amazing thing in the world. How can these other Jews be so blah about it? So the answer must be that these other Jews are really covering up some powerful psychological need taht is in reaction to to their Jewishness . It is not possible taht these people can be as indifferent to being Jewish as they come across. Goldberg thinks the fact that these Jews are against the “Jewish interest” has to be some “sick” reaction to their own Jewishness. “Smart shrinks will have a field day” is what Goldberg tweeted about Jill Stein support for BDS.
      https://twitter.com/JeffreyGoldberg/status/740389331978719236

      So Goldberg needs to create a profile in his head of the “self hating” Jew that is half man half beast.
      So Goldberg, Prager etal. turn these “self hating” Jews into evil monsters or very severely psychologically damaged people. Their reaction is in fact the most ethnocentric reaction imaginable.
      The ethnocentrics tell themselves that these other Jews MUST feel some guilt of being chosen. That’s why they have their anti Israel positions. And only in REACTION to being special/chosen they do their anti Israel stuff. This quote below is Goldberg telling himself (and people like Yonah) what Phil Weiss is really about.
      It is Goldberg reaction to Mearsheimer,

      “To give you a better sense of what I mean when I use the term righteous Jews, let me give you some names of people and organizations that I would put in this category. The list would include Noam Chomsky, Roger Cohen, Richard Falk, Norman Finkelstein, Tony Judt, Tony Karon, Naomi Klein, MJ Rosenberg, Sara Roy, and Philip Weiss of Mondoweiss fame, just to name a few. I would also include many of the individuals associated with J Street and everyone associated with Jewish Voice for Peace, as well as distinguished international figures such as Judge Richard Goldstone. Furthermore, I would apply the label to the many American Jews who work for different human rights organizations, such as Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch.”

      And here is Goldberg’s analysis
      “A couple of quibbles, first: I don’t think Roger Cohen, of The New York Times, belongs on this list. He is not a death-to Israel sort. I wish he were as sympathetic to his own people as he is to the Poles, but his lack of sympathy for Jews doesn’t make him an obliterationist. Also, I don’t think Judge Goldstone falls into this category, and nor do the good people at J Street. The others, though, are part of a tiny minority of Jews who believe that the destruction of Israel will bring them the approval of non-Jews, which they crave.”http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/05/mearsheimers-list/39807/

      This last sentence is what happens to Goldberg’s brain, when faced with Jews who seems to have universal values instead of Jewish parochial ones.
      And look next at Goldberg psychoanalyzing Greenwald on his relation to his Jewishness.

      “ I often suspect that some really bad shit happened to him in Hebrew school.
      ..This is not to say I don’t admire some of his stands, including his forthright stance against torture — of course, this is a very Jewish position to take, if you ask me. “
      http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/01/more-on-glenn-greenwald-israel-firsters-and-idiot-editors-updated/251852/

      It is very important to Goldberg that Greemwal’s Jewishness is behind his critical position on Israel.
      Another example. What do the ethnocentrics do about people like Gideon Levy?
      He is making moral arguments against the people who think they represent the highest morality. Clearly they can’t debate Levy on the merit of his arguments. Realize Goldberg did not respond to Levy’s recent Haaretz article about him. Goldberg cant win that fight.
      So look how sociologically and psychologically fascinating it is what they do.
      This is an opening to an article by Liel Leibovits in Tablet. This article is not about Levy but he waned to quote him.
      This is what a benighted ethnocentric like Liebovitz MUST do with a Gideon Levy. The long opening paragraph on Levy, the venal motivation Leibovits assigns to Levy which has no relation to reality, is the cost of Liebovits and his readers remaining in their blissful ethnocentric ignorance. http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/202290/equating-israel-with-the-nazis

      One morning, as I woke up from unsettling dreams, I found myself transformed in my bed into a monstrous vermin: I found myself agreeing with Gideon Levy.Levy, to those who seek sweet refuge in ignorance, is the Haaretz columnist who, being the Savonarola of self-hating Jews, has made a mint peddling an increasingly sordid—and fantastical—account of Israel’s alleged crimes to the regressive left around the world. Formerly a good journalist, Levy proved to be an even better businessman: Complex analyses of the conflict, he realized, sold for pennies on the dollar in Paris and Cambridge and Rome, but thundering accounts of Jewish perfidy paid a premium. What followed were fawning profiles in Le Monde and Der Spiegel, human rights awards in Leipzig and Stockholm, even a stint on an Israeli reality show. As the sensationalists embraced Levy, serious readers shuffled off in search of more nutritional stuff.

      • echinococcus
        August 18, 2016, 4:26 pm

        Yakov,

        What is Jewish ethnocentrism? It started with the religious belief that Jews are the “chosen people” which has evolved into some secular version of Jewish chosenness.

        And it became extremely dangerous, when not deadly, when miscellaneous populations joined the religion and German philosophers convinced them that they were “a people”.

      • yonah fredman
        August 18, 2016, 4:50 pm

        Yakov Hirsch- Thanks for mentioning my name out of nowhere. Your adaptation to the lower percentiles of MIA etiquette is impressive.

        I have never attacked Gideon Levy. He lives in Israel and his bona fides vis a vis his Jewishness are established by that fact.

        When Phil Weiss attacks Israel based on his American senses and his human senses, I have accepted his words as given. When he flashes his Jew card and says, “see, I’m a Jew and I’m against Israel,” it is only then that my back gets out of joint.

        Some Jews do not care about the disappearance of the Jews. I don’t see anything evil or blind or self hating in that attitude. But then when they pull out the Jew card and start up and claim to care about the Jews in one breath and then wax wise about how hundreds of languages disappear all the time, so who cares if the Jewish languages (and cultures) disappear, then there is something fishy.

      • gamal
        August 18, 2016, 6:14 pm

        “That Jews “despise” each other proves to you Jewish ethnocentricity is baloney. To me it shows how pernicious it is. ”

        in Islam man we love each other but we don’t lose our heads

      • Yakov Hirsch
        August 18, 2016, 7:15 pm

        yonah fredman August 18, 2016, 4:50 pm
        Yakov Hirsch- Thanks for mentioning my name out of nowhere. Your adaptation to the lower percentiles of MIA etiquette is impressive.

        Yonah, as i was reading your comment i thought to myself “is it possible I have Yonah all wrong?” And just as i was composing my apology in my head, i reached your concluding words “there is something fishy.” Phew! I hate apologizing.

      • Kathleen
        August 18, 2016, 11:22 pm

        “So the “Jeffrey Goldberg’s Jews”, are very threatened by the “Glenn Greenwald Jews” of this world, and the Jill Stein’s, and the Phil Weiss’s. They are a huge psychological threat to people like Jeffrey Goldberg.
        Look at the most antisemitic article of the election campaign.
        Prager on Sanders. Prager uses every anti semitic stereotype on Sanders. link to dennisprager.com
        Why? Its because Sanders and Greenwald cause the most cognitive dissonance for the ethnocentrics. Because these non-ethnocentric Jews act like they just “HAPPEN TO BE” Jews.” Being Jewish doesn’t seem to mean much to them. Nothing like it does to the ethnocentrics. -”

        Damn Yakov…..go go go

      • rosross
        August 19, 2016, 1:24 am

        Any group which encourages members or followers to believe they are exceptional, i.e. superior, will manifest in the most vulnerable and needy, an inflated version.

        When Jews, particularly intelligent and noted Jews, as some of those cited above, do not take the same position on their Jewish ‘exceptionality’ or ‘specialness’ this raises the horrifying question of: Am I right in my belief? The reaction to this is increased denial, bigotry and fear so deep it limits rational capacity. None of it is particular to Jews. You will find the same sort of irrational and entrenched belief in many religions and also in some nationalities, tribes, castes etc.

        I wonder if the fact that the original belief is itself so irrational, immature and unjust, that the individual cannot even admit to him or herself, the truth of what it is they believe and so when others reflect it, the horror is so deep that denial must reach insanity levels.

        You cannot spend time in Israel without being struck by the ‘shadow effect’ so often at work in the most decent, intelligent, sensitive people when it comes to the issue of Jewish superiority and exceptionalism and the inferiority of all non-Jews, which morphs into sub-human status for the Palestinians – a deep, abiding, vivid, painful, horrifying reflection of the denied reality.

        When we truly hate ourselves we must project all we cannot accept out onto others, whether it is those we subjugate, or those who challenge our belief system. It is a tortured place to be.

      • Raphael
        August 20, 2016, 10:24 am

        Actually, I never even heard of Goldberg. I see what you mean though, about the repeating the same thing over again in his mind. Many people do that over and over again, when they think.

        It seems to me, that Israel in the imagination, and the Jewish people in general was much more liberal minded up until World War II. Then it slowly went downhill from forced Ghettos, to a self imposed one now called Israel.

        It is a sort of Catch 22 situation…it seems to me… for religious Jews (Israelis); because if the conflict with the Arabs stop; the religious Jews and their surrogate politicians the far right wing politicians will be unemployed. And, even if the left wing politicians in Israel get in power, which is very unlikely ever to occur in the future… they are not like liberal Jews in the US. they are in a way totalitarian socialists; and would only be empowered by the Soviet Jews that moved to Israel; and the ghetto mentality would still continue, even if it was all sold as a revolution.

        My prediction is that around a 100 years from now; Israel will be in many ways like the Soviet Union; in that even getting a Visa to leave the country could be denied, or long waits months to get a Visa, and underground forced labor by non Jews, or non-Jewish Jews.

    • Keith
      August 18, 2016, 4:37 pm

      CATALAN- “There is no Jewish ethnocentrism.”

      Indeed, the very notion of Jewish “peoplehood” an alien concept forced upon unsuspecting Jews by the shifty Goyim. We Gentiles are all alike.

      • Raphael
        August 22, 2016, 1:14 pm

        My interpretation of it; is that the Jewish community became anti-Goyim after World War II; and especially after, the 1967 war in Israel… before that there was basically no resentment of “others,” as in us vs. them. But, the orthodox were the only exception.

        And, also the Jewish people when the state of Israel started, the fundamentalists were in a minority; now they are in the majority, as far as policy making for both US Jews, and Israeli Jews.

        Israel, being a militaristic state then made anti-Goyism a means to boost morale, among the troops. In the US anti gentilism is in the home but not in public; they are liberal democrats. I know, I lived in both a Jewish home, and the home of a goy.

        But, then again, in the goyim home after World War II they had too scapegoat the Jews. Many family members I learned later on in life, would not even tell other family members I was ever even born; simply, because my mother married a Jew. I had family members that were German or part German, that were in the world War II; but anti-Semitism among German American soldiers in the US was the same as it was in Germany, during the war.

    • Keith
      August 18, 2016, 4:56 pm

      CATALAN- “There is no Jewish ethnocentrism.”

      No doubt the staunch American Jewish support for Israel simply derives from the fact that American Zionist Jews simply want the Palestinians to stop abusing their downtrodden Jewish neighbors. If the situation was reversed, they would support the Palestinians, that is for sure!

  10. Annie Robbins
    August 18, 2016, 1:34 pm

    this is a very interesting article. it is all over the map (and seems a tad obsessed w/goldberg but then he is an excellent example of this phenomena) but i suppose it sort of has to be to make the case. i have other comments/opinions but think i’ll let it settle a tad before sharing them.

    • Yakov Hirsch
      August 18, 2016, 5:52 pm

      Annie Robbins
      August 18, 2016, 1:34 pm
      “and seems a tad obsessed w/goldberg ”

      Annie, my apologizes if i mislead you. I am a lot more than “a tad” obsessed with Jeffrey Goldberg.

      • Annie Robbins
        August 18, 2016, 5:58 pm

        ;) yes, well you’re allowed to expose it too. perhaps because you’re you. long story. let’s just say if i tried submitting this for publication it likely would have been edited.

      • Annie Robbins
        August 18, 2016, 7:53 pm

        i think it’s probable that as a result of the holocaust there was an understandable (under the circumstances) generational brainwashing inflicted or imposed upon jewish children born directly afterwards.

        coupled with the founding of the state also occurring around this time, founded on myth and lies that have continued til this day, imposed a double edged burden on the psyches of many many jews, albeit, not all.

        these (2)phenomenas, the first grounded in a parental will to survive or for their children to survive, when merged together (including the toxicity of myth/lies) likely created an environment where a certain kind of collective psychological condition of group consciousness that has effected the way many jews react that is different than other people. for example, the idea and accusation of “self hating” as it is applied to the individual in relation to how it pertains to the group.

        this is unlike anything instilled into me as a child (and while i’m not claiming it’s strictly a jewish thing — i’m just unfamiliar, as an observer, encountering it elsewhere).

        given the conditions of the monstrous lie and coverup accompanying the founding of the state, the jewish community during this time period, were heavily subjected to a massively coordinated propaganda campaign (regarding israel) unlike what non jews were exposed to through the media because it was happening through their breastmilk, in their homes (and for many their schools). and they were susceptible due to the terrific generational loss directly proceeding.

        everyone wants to kill you, israel will save you, speaking against it is speaking against your people, all this stuff. and it wasn’t randomly distributed throughout society — it was specific to jewish homes. so it’s quite natural the outcome of this kind of upbringing would produce a condition of damaged groupthink. it’s natural that it would produce a society where a large number of people would find this propaganda simply insurmountable. and even the ones not thoroughly brainwashed by this condition would understand it and recognize it for what it is because it is so familiar to them.

        so there’s 2 things really, there’s the psychological condition of this generation and then there’s the heavily scrutinized and selected propaganda of the state imposed on the group collectively.

        and one outcome of this is that because the state has relied so heavily on this propaganda it’s been recycled over and over and over that believing lies and having faith in them and holding on to them as tight as can be has become a reality in a way that’s maybe different from others. and it’s taken as a given, as a first base grounded reality. so as an outsider (non jew) i listen to the sort of stuff that runs through goldberg’s logic and it seems like an aberration to me. it seems as though he starts with a given and builds his case around it instead of the other way around, the centrality of this given is so great he doesn’t even recognize it. like him saying 30% of his brain is the holocaust and 30% is his children and the atlantic maybe 6% or whatever. but at the core is this group survival thing. and even if jews were the most fortunate people in the world and completely safe you can’t wrench this collective group think away (from those afflicted) because it’s so deep.

        and this thing w/Leibovitz, he essentially calls levi a “monstrous vermin” and likely doesn’t even recognize that as being outrageous. why is that? because at the core of leib’s being is collective brainwash instilled in him by this damaged generation. it allows him say things like:

        Levy proved to be an even better businessman: Complex analyses of the conflict, he realized, sold for pennies on the dollar in Paris and Cambridge and Rome, but thundering accounts of Jewish perfidy paid a premium.

        why would he say this and why would the tablet publish it? because in all things israel-related lying is not just acceptable and routine, it’s rewarded. and there are no more revered people in the jewish community than the myth makers. so claiming levi chucked complex analysis for accounts of Jewish perfidy and did it for money is just par for the course, there is no insult too low for a person defying the cult. it’s cultish. not a cult anyone can join down at the corner store or even in a neighborhood church. this people inflicted after the holocaust were inflicted from birth — collectively. and the efforts to inflict the next generation (outside of israel) is proving much more difficult. and as time goes on and this malady of conscience become diluted, by everything from the passing of time or the exposure to reality , those still inflicted are going to start squealing louder and louder. we’re watching this unfold before our eyes. and yakov, it’s likely you’re obsessed w/goldberg because you too have been inflicted at one time.

      • rosross
        August 18, 2016, 10:59 pm

        @Annie Robbins,

        Do you think though that there would have been generational brainwashing if Israel had never been established in Palestine? Or never established?

        The brainwashing has also been part of a propaganda machine, developed by the Zionists, to raise funds for the colony of Israel. If there had been no need to fund the State then one presumes, the propaganda would not have been required.

        Or, if Israel had been created somewhere else, also options, South America I think, and even Australia, but in non-populated areas, would it also have been different?

        The injustice of founding a State of Israel on Palestine which involved the dispossession or killing or hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, and then the costs involved of holding the ground, against the indigenous who remained, were what made the propaganda and brainwashing inevitable.

        Without a State of Israel, would Jews who had personal experience of holocaust at the hands of the Nazis, have simply moved on, processed, healed as everyone else has had to do?

        Conjecture of course but the source of so much suffering and violence has been the decision to found the State. Having said that, indigenous peoples in many other countries have suffered similar fates but the difference has been that the nations were not founded as religious states which demanded followers hold power and superiority, and so they have evolved and despite wrongs of foundation, created one state with equal rights for all.

        This is what Israel will have to do anyway. The process has been delayed because the propaganda machine has been so effective in getting Jews around the world, to fund the fantasy. In the same way I might add as happened with the IRA where, strictly speaking, the British would have been in their rights to bomb Boston, given the amount of funding American Irish Catholics sent to fund terrorism by the IRA.

        But times have changed and not even Israel will be allowed to get away with being an apartheid State or continuing to deny justice to the indigenous Palestinians.

      • Annie Robbins
        August 19, 2016, 2:27 am

        Do you think though that there would have been generational brainwashing if Israel had never been established in Palestine? Or never established?

        my comment was specifically addressing the ethnocentrism in yakov’s article, the “moral and ethical contradictions” he addressed. i wrote about 2 (extraordinary) phenomenon merging at a specific time period. and i don’t believe the “brainwashing” (for lack of a better word) i addressed (my theory/analysis) would have been applicable without the dual quality. that said, the successive generation of european jewish children born directly after the holocaust would have (likely) had an upbringing profoundly influenced by the pain, suffering (including fear) of such a horrendous event; a collective psychological condition – albeit a different one.

        The brainwashing has also been part of a propaganda machine, developed by the Zionists, to raise funds for the colony of Israel. If there had been no need to fund the State then one presumes, the propaganda would not have been required.

        right. this is what i meant when i wrote “heavily subjected to a massively coordinated propaganda campaign (regarding israel)”.

        Without a State of Israel, would Jews who had personal experience of holocaust at the hands of the Nazis, have simply moved on, processed, healed as everyone else has had to do?

        for many yes, for others not. but it’s likely 70 years down the road it would have been very very different. and much more private. the world would probably not be engaged in holocaust discussions anymore than they’d be engaged in the millions we slaughtered in vietnam.

        the source of so much suffering and violence has been the decision to found the State.

        i believe the holocaust is kept alive to serve the state, yes. but i don’t blame the decision to found the State for the holocaust.

        indigenous peoples in many other countries have suffered similar fates but the difference has been that the nations were not founded as religious states which demanded followers hold power and superiority, and so they have evolved and despite wrongs of foundation, created one state with equal rights for all.

        indigenous peoples in many other countries have suffered similar fates but the difference has been that those conquering nations were not engaged, decades later, in presenting themselves as victims in an environment that included social media offering radical exposure leveling the playing field in public perception. the war over public perception is at an all time high because of technology. it’s very clear and common sense who’s the oppressed and who’s the oppressor. but we’ve got this oppressor hammering home a radical past violation of humanity underlying the justification of current day atrocities. and it involves not just those generational jews, but world opinion, virtually everyone. it’s a war the oppressor is losing. and the more they lose the more they ramp up the killing and propaganda. they just can’t seem to face reality and grasp they have to change policy because you can fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time but you can’t win the war of public opinion when you’re the oppressor.

      • Marnie
        August 19, 2016, 12:07 am

        Would it be completely out of left field to wonder if holocaust survivors and their children (and it looks like children’s children too…wait, there may be more) suffer survivor’s guilt to the point of psychosis? The Goldberg’s of the world seem to see a holocaust happening or in the making around every corner. At times, some of them almost sound like they wish they would have been there – not to try and stop it, but just to get a tattoo on their arms and demand the world pay for it. There’s no doubt that it could have been stopped and wasn’t and there’s no sugar coating of that. However, Palestinians had nothing at all to do with it. No matter how Netanyahoo and Co. try to make Palestinians look like the architects of the ‘final solution’, it didn’t go down like that and he should be in prison just for that alone.

        I think it’s way past the time that antizionists have to continue to explain their positions to the Goldberg’s of the world because anyone with a conscience can see how wrong the birth of the ‘state of israel’ was wrong since it was only an itch in Herzl’s pants. I think instead of having to explain to the Goldberg’s, etc, it has to be the other way around. And if what was done to them which they unflinchingly do to others, they would show what cowards they really are because seriously, no one can defend this, anymore than anyone could defend cold-blooded murder, theft, rape, pedophilia or necrophilia for that matter. I am so tired of seeing good people constantly being slandered (or worse) for standing up against evil. Yaakov brought up the senator from Georgia, Mr. Johnson, who actually apologized for using the T word (termites). Seriously, the Goldberg’s have taken this to the point where there can be no discussion, serious or otherwise, about the zionist state. I have a dream that some day soon the Goldberg’s of the world will be too ashamed to ever speak again.

    • rosross
      August 18, 2016, 10:09 pm

      Good posts. I think many people do actually care about the self-destructive path on which Israel has always been. There is only one race, the human race, and we are all equal members of it.

      If there is a God, or organising entity, and I do believe there is, then it is the same God for all of us and religions are no more than different costumes, some people choose to ‘wear’ or not as the case may be.

      So, we all have the same God, just as we all have the same foods, manifesting as different cuisines for different tastes and we are all members of the same race, the human race. All division is invented, manufactured, constructed, fabricated and it never serves a good purpose if we forget our commonality as human beings.

      Israel’s curse is that it was founded in the name of a religion, which had established superiority/inferiority as dogma. Judaism was not and is not alone in that, but it has crafted it into an art form. Where the crucified victim in Christianity was symbolic, and then turned literal by those who rewrote the myth and projected onto one figure, in Judaism every follower is a crucified victim and the Jewish experience of Holocaust served to entrench that in the religion. Many other victims of Holocaust at the hands of the Nazis, and there were millions, have not turned the experience into something religious or cultural. But victimhood and persecution found fertile soil in the religion of Judaism and Israel was founded in the name of it, through the breakaway religion of Zionism.

      But times change and generally truth does out and eventually justice is done and so it will be with Israel. Those who speak the truth may be condemned and villified but that has never stopped truth and change will come.

      There is a saying I have always liked:

      Those who will, the Fates guide; those who won’t, the Fates drag.

  11. Annie Robbins
    August 18, 2016, 1:51 pm

    Rudoren said there is a lot of prejudice and racism in the world but unlike other people who are racist and prejudiced the world over, we Jews are justified in our prejudices.

    just to clarify, i don’t think this is completely accurate. as i recall this is something rudoren said in a video interview so finding the full context surrounding this segment would require watching it again and transcribing it and i don’t have the patience for that. either way, i read it differently.

    when rudoren said “blunt and racist in a way that’s just different from America… It’s blunter there” i thought she was specifically referencing israelis. albeit, she could have very well meant “we jews” but what she said (paraphrasing) was ‘there is a lot of prejudice and racism in the world but unlike other people who are racist and prejudiced the world over, Israelis are justified in their prejudices.”

    IOW, here in america we can’t get away w/this shit (blatant racism) so easily but unlike other people leave israelis alone — they have a right to be racist because of their experience.

    This sophisticated editor turns out to be so ethnocentric she can’t separate her subjective reality from reality itself. When she feels pain when Jews are killed after a Palestinian attack that pain she experiences makes her understanding of what happened totally “prejudiced”. But according to her it isn’t prejudice it’s reality.

    yeah. she’s talking about herself. again, i have other comments/opinions (massively profound of course) but will let them settle a tad before sharing them.

    • Yakov Hirsch
      August 18, 2016, 7:41 pm

      Annie, you have my sympathy about being a gentile, and not being free to write what you like on the subject. Feel free to email your thoughts and as long as i can take get credit for it, I will be delighted to post.
      You are probably right, i should have used a less ambiguous example of ethnocentrism than that Rudoren quote. . Maybe this ethnocentric display by Mr. Sheldon Adelson would have been better.

      In May 2011 Sheldon Adelson contacted the Jewish Week because he was unhappy about their Gingrich coverage. He gave them an interview to discuss that complaint. But what interests us is what else he said in that interview.
      “In a freewheeling 30-minute conversation ranging from the 2012 race to examples of hypocrisy among politicians to the Mideast situation,“….the Jewish state should not be coerced into a meaningless and dangerous peace agreement.“Can you make peace with people whose sole mission is to destroy you?” he asked. “You don’t have someone who wants to make peace with you.”He said that to the Palestinian leadership, “the two-state solution is a stepping stone for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people,” and he sees no distinction between Hamas, the terror group that controls Gaza, and the Palestinian Authority, headed by President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad.“They sat with [PLO leader Yasir] Arafat for 40 years,” Adelson said of Abbas and Fayyad. “When he was planning terror, did they recuse themselves and leave the room?”He said he saw no chance for peace as long as Palestinian children from the age of 3 are taught that “a Jew is a swine and ape” and should be killed.“I favor peace,” he said, “but to be pro-Israel you also need to have a position vis a vis Israel’s enemies. And no reasonable person would make Israel sign with people pledged to destroy them. Adelson recalled visiting the office of longtime Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat in Jericho with a U.S. congressional delegation and noticing that the large map of the region proclaimed `Palestine’ in large black letters, with no reference to Israel.
      When asked about whether the map implied that the Palestinians don’t recognize Israel, Adelson said that Erekat replied, “we can dream, can’t we?”………”http://www.thejewishweek.com/blogs/gary-rosenblatt/billionaire-adelson-defends-gingrich#YsylhOjI60SGhSBz.99

      That exchange with Erekat had such a profound impact on Adelson that he is using it in this interview as evidence of Palestinian true intentions, of a Palestinian “pledge of destruction.” Is that really the correct interpretation of Erekat’s “dream?” Or were the Congressmen and everyone else in the office who understood it exactly as Erekat meant it, correct? They understood, that just like Adelson has his own story or narrative about the land this delegation was now visiting, Erekat has his narrative as well. While Adelson believes God gave the land to the Jews and
      “I don’t think the Bible says anything about democracy,” Adelson said. “[God] didn’t talk about Israel remaining as a democratic state… Israel isn’t going to be a democratic state — so what?”http://forward.com/news/209072/sheldon-adelsons-dismissal-of-israeli-democracy-dr/
      These other people in the room understood that Saeb Erekat narrative was totally different than Adelson’s. In Erekat’s story, his people, the Palestinian people, were minding their own business, not bothering anyone, and then came a bunch of visitors from abroad, announcing that there were going to be a lot of changes to the neighborhood. Those changes were not welcome to Mr Erekat and his people. The map on the wall expresses Mr Erekat idea of the way things SHOULD have been. His version of what a just world would look like. And in Mr Erekat’s fantasy map on the wall the Jews would be just fine. This is a Palestinian fantasy not a Jewish one. The Congressmen understood that very well. They realized Erekat comment was as innocuous as can be. That map meant nothing to anyone except Adelson. But it sure meant a lot to Mr Adelson. Because that map and erakat’s “dream” meant nothing less to the antediluvian Sheldon Adelson than a “pledge of destruction.” Mr Adelson really believes that what he experienced as reality in that office, was a “reality” of Mr. Erekat confirming in Adelson’s head what the Palestinian National movement was really all about. Realize the impact that comment had on Mr. Adelson.
      And this is the same Sheldon Adelson who has 100 million burning a whole in his pocket looking for someone who sees the world exactly like himself. The same one holding the “Adelson primary.” The same Adelson that Jeb Bush felt he needed to dump James Baker for.
      This man who can’t at all separate subjective experience from reality. He left that office with Erekat”s map fitting his ethnocentric story of the world, and not that he needed any, but further proof of Palestinian nefarious plans.

      • rosross
        August 18, 2016, 8:23 pm

        Quote: Can you make peace with people whose sole mission is to destroy you?” he asked.

        The mistake everyone makes because they take up the Israeli propaganda is that this issue is about peace. It is not about peace, it is about justice.

        Other colonisers who have recognised the wrongs inherent in their foundation have not sought peace with the indigenous people whose land they have stolen, they have sought justice.

        Apartheid South Africa did not demand peace from those it oppressed, it thought of justice.

        Talk of peace simply distracts, as no doubt it is meant to, from the core issue of the injustice of Israel’s occupation, colonisation and apartheid and the brutality of those systems of control.

        Israel has no right to demand anything of the Palestinians but they have every right to demand justice.

        Israel cannot survive as occupier, coloniser and apartheid State and it cannot survive as a theocracy, a Jewish State, but it might survive if it does what every other coloniser has had to do, recognise the wrongs inherent in its foundation and ensure full and equal rights for its indigenous people, now numbering close to 6 million and a number much too large to remove, kill, control or subjugate indefinitely.

      • Annie Robbins
        August 18, 2016, 10:06 pm

        meant nothing less to the antediluvian Sheldon Adelson than a “pledge of destruction.”

        it all boils down to the same thing — take it to the mat — total destruction — everyone want to eliminate the jews. not that dif than yonah talking about “the disappearance of the Jews”.

        and rudoren would say, everyone in israel has faced this — has lost someone, and therefore this fear is rational (and they/we should be excused from the boundaries / normal standards afforded to others).

      • Raphael
        August 19, 2016, 12:54 am

        In May 2011 Sheldon Adelson

        When I was in Israel one Israeli told me that Israel is the 51st state of the US. I’m guessing in times of non conflict with the Arabs. It seems to me that the theocracy they live in now; is just a irrational psychological fear they need to confront.

        And, it could easily be resolved; especially, if more liberal Jews from the US make Aliyah (immigration to Israel). Most American Jews that make Aliyah, currently, are fundamentalist Republican Orthodox, and, by moving there… citizenship is automatic after 3 months; then move back to the US. Then travel to Israel during election time to vote. Once the fundamentalists are voted out, amend the law to let Israelis living overseas vote.

        According to a book about Jewish Identity…written by a Catholic Jew… it says that the reasons the Jewish people did not live with equal, and democratic rights supposedly granted to them because of the French Revolution, was because it (the ghetto) was forced upon them by non Jews.

        See Jewish Identity : Association of Hebrew Catholics:

        The French Revolution marks the watershed between the medieval and modern periods in the history of the Jewish People. It thrust open the rusty gates of the ghetto and granted equality of political and civil rights to the public executioner and the persecuted Jew alike. The precipitate entry of Jews into Gentile society initiated a struggle for civil liberties in the countries of Europe, as the fermenting principles of the Revolution reached them one after another.

        Admirable as were in themselves the ideals of liberty, equality and fraternity, beneficial as were the widening opportunities offered to Jews for advancement in all fields of social life, the underlying rationalism of the Revolution led ineluctably to the eventual destruction of the fabric on which the new freedoms were erected. The social theory of J. J. Rousseau, which conceived society as originating in a contract between equal and autonomous individuals, was inapplicable to the Jews. They were inescapably a foreign religious community. Equal before the law, Jews were different from others. A reaction to their entry into European society set in. Opposed to Rousseau’s exaggerated individualism, Gentiles organized themselves into nation-states, each possessed by a pseudo-mystical soul, in which strangers could not participate. Modern nationalism was born. The Jew found out to his cost that constitutional equality did not guarantee social equality. A new anti-Semitism flared up out of the smouldering embers of ancient religious prejudices. The Dreyfus Affair, occurring in the very land where the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity had been trumpeted forth with so much enthusiasm,
        disclosed to Theodor Herzl the frightening intensity of the new Jew-hatred. Convinced that civil emancipation had failed to solve the Jewish problem, Herzl conceived an alternative solution, a State for Jews in distress.

        http://www.hebrewcatholic.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/JI-85×11.pdf

      • yonah fredman
        August 19, 2016, 8:10 am

        Annie robbins- in fact the concepts “destruction of the jews” and “disappearance of the jews” are considered twin ideas by the superficial people who call the assimilation of the jews (through intermarriage) a silent holocaust, which I consider a superficial and facile and morally questionable equation.

        All humans should be concerned re: the physical destruction of the jews. (There are some here who will react: they only got what they deserved, or alternately: If only they would have moved back to brooklyn poland and Germany, back where they came from, they could have avoided this physical destruction.) But for the most part even here in mw’s coment section advocacy of or apathy towards the physical destruction of the jews is rejected.

        The question of the survival of the cultures and languages of the jews is an entirely different question and I can appreciate that uninvolved bystanders might feel apathetic: the world is changing and so it goes, if Jewish cultures cannot survive the onslaught or challenges of modernity:so be it. Survival of the fittest (in terms of culture and not in terms of physical destruction) should be the rule. (Of course those who long for the disappearance of small cultures and small languages are in a separate category of rooting against all non utilitarian cultures, and I find their attitude suspicious and amoral, but that’s a separate category. I am referring to the apathetic rather than the antipathetic.)

        In fact the survival of the Jewish cultures is a difficult task. Given human nature, an open society of free association and secularism, modernity and the Christmas season, without effort, the Jewish cultures will slowly or quickly disappear. And I do not expect someone with no stake in the matter to shed many tears over this disappearance. Only if someone claims to care about the jews and in the next breath to express this apathy, only that person do I consider to be full of it.

      • MHughes976
        August 19, 2016, 11:13 am

        I think that the researches of Jacques Kornberg and Shlomo Avineri have shown that Herzl did not at first have any strong belief – probably, any belief – in Dreyfus’ innocence and was ready to write admiringly about France in the immediate aftermath of Dreyfus’ trial in late 1894. The pro-Dreyfus movement did not really get going until 96. Herzl’s contemporary acvount does not mention cried of ‘Death to Jews’ – at the time of his trial Dreyfus it wouid have seemed more logical to suspect Dreyfus for his other ‘racial’ characteristic, that he came from Alsace, then lost to Germany, and spoke with a Germsn-sounding accent. The three people who got the pro-Dreyfus movement going were Dreyfus’ brother Matthieu, the anarchist (later friend, still later rival to Herzl and ambiguous Zionist) Bernard Lazare and Auguste Scheurer-Kestner, the Protestant leader of the ex-Alsace people in France. Herzl exaggerated his concern in 1899, when Dreyfus was the centre of a major international scandal. In 95 his concerns were roused by a different figure, the future Mayor Lueger of Vienna, a professed anti-Semite with consuderable support from the Vienna masses and from the Church. But these were not representative of modernity in quite the same way as the French leadership and French public opinion were. Here we find one of the roots of the often slightly disingenuous Zionist rejection of progressive forces in Europe.

      • eljay
        August 19, 2016, 11:15 am

        || yonah fredman: … All humans should be concerned re: the physical destruction of the jews. … ||

        All humans should be concerned re. the physical destruction of humans (and animals).

        || … Given human nature, an open society of free association and secularism, modernity and the Christmas season, without effort, the Jewish cultures will slowly or quickly disappear. And I do not expect someone with no stake in the matter to shed many tears over this disappearance. … ||

        No-one should prevent people who wish to be Jewish from being Jewish and preserving Jewish culture. The same applies to any culture. This does not mean that people who wish to preserve their culture are entitled to do whatever they want – such as establishing a (religion-)supremacist state and endlessly engaging in (war) crimes – in order to preserve it.

        The time to shed tears is when a culture is lost because:
        – the people who represented the culture were physically destroyed;
        – the people who wished to preserve the culture were forcibly barred from preserving it.

        IMHO.

      • Mooser
        August 26, 2016, 5:55 pm

        “Rafael” thanks for the link to (and I’m not kidding):

        “JEWISH IDENTITY

        Elias Friedman, O.C.D”

        Gosh, I’ve never read anything by a guy who has a degree in ‘Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder’ but there’s a first time for everything. Of course, before I start reading, I’ll want to know the book is free from moral or doctrinal error:

        lmprimi potest– P. Philippus Sainz de Baranda, O.C.D.Praepositus Generalis Romae, die 26 iunii 1982
        Nihil obstat– Edward J. Montano, S.T.D. Censor Librornm
        Imprimatur-† Joseph T. O’Keefe, D.D. Vicar-General, Archdiocese of New York May 26, 1987

        The Nihil obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of
        doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the
        Nihil obstat and Imprimatur agree with the contents, opinions or statements expressed.
        This PDF may be viewed in all browsers with any danger to the soul, or additions to purgatorio.
        This book is “all three”, and just like the Mother makes.”

      • Mooser
        August 26, 2016, 6:21 pm

        “Given human nature, an open society of free association and secularism, modernity and the Christmas season, without effort, the Jewish cultures will slowly or quickly disappear.”

        How right you are, “Yonah”! So why not make “the effort”? Are you expecting the Gentiles to do it for you? Do you think they will stop you? Oh, the power of those Christmas lights! Like kryptonite!

        “an open society of free association and secularism, modernity and the Christmas season”

        Every one of those things is anti-semitic!

    • Yakov Hirsch
      August 18, 2016, 9:21 pm

      Annie Robbins
      August 18, 2016, 7:53 pm

      “it’s likely you’re obsessed w/goldberg because you too have been inflicted at one time”

      I knew my shrink would track me down for missing my last couple of sessions. But who knew he would show up as Annie here at Mondoweiss.?
      I plan on giving my 2 cents on all the issues you are really “all over the map” :) on. And i’m sure the regulars have a lot to say on our 21st century “Jewish Question ” as well.

      . – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/08/politics-jewish-ethnocentrism/#comments

      • Annie Robbins
        August 18, 2016, 9:35 pm

        who knew he would show up as Annie here at Mondoweiss.?

        i was just throwing it out there. just a hunch of course! i hope no offense taken.

  12. rosross
    August 18, 2016, 8:10 pm

    And the most dangerous combination of all is Jewish ethocentrism combined with American exceptionalism. Both encourage ‘members’ whether as religious followers or citizens, to believe that they are somehow superior to all others and for some bizarre reason, singled out by the God who supposedly decides such trivial things.

    The horrors of genocide and war are usually sourced in a belief of exceptionalism and superiority, for one can only commit such horrors when one believes that the ‘other’ the ‘enemy’ is inferior, if not sub-human.

    It is hardly surprising that the most dedicated bigots in Israel and Occupied Palestine, tend to be American Jewish settlers.

  13. Dan
    August 18, 2016, 8:17 pm

    “Rudoren said there is a lot of prejudice and racism in the world but unlike other people who are racist and prejudiced the world over, we Jews are justified in our prejudices”

    I watched the video again and I think she is talking about all the people in Israel/Palestine, Jews and Arabs, not just Israeli Jews.

    She gives examples from both sides.
    You’re ignoring the statement “Every Israeli I know has acted in this way.”
    She is talking about Palestinian attitudes to Israeli Jews.

    • rosross
      August 18, 2016, 10:45 pm

      Living under occupation, colonisation and apartheid of their country the Palestinians are hardly going to like those who oppress them. In fact, if you study the history, one could argue that Palestinians have been generally patient in the face of appalling human rights atrocities committed by Israel.

      The subjugated have a right to be prejudiced. It is their reality. The aggressor has no right to prejudice and bigotry because they have all of the power.

      You cannot compare Jews and Arabs. Jews are a religion and Arabs are a culture. You can compare Israeli Jews, Muslims, Christians but not a religion with a culture, particularly when Jewish Israeli society is so Arabic culturally.

      • Citizen
        August 20, 2016, 5:14 pm

        Dan is misguided by Rudroen’s use of the word “Israeli” in “Every Israeli I know acted in this way.”
        How many Palestinian Israelis does she personally know? And acted in what way? She’s not defending Palestinians as freedom fighters, she’s defending Jews as defenders, freedom fighters. That’s her overall context.

      • Dan
        August 20, 2016, 9:07 pm

        “How many Palestinian Israelis does she personally know? And acted in what way?”

        I don’t get your point. She’s not talking about who she knows and how people she knows acted.
        She’s explaining what she heard from Palestinians and Israelis
        while she was a reporter.

  14. yourstruly
    August 19, 2016, 2:58 am

    ethnocentrism – having or based on the idea that your own group or culture is better or more important than others (source: Merriam-Webster’s Learner Dictionary) –

    syllogism: some Jews are ethnocentric bigots. Jerry is a Jew. Therefore Jerry is a bigot.

    As for Liel Liebovitz’s accusation that in exchange for financial rewards Gideon Levy peddles stories about Israel’s crimes, here Liebovitz must be desperate , because his characterization of Levy as someone who’d sell out his people is awful close to the antisemite’s stereotypical depiction of the perfidious Jew. Shylock comes to mind. Hmm, resorting to antisemitic stereotyping, what does this tell us about Liebovitz? Self-hating Jew, perhaps?

    • Annie Robbins
      August 19, 2016, 3:13 am

      his characterization of Levy as someone who’d sell out his people is awful close to the antisemite’s stereotypical depiction of the perfidious Jew

      “monstrous vermin” was a dead give away. this is a person who cannot hear himself. sad.

      • Yakov Hirsch
        August 19, 2016, 5:05 am

        Nothing beats this settler video the “Eternal Jew” in the Jewish antisemitism genre.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhbyRb8fu44
        http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.721429

      • Annie Robbins
        August 20, 2016, 9:16 pm

        sick

      • Boomer
        August 21, 2016, 7:16 pm

        The video was strange and repulsive. I didn’t understand the point of it until I went to the link you provided to Haaretz. While there, I browsed the headlines a bit, and found an op-ed by Uri Misgav. As an American, I find it, like the video, disorienting, rather like going thru the looking glass. It may be off topic for this thread, but then again, maybe it is relevant. It begins::

        “As an Israeli, I Don’t Want a Dime of My Taxes Going to Jews in Diaspora.
        It isn’t that I’m mad at the Jews of America. On the contrary. I don’t nurse any grudge against them. But I also don’t feel any sense of responsibility for them.”

        http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.737606

  15. Kay24
    August 19, 2016, 6:41 am

    Pro Israel anti Muslim people make vicious comment about US Muslim fencer.
    Ugly and mean.

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/family-security-matters-muslim-dna-makes-olympic-fencer-prone-attacking-others-knives

  16. Jon66
    August 19, 2016, 10:56 am

    Ginger,
    The tradition in Islam is that the child was Ishmael rather than Isaac. So is your analysis of Islam similar?

    • MHughes976
      August 19, 2016, 4:35 pm

      Bruce Chilton’s ‘Abraham’s Curse’ (2008) surveys all the Abrahamic religions and their view of human sacrifice, arguing as I remember that all are capable of a better and a worse conception of these things. No religion is perfect, so perhaps in some circumstances religious polemic, such as gingershot offers us, is called for. But it’s a dangerous genre. I admit that if authentic Judaism supports Zionism and I consider Zionism to be wrong I must to some degree oppose Judaism, but really I have no doubt that Judaism could survive in authentic form without any Z implications.

  17. hophmi
    August 19, 2016, 4:00 pm

    “It’s time to let Judaism fall apart psychologically as a failed psychological paradigm which forces narcissistic defenses in the children – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/08/politics-jewish-ethnocentrism/#comment-171380

    Did the moderator actually let this antisemitic comment through?

    Must be anti-Zionist, right? What BS…

    • Yakov Hirsch
      August 19, 2016, 5:33 pm

      hophmi, enjoy.

    • RoHa
      August 20, 2016, 7:08 am

      Hophmi, clearly you think this comment should be banned.

      Do you think that no one should be allowed to criticize Judaism, or suggest that it is not a beneficial ideology?

      If not, what is wrong with this particular comment?

      If so, do you take the same position on other religions? (I have criticized Christianity a few times, but I don’t recall protests from you.)

      If you do think that we should not be allowed to criticize religions, why do you think that?

      • Mooser
        August 24, 2016, 9:04 pm

        “Do you think that no one should be allowed to criticize Judaism, or suggest that it is not a beneficial ideology?”

        Gee, “RoHa”, it would seem to me that a deep understanding of Judaism would be essential to understanding, and dealing with The Jewish State.
        Why, now that I think about it, it would be, well, almost antisemitic not to know about the underlying principles and beliefs of “The Jewish State”!

    • yonah fredman
      August 20, 2016, 10:25 am

      I think that if any comment suggested the self destruction of Islam in the terms used to celebrate Judaism’s failed paradigm, that the commenter would be censored and if not, condemned for islamophobia.

      The question raised by the comment: If one rejects the akeda story, does one necessarily root for the abolition of judaism and/or jewishness?

      (Akeda is the traditional term used to describe the binding, the near sacrifice of isaac. )

      There are ways of rejecting Abraham’s attitude and accepting the story: as in seeing Abraham’s willingness as less than optimal, that he misunderstood the command, or somehow was supposed to ascend to a different standard, but failed because he was unable to transcend the prevailing culture that valued obedience over rebellion, unable to toss his connection with God and face life bereft of his sustaining faith.

      The overwhelming traditional view of Abraham as hero can be rejected, without rejecting judaism.

      Nonetheless, he who has not delved deeper into the varieties of interpretations, in his superficial, rookie knowledge of the texts, might feel there is only the choice: endorse Abraham or reject him. And choosing to reject, he sees this episode as essential to judaism and to Jewish history, so once he rejects abraham, he feels he must disavow the whole kit and kaboodle.

      In fact a rejection of obedience and a rejection of the jews and their laws might be seen in paul’s rejection of the law and his substituting the grace of god. (Ironic though, for the grace of God is achieved by the sacrifice of the son by the father, this time yahweh as father and Jesus as son, but unlike Abraham’s incomplete act, this death/murder was taken to the end.)

      There are many reasons to reject judaism and a free discussion would subject the Koran to the same scrutiny that the torah and indeed the bible is subjected to here. He who is driven to reject the torah because of Abraham could easily have found other reasons for labeling torah as a failed paradigm. Yehudim who choose to continue the chain of existence of the Jewish experience, by having kids and teaching them torah, texts, traditions and history, are choosing to follow a path that contains much richness. If they can combine those particular riches with a rich worldly modern culture then they are on a good path, despite Abraham’s failure.

      • Mooser
        August 24, 2016, 8:53 pm

        “(Akeda is the traditional term used to describe the binding, the near sacrifice of isaac. )”

        We discussed this a lot in Hebrew School. I came to the conclusion that my Dad wouldn’t do that. My Mom, I don’t know, boys are a lot of trouble, depends on what was on offer, I guess.

    • RoHa
      August 20, 2016, 1:23 pm

      “I think that if any comment suggested the self destruction of Islam in the terms used to celebrate Judaism’s failed paradigm, that the commenter would be censored and if not, condemned for islamophobia.”

      I’m sure someone would scream “Islamophobia”, but I would, again, argue that was not a sufficient reason for banning it.

    • Mooser
      August 20, 2016, 1:59 pm

      “Do you think that no one should be allowed to criticize Judaism, or suggest that it is not a beneficial ideology?”

      Just wait a bit, “RoHa”. I just received Vols. 2 & 3 of Mircea Eliade’s “A History of Religious Ideas”

      That Eliade dude cuts up rough when it comes to Judaism. He does not pull a single punch. He gives it to you left-right-left, and while you’re sitting there with your nose bleeding and two black eyes, he kicks you in the ass.

    • xanadou
      August 20, 2016, 4:26 pm

      “Did the moderator actually let this antisemitic comment through?”

      What is so effing “antisemitic” about this comment? Judaism is a religion, not a racial designation.

      Grow up and out of ad hominem slurs. If you think a comment is wrong/unacceptable/confusing/other, then say so and seek/demand a clarification, better yet argue you own case. Or get the other “hophmi” to finish your Sabbath shift.

      • MHughes976
        August 24, 2016, 3:22 pm

        If I were discussing the Akedah I would begin by saying that it’s as much a problem for Christians as for Jews. However, a look at Akedah in the Jewish Virtual Library will show how important the topic of Abraham/Isaac has become in Israel – Avi Sagi’s ‘The Meaning of the Akedah in Israeli Culture and Jewish Tradition’ (Journal of Israel Studies, 1998) is often referred to. Interpretations of the Akedah have become highly political, so are of legitimate interest in the discussion of Zionism. Carol Delaney’s “Abraham on Trial’ (also 98) has been followed by her article on ‘Sacrificial Heroics’ (Columbia Law Review 2006). Delaney perhaps uses slightly less inflammatory language than was used by Gingershot in our deleted comment but her conclusions are hardly less severe. The importance she attaches to the Akedah may seem excessive -it’s only a story, after all. But she makes a detailed, researched and passionate case. The difference is that she thinks that all the Abrahamic religions are severely affected and turned towards violence by the Akedah story, which she regards as foundational. However,,she traces the militaristic (to my mind unnatural) interpretation of the Akedah, whereby the father sacrifices the son by inducing him to join an army, to one of Wilfred Owen’s poems, ie to someone of Christian background.
        Well, my first point is that this is a topic which has been regarded by many as very significant. My second is a question which genuinely puzzles me: if I begin by saying that Judaism and Christianity are in the same boat do I escape accusations of anti-Semitism or indeed of Christian-bashing which I would have incurred if I had referred to one religion only?

    • RoHa
      August 21, 2016, 6:16 am

      Mooser, perhaps you should toss the book into the shredder. It sounds as though it is full of anti-Semitism.

      But check with hophmi first. He’s the expert, and any minute now he will be answering my questions in order to give us better guidance.

      • Mooser
        August 24, 2016, 8:31 pm

        “It sounds as though it is full of anti-Semitism.”

        “RoHa”, I’m still all famischt from reading it. Look, I’m not going to mince words, there’s only one way to put it; Eliade treats Judaism as if it is just another religion!

    • eljay
      August 21, 2016, 8:35 am

      || RoHa: … check with hophmi first. He’s the expert, and any minute now he will be answering my questions in order to give us better guidance. ||

      Your naïve optimism is amusing. ;-)

    • Philip Weiss
      August 21, 2016, 1:19 pm

      trashed

  18. RoHa
    August 20, 2016, 2:27 pm

    Since we are indulging in cod group psychology, I will toss in a little unsubstantiated speculation of my own, based on my own well-substantiated ignorance of Jewishness.

    I have remarked before on the Zionist inability to understand that legality is not the same as morality. My speculation is that this stems from the Jewish concentration on Jewish Law as the guide to behaviour. Jews come to think that the Law is the true embodiment of everything that’s excellent. It has no kind of fault or flaw, and they, the Jews, embody the Law. This attitude is then generalized to secular law, so that they believe that anything legal is acceptable.

    Of course, the existence of Jews who do recognise the distinction between the legal and the moral are a fine argument against this speculation. A more likely explanation is that the Zionists have no moral arguments, and so cling to such legal arguments as they can cobble together.

  19. xanadou
    August 20, 2016, 3:40 pm

    The inhumanity that is perpetrated daily by the Israeli military, govt, et al, has only a tangential connection to Judaism.

    What is at fault is the abuse of the religion by people who are aware that there is nothing else, not even the delusion of a national entity, that brings the adherents together on such a useful massive, world-wide scale together.

    The fact that Israeli authorities will grant citizenship to anyone living anywhere as long as s/he claims to be of the Jewish faith is one of many proofs that the Israeli govt is not interested in maintaining the fantasy about nationhood, but in establishing yet more efficient control over their co-religionists for their nefarious purposes.

    The job of a religion is to bring comfort to the believer. To use it for any other purpose is an unethical disgrace, and something that the adherents with the ability to understand that their most personal beliefs and hopes are used to make the worshipper into a useful idiot is something that the religion’s adherents must resolve themselves, lest it give to unsavory characters on either side of the religious devide, ammunition for further abuse.

    Therefore, the sooner the critics of Israel abandon attacks on the nebulous concepts of Judaism, many of which likely may elude the non-believer, the sooner the world focuses on the brutality of the state that favors one group against the rest of humanity, in Israel’s case those who share in the same religion, the easier it may become to focus on the real and pedestrian savagery perpetrated on an occupied citizenry. The latter has been exercised wherever there has been armed conflict executed according to the same basic principles. Nothing nebulous, or hard to relate to/understand, here.

  20. eugnid
    August 25, 2016, 3:18 pm

    correction of previous text:

    But in fact, Jews never surprise me anymore….neither do Arabs who got out of the Cognitive Holocaust Orthodoxy Trap in which a lot of Middle Easterners are stuck. In the West, such “semites” are leaders and pillars of today’s technological modernity allover the hightech continents. Nevertheless, both peoples as a whole (of one cultural root) still living in that region’s toxic atmosphere of corruption and fatalism, can in no way expect their progeny with new Western roots to live by such dead-end destructive thinking. Indeed, even their highly educated children are today refugees to the West– both Arab and Jew. Invocation of the Holocaust, like invocation of Jihad, can in no way be persuasive to the Millennials who want real things and to solve real problems rather than live in perpetual darkness, suffering amorphous fear, as their legacy from a myopic 20th Century past. Real fear is much easier to overcome than illusory guilt, so as Diasporics, they got over it and are moving on with the construction of full lives. So many American Jews I know passed Holocaust Guilt down two generations but at the third it stopped and they are far more committed to the lads where they assimilated rather than to the horrors of the last century. Netanyahu is totally shocked at how his absolutist Holocaust rhetoric fails to penetrate the Diaspora’s young Jews…nevertheless, he perseverates as if he were victim of a brain injury that makes this MIT real-world graduate impervious to empiricism. In a way it is sad, as no one should be stripped of his roots, but it becomes inevitable as Netanyahu so recklessly gives himself over totally to the Russian ex-KGBers instead of learning from his painful sacrifices as a Sabra, I must admit. Consequently, all he manages to do is the peddling of panic instead of fruitfully applying his uncanny realistic abilities at problem-solving as an MIT-graduated engineer of peace. In the great Jewish Exodus from the USSR, most of the great Jews came here and mostly the once CPSU garbage went to Israel. This really hurt Israel’s future as the only homeland that the real Sabras– with no place else to go– ever knew. Now the remaining Sabras are prisoners of Russophonic manipulation, even though many once Russian immigrants are constantly setting nest eggs for themselves back in Russia. Sadly, despite their superior cultural attributes, Middle Easterners have such destructive cultures, just like East Euros. So, instead of plugging in their wider Western perspective, the neo-Likudnicks are trying to match the Muslim myth of “Shahid,” bit for bit. But in neither case can such schizophrenia produce a dialectic resolution from the contradictions. And so, a little country that could have led the Middle East out of psychotic bondage is now sucked into it– except that Israel is the only Mideast psycho-state that has THERMOnucler weapons!

    • Mooser
      August 26, 2016, 6:42 pm

      “Sadly, despite their superior cultural attributes, Middle Easterners have such destructive cultures, just like East Euros. And so, a little country that could have led the Middle East out of psychotic bondage…”

      You mean “Israel”?

      Always the same, isn’t it? A big liberal-logorrhea build up, and then all the prejudice and misinformation of the right-wing Zionist.

      From his profile: “My goal continues to be a HAPPY peace for all peoples of the Mideast.” http://mondoweiss.net/profile/eugnid/#sthash.YyUuufgA.dpuf

      HAPPY Peace Out, “eugnid”

  21. Don
    August 25, 2016, 7:31 pm

    Jeffrey Goldberg…am I wrong, or does this philosopher (Bernard Henri-Levi) sound exactly like Goldberg?
    http://www.the-american-interest.com/2008/09/01/the-task-of-the-jews/

  22. RoHa
    August 26, 2016, 3:27 am

    “this philosopher (Bernard Henri-Levi)”

    On behalf of MHughes and myself, I hereby make my usual protest at the insult.

Leave a Reply