Trending Topics:

New ad campaign in college papers calls out Israeli leaders’ bigotry against Palestinians

on 45 Comments

Palestine Advocacy Project (PalAD) has launched a dynamic new ad campaign “Israel’s Leaders: In Their Own Words,” directly quoting prominent Israeli officials’ extremist and bigoted rhetoric.

Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman "Those who are against us, there's nothing to be done - we need to pick up an ax and cut off his head" (Graphic: Palestine Advocacy Project)

Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman “Those who are against us, there’s nothing to be done – we need to pick up an ax and cut off his head” (Graphic: Palestine Advocacy Project)

The In Their Own Words series was created to spark conversation on U.S. college campuses seldom featured in the mainstream media. Thus far nine college campuses, including University of California-Berkeley, have agree to publish ads in their campus newspapers.

PalAd intern Maggie Liu said, “As a college student living on a politically-active campus, I know firsthand how little young people know about the reality of the situation. I hope these ads will bring some much-needed dialogue to campuses across the country.”

Palestine Advocacy Project notes that during this election cycle American politicians have condemned Donald Trump’s racist, inflammatory rhetoric but they let Israeli politicians off the hook time and again because both the Democratic and Republican establishments pander to the Israel lobby:

Because, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu put it, “I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction.”

One of the ads features Israel’s explicitly racist Minister of Justice, Ayelet Shaked. Liu points out, “If you do your own research, you’ll quickly find many more hateful quotes.” She’s absolutely right.

Israeli Minister of Justice Ayelet Shaked "They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there." (Graphic: Palestine Advocacy Project)

Israeli Minister of Justice Ayelet Shaked “They should go, as should the physical homes in which they raised the snakes. Otherwise, more little snakes will be raised there.” (Graphic: Palestine Advocacy Project)

One of the ads features Israel’s deputy defense minister, Rabbi Eli Ben Dahan, who heads the army’s “Civil Administration” (occupation) of the West Bank supervising the theft of Palestinian land as well as granting and revoking entry and travel permits for Palestinians. He says Palestinians are beasts:

Israeli deputy defense minister Rabbi Eli Ben Dahan "[Palestinians] "are beasts, they are not human.” (Graphic: Palestine Advocacy Project)

Israeli deputy defense minister Rabbi Eli Ben Dahan “[Palestinians] are beasts, they are not human.” (Graphic: Palestine Advocacy Project)

Farida El Hefni, a student at University of Rochester in New York states, “It is beyond disturbing that someone in a position of power can say these things and not even flinch,” and asks “How are these politicians that are so quick to accuse people of being anti-Israel or anti-Semitic the same ones using fascist language to describe an entire group of people?”

Miri Regev, Israeli Minister of Culture and Sport: "I am happy to be a fascist" (Graphic: Palestine Advocacy Project)

Miri Regev, Israeli Minister of Culture and Sport: “I am happy to be a fascist” (Graphic: Palestine Advocacy Project)

Remember former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon’s inflammatory reference to amputating organs“?:

Former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon: "The Palestinian threat harbors cancer-like attributes that have to be severed. There are all kinds of solutions to cancer. Some say it's necessary to amputate organs but at the moment I am applying chemotherapy." (Graphic: Palestine Advocacy Project)

Former Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon: “The Palestinian threat harbors cancer-like attributes that have to be severed. There are all kinds of solutions to cancer. Some say it’s necessary to amputate organs but at the moment I am applying chemotherapy.” (Graphic: Palestine Advocacy Project)

PalAd intends to continue exposing the hypocrisy surrounding the U.S.’s relationship with Israel. Their 2014 “One Word” campaign showcased the daily violence Palestinians are subjected to. PalAd’s recent poetry campaign brought Palestinian Poet Laureate Mahmoud Darwish’s work into public spaces. And their new campaign, focusing on the violent rhetoric of upper echelons of Israeli political leadership — backed by US politicians — synchronizes with our election cycle. There’s no better time to have a national dialogue about our relationship with Israel.

Check out more of these violent statements here. The campaign is also accepting donations here.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “beat them up, not once but repeatedly, beat them up so it hurts so badly, until it’s unbearable” (Graphic: Palestine Advocacy Project)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “beat them up, not once but repeatedly, beat them up so it hurts so badly, until it’s unbearable” (Graphic: Palestine Advocacy Project)


About Annie Robbins

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

Other posts by .

Posted In:

45 Responses

  1. amigo
    October 17, 2016, 1:48 pm

    Too bad the UK panel discussing (for the last 12 months ) alleged antisemitism in the Labour party has not seen fit to carry out an investigation of the Islamophobia and Arab hatred , not to mention incitement to violence carried out by nietanyahu and his thugs that run the zio enterprise.No siree , it would be antisemitic to tell the truth about zios.Don.t blame me , I am just quoting a Jewish acquaintance

    UK government agrees that Jews should be the ones to decide what is antisemitic and not “Goysplainers”.Haaretz.

    “The report states what should be obvious but sadly is not – that the starting point for any discussion on anti-Semitism should be what the Jewish community and Jews themselves feel is anti-Semitic. This is important because unlike other forms of racism and bias against ethnic minorities, gay people and women, the subjective opinion of the targeted group has not been taken into consideration.

    Instead, with Jews there is all too often a tendency toward “goysplaining,” where non-Jews condescendingly explain to Jews why they are wrong at being offended. No other minority is treated in such a fashion, and this report, which categorically states that Jews should also be allowed to flag what constitutes anti-Jewish speech in their eyes, is a landmark document.
    read more:

    Btw , is the term Goy an insult to all non Jews. Instead of me goyspplaining , why not let one of our Jewish contributors give us the ruling on that.

    • RoHa
      October 17, 2016, 7:13 pm

      “No other minority is treated in such a fashion”

      It seems to me that I have seen many minorities, gay people, and women treated in that way.

      • Annie Robbins
        October 17, 2016, 7:42 pm

        plus, it’s completely absurd to claim, wrt anti semitism, “the subjective opinion of the targeted group [jews] has not been taken into consideration.”

        besides, the journalist is not being completely honest. because what’s clear to me, wrt Jews deciding what’s antisemitic, is that this is not a “starting point” — it’s an ending point. and as long as accusations of anti semitism are used as a weapon in an ideological fight regarding zionism and anti zionism (that’s the change they want in the definition) then one of the “targeted groups” is anti zionists (jews and non jews alike, but anti zionist jews are specifically targeted).

        jews are split 60/40 on identifying as zionist in the UK. and yet the jewish group primarily cited in this report is a highly politicized and pro israel zionist group. this has agenda written all over it.

        the report is attempting to make using the word “zionist”, in a dismissive or abusive way, off limits. they can try it but it will just piss people off and water down the definition of anti semitism to the point where it has no meaning. and all of this is being ramped up to crush corbyn. it’s disgusting.

      • inbound39
        October 18, 2016, 12:26 am

        Yes Annie, but I have to say, words cannot explain the joy I am feeling at this exposing campaign by American Youth. There is no way in the wide World that any sane government should be supporting or condoning what Israel is doing. This campaign illuminates the ignorance of American and English Politicians and highlights the influence the damaging influence the Israel Lobby has on both governments. The fact the UK government has now declared Zionist an anti semitic term takes the cake.

    • Krauss
      October 18, 2016, 10:58 am

      > UK government agrees that Jews should be the ones to decide what is antisemitic and not

      Yeah we ran that experiment, most notably in the attempt to silence all and any discourse around Israel.

      That mistake isn’t going to be repeated.

  2. HarryLaw
    October 17, 2016, 2:26 pm

    amigo, in my opinion Corbyn does not fight back strongly enough on these issues, Islamophobia dwarfs Antisemitism in the UK, yet he accepts the charges, many unfounded as factually true. Here is part of what he said at that select committee hearing..
    “I am also concerned by some other aspects of the Committee’s report. The Committee heard evidence from too narrow a pool of opinion, and its then-chair rejected both Chakrabarti’s and the Jewish Labour Movement’s requests to appear and give evidence before it. Not a single woman was called to give oral evidence in public, and the report violates natural justice by criticising individuals without giving them a right to be heard”.
    “The report’s political framing and disproportionate emphasis on Labour risks undermining the positive and welcome recommendations made in it.
    “Although the Committee heard evidence that 75 per cent of antisemitic incidents come from far right sources, and the report states there is no reliable evidence to suggest antisemitism is greater in Labour than other parties, much of the report focuses on the Labour party.
    “As the report rightly acknowledges, politicising antisemitism – or using it as a weapon in controversies between and within political parties – does the struggle against it a disservice.
    Thanks Annie for reporting these ads, which unfortunately are in line with what other Israeli leaders have said both political, and religious,down the decades.

  3. Ossinev
    October 18, 2016, 7:49 am

    “amigo, in my opinion Corbyn does not fight back strongly enough on these issues, Islamophobia dwarfs Antisemitism in the UK, yet he accepts the charges, many unfounded as factually true”

    100% agree on this one.He is in many ways a wimp. What was needed when this “institutionalised Anti – Semitism in the Labour Party” farce began and continues to be needed to address the absurd findings of this mickey mouse committee is someone with a backbone ( eg Ken Livingstone and yes George Galloway ) to describe it plainly for what it is = a clumsy attempt by the Israel/Zionist lobby in the UK to conflate anti – Zionism with anti -Semitism and to silence the growing levels of criticism of Zionism and Israel as well as the growing threat of BDS.

    It will of course backfire because the UK is not the US. The thought that a member of a tiny religious cult ( in this case Judaism ) should be allowed to accuse someone of a ” hate crime” based simply on a subjective interpretation of what a person said or wrote is quite frankly bizarre – in fact I would go further and say that it is a clear example of Ziobizarrics (whoops now I am in real trouble ).

  4. HarryLaw
    October 18, 2016, 8:07 am

    If supporting International law means recognizing the State of Israel within the borders proclaimed in 1947/8 by the representatives of the Israeli Government, and as agreed to by the United Nations General Assembly, then isn’t anyone who accepts the Israeli State within those borders ipso facto a Zionist? At least as far as the Balfour declaration is concerned i.e. the establishment of a Jewish home in Palestine, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. But then some ‘Zionists’ say the state of Israel should encompass the whole of Palestine or the ‘Land of Israel’. It is this problematical definition of ‘Zionism’ which needs to be addressed. In this respect it could be argued that Professor N Finkelstein is a Zionist, in the sense he wants International law to be enforced, which entails the recognition of the state of Israel [within its borders and not a ‘Jewish state’] as a legitimate state, whether it practices discrimination against non Jews [which it does] is another matter to be challenged within that state. So in my opinion both those who advocate for two states, or one state, could be called Zionists of one sort or another, even if the one state could result in a majority non Jewish majority some time in the future, it would still be a ‘home’ for the Jewish people as envisaged by Balfour.

  5. YoniFalic
    October 18, 2016, 8:28 am

    Recognizing Israel at all is a clear violation of International Anti-Genocide Law as embodied in the customary international anti-genocide law in the case law of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the International Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

    After Auschwitz it was vile and criminal to create a state in post-Auschwitz genocide.

    For international law to have any meaning whatsoever, the white racist genocidal Euro settler colonist invaders like my family must be removed and tried for their crimes since the beginning of the Zionist movement in the 1880s until the ongoing genocide that takes place before our eyes today.

    • gamal
      October 18, 2016, 11:09 am

      “For international law to have any meaning whatsoever”

      motsoko pkeko writes

      “Liberation of a land dispossessed people without land is a gigantic colonial fraud. Land is the primary source of life. Food does not grow in the sky. Houses are not built in the air. Gold, platinum, diamonds, oil and all other minerals are dug from the land. Cattle, sheep, goats, horses do not graze in the air. Pastures and water are found in the land. Even the departed demand their graves not in the clouds but in the land.”


      “The population of the four colonies that had now formed the Union of South Africa was as follows:

      Cape Province: 167,546 Europeans

      Natal: 34,784 Europeans

      Transvaal: 106,493 Europeans

      Orange Free State: 41,014 Europeans

      This was a total population of 349,837 Europeans according to the colonial census of 1904. They were not called Whites those days. Britain gave them political power to rule the Union of South Africa and make their laws in its colonial parliament. But Section 44 of the Union of South Africa Act 1909 stated, “The qualifications of a member of the House of Assembly shall be as follows:- He must…(c) be a British subject of European descent.”

      In this parliament of Europeans only, the four provinces of the colony were represented as follows: Cape Colony 51 members, Natal 17 members, Transvaal 36 members and Orange Free State 17 members.

      In addition to this, European members began to openly show what their political objective was. A member whom the British government had honoured for “good” colonial service Colonel Sir A. Wool-Sampson (M.P. Braamfontein) told Parliament on 10th November 1910 that “to the best of his recollections during recent elections in the Transvaal, the majority of honourable members declared themselves in the most positive terms their determination to make this a Whiteman’s country….” ”

      • HarryLaw
        October 18, 2016, 3:45 pm

        gamal. Just to add to that the plaintive’s in the Quebec court case Bil’in and Yassin v Green Park International Ltd put forward this reason for why the settlement enterprise was a war crime…
        “A war crime, to put it succinctly, is a very serious matter. Further, it is easy to see why the offence in question falls into this special category. Article 49(6) is essentially a law to prevent colonialism. One need look no further than the current condition of the indigenous peoples whose domain once spanned the entire expansive breadth of this continent to appreciate the gravity of the consequences territorial dispossession can inflict upon a population. Most war crimes deal with offences against individuals or groups of individuals, but the offence in Article 49(6) is one that threatens the integrity of an entire people. It clearly qualifies as an exceptional offence of higher order that is of grave concern to the global community as a whole”.

      • gamal
        October 18, 2016, 4:48 pm

        thanks Harry,
        from your link

        “The corporate defendant, Green Park International Ltd., is a Quebec-registered corporation that has been involved in constructing and developing settlements for Israelis on occupied land in the West Bank. The land in question falls within the territory of the village of Bil’in. The plaintiffs are the Village Council of Bil’in, as well as Ahmed Yassin, now deceased, who claimed to own part of the land in dispute.

        The structure of the claim is somewhat intricate. The plaintiffs allege that the corporate defendants are engaged in constructing residential buildings intended for Israeli civilians on village land, in furtherance of an Israeli state policy of inducing its civilian population to settle occupied territory with the ultimate objective of facilitating the eventual assimilation of these lands into its own territory.”

        i live on 2 acres now and some acres of hillside forestry with my own well and waste, i am on it before dawn it means everything to me i have been here a bare year and know it all as well as if it were a face.

        western exceptionalism is an attitude of unparalleled cruelty and arrogance, the Zionist variety being no exception.

        i posted to mr Falic post because i am hoping some of his badassness rubs off on me.

  6. HarryLaw
    October 18, 2016, 8:32 am

    Can I add to the above, the claim made by some people that rejection of Zionism means that the self determination of people of Jewish origin [however that group is defined] is being denied. In my opinion a state based exclusively on a religious or ethnic basis is wrong, therefore my preference for the two state model is based on the Israeli state within the borders agreed on in 1947/8 and that the political and other rights of all the minorities within that state should be respected. Having said that it is a recognition that for the foreseeable future, Israel would be [rightly or wrongly] a majority ‘Jewish’ state, which I am sure they would be happy with, that is undeniable, although it would not satisfy the Natanyahu’s of this world, it would satisfy World opinion as expressed regularly at the United Nations.

    • Mooser
      October 18, 2016, 12:15 pm

      “therefore my preference for the two state model” in which one of the states is “a state based exclusively on a religious or ethnic basis”? Ho-kay!

      And why not force the other (the Palestinian) into that same mold, for the sake of redeeming Zionism? Why not add insult to injury?

  7. HarryLaw
    October 18, 2016, 2:10 pm

    No Mooser. I said such a sectarian state would be wrong, and in the third comment on this thread said that in the two state ‘model’ such discrimination that does undoubtedly occur in the Israeli state and could possibly occur in the Palestinian state, could be dealt with within the borders of either state. Nothing is perfect, but in my opinion this kind of solution would be best and is the preferred solution of the vast majority of mankind as expressed by all states at the UN bar the US/Israel and a few south sea Islands.

    • echinococcus
      October 18, 2016, 2:24 pm


      Would you kindly explain what “the vast majority of mankind” or “all states” bar a couple have to say in the matter of how Palestinians should decide to dispose of their own territory?

      Of course it’s important in the matter of feasibility. That, however, is not always the only consideration.

    • Mooser
      October 18, 2016, 3:21 pm

      “No Mooser.”

      I’ll read it again. I must have missed the part where the Israelis gave up on Zionism.

      • HarryLaw
        October 18, 2016, 5:19 pm

        Mooser. I agree, Israelis will not easily give up on Zionism. When Professor N Finkelstein spoke in Dublin not long ago he said this..”If you can’t get half a loaf, why not ask for the whole loaf, if it seems as if the two states is not within reach, well why not ask for one state? I can understand that reasoning , the logic of it, but you would have to convince me of two things, number one, that two states is not within reach, and you would have to convince me that one state is more within reach than two states. I think neither propositions is true, I think the second proposition is positively insane. If Israel will not abandon/give up the West Bank, if that’s true do you think it would be easier for Israel to give up a Jewish State? Does that make any sense? If two states is remote, one state is another time warp”.

      • Mooser
        October 19, 2016, 12:19 pm

        Harry, if you want to validate Zionism, go ahead. You must think there is some good in it. And now you want to validate and perpetuate it. Whatever.

    • lonely rico
      October 18, 2016, 8:36 pm

      > HarryLaw

      If two states is remote, one state is another time warp

      Finkelstein’s challenge to the audience to name “one state, just one” which is for the One State Solution is met with silence.

      The answer of course is ISRAEL !
      Israel wants one single state from the river to the sea

      one single state free of non-jews,
      free of snakes,
      free of beasts,
      free of cancer,

      ringed by steel, concrete, and barbed wire.

      The Zionist dream !

      • Sibiriak
        October 18, 2016, 8:48 pm

        lonely rico: Finkelstein’s challenge to the audience to name “one state, just one” which is for the One State Solution is met with silence.

        The answer of course is ISRAEL !


        Absolutely NOT.

        1) Israel is not for ONE state. Israel has no interest in incorporating GAZA. (And Israel may very well be content with annexing only Area C in the West Bank, leaving bulk the Palestinian population OUTSIDE Israel. )

        2) The issue is a One State SOLUTION. Key word: SOLUTION. I.e. “One State Solution” means a single democratic state with equal rights for all citizens.

        So no. Israel is decidedly NOT for a One State Solution. Finkelstein’s point stands.

      • echinococcus
        October 19, 2016, 1:40 pm


        “One State Solution” means a single democratic state with equal rights for all citizens.

        It’s a regular wonder how much stuff you can pull out of words like “one” and “solution”. Does it also contain elixir paregoricum?
        Was the Single State as in “Ein Reich” “a single democratic state with equal rights for all citizens”?
        I can appreciate that you hold fast to your understanding of “solution”. Well, try to look at “solution” from the viewpoint of Zionist or US chemistry. Not the same as yours.

        Israel has no interest in incorporating GAZA.

        So why did it transform it into its very own prime concentration camp?

        (And Israel may very well be content with annexing only Area C in the West Bank, leaving bulk the Palestinian population OUTSIDE Israel. )

        As long as the so-called settlements are not alone in the West Bank, perhaps. But when all Palestine has become strictly Area J in a not too-remote future, such skittishness would be, how to say it, quaint.

        In fact, the following official program for borders is still un-contradicted:
        “The boundaries of Zionist aspiration… include southern Lebanon, southern Syria, today’s Jordan, all of Cis-Jordan and the Sinai.” D. Ben Gurion, World Council of Poale Zion, Tel Aviv, 1938.

  8. HarryLaw
    October 18, 2016, 3:23 pm

    echinococcus. The Palestinians have decided to accept a two state solution based on the borders roughly of the green line at the end of the 1967 war. Every state at the UN bar Israel agrees with that border, with a few small exchanges of land agreed on by both sides. There is no State, political party or Agency anywhere in the world including in Israel/Palestine that advocates for a one state solution. If one exists could you tell me who they are?

    • Mooser
      October 18, 2016, 4:25 pm

      “There is no State, political party or Agency anywhere in the world including in Israel/Palestine that advocates for a one state solution”

      What about the Zionists, from the river to the sea?

      ” that advocates for a one state solution. If one exists could you tell me who they are?”

      In, at most, a decade, that will be the entire organized and social world of Jews outside Israel. As they are informed and see the choices involved. Or can you think of some reason why we wouldn’t?

    • echinococcus
      October 18, 2016, 5:15 pm

      When was the Palestinian people –a colonized people transferred from Ottoman imperial domination to British colonial domination under the guise of an LoN mandate– consulted by a regular plebiscite? How is a little band of colonial puppets directly fed, installed and maintained by the settler-colonialist invader to be credited with the mandate to decide for the Palestinian people? How is any, or all, foreign country governments anywhere to be entrusted with it?

      Sounds like you lawyer guys have moments of lucidity but often talk through your hat. “The Palestinians have decided” jackshit. A band of bought-and-paid or gullible people have signed some papers and made some pronouncements obviously written by Americans.

      Come with a credible, controllable plebiscite of all heirs and assigns of all legitimate Palestinian inhabitants at the time of the declaration of hostile intent by the Zionist invaders.
      I simply cannot believe before I see it that, in the absence of blackmail and duress, they’ll let go of their land. No matter how much everyone represses the request for justice, it will explode. Just review your history of occupied peoples.

      Given what Zionism is, there is not shadow of a wisp of a shred of a possibility of compromise of any kind or any voluntary de-escalation by the Zionists. It will end necessarily in an Algeria-like solution or in wild genocide.

      (As for parties, check out the forbidden parties: those as ferociously repressed by the PA as by the Zionists. )

    • talknic
      October 21, 2016, 7:02 am

      @ HarryLaw October 18, 2016, 3:23 pm

      “The Palestinians have decided to accept a two state solution based on the borders roughly of the green line at the end of the 1967 war”

      The Green Line was a ceasefire line from 1948 agreed by Moshe Dayan and Abdullah el Tell 30th November 1948. Being the only mapped cease fire agreement, it was subsequently incorporated into the Armistice Agreements of 1949.

      “There is no State, political party or Agency anywhere in the world including in Israel/Palestine that advocates for a one state solution. If one exists could you tell me who they are?”

      Zionist Israel.

  9. Kay24
    October 18, 2016, 4:31 pm

    Good article Annie. This is great work by PalAd. When you put them all together and see it as an entirety, you realize these are blood thirsty, violent leaders of a nation, who wields the power over those they occupy, hate, and want to see them suffer. We have heard ad nauseam zionists whining that the Arabs hate Jews and Israel, and here is the reality.

  10. RoHa
    October 18, 2016, 8:47 pm

    How many people will read these ads as criticism of the Israeli leaders, and how many will read them as endorsements or as guides on how think about Palestinians?

  11. CigarGod
    October 18, 2016, 11:37 pm

    Very effective work.
    Sharing widely.

  12. Marnie
    October 18, 2016, 11:53 pm

    Finally, absolute truth in advertising. These are awesome.

  13. rosross
    October 18, 2016, 11:57 pm

    If any other nation talked like this about the indigenous people of the land they colonised there would be outrage. Actually, there would be outrage if any politicians anywhere, ever talked about anyone like this.

  14. inbound39
    October 19, 2016, 8:06 am

    The thought just crossed my mind that if the UK Government has decided Zionism or Zionist are now anti semitic words then surely it follows that if someone calls themselves a Zionist and follows Zionism then they would, in fact be anti semitic. I wonder if the UK Government fully realise what they have just handed us on a plate…

    • Mooser
      October 19, 2016, 12:27 pm

      “Inbound39″, the blog ” “Jews sans frontieres” has been following this anti-semantic imbroglio pretty closely.

      ” They’re riding a tiger and they don’t seem to know it.”

      • RoHa
        October 19, 2016, 9:50 pm

        There are two assumptions in play.

        (1) Anti-Semitism is single, unified, view.
        (2) Anti-Semitism is bad.

        But if we question 1, and recognize multiple anti-Semitisms, then 2 comes into question.
        I suspect this will shock some readers, but bear with the argument.

        Person A is prejudiced against Jews because his church taught him Jews are Christ killers.
        Person B is prejudiced against Jews because he believes that Jewish bankers and financiers are parasites on him and his country.

        Although these views are quite different in origin*, they are both subsumed under the blanket term “anti-Semitism”. (I, however, would call them “types of anti-Semitism”. )

        Person C takes an anti-Zionist and anti-Israel view, based on the immorality of Zionism.

        Person C’s view is also classed (by Zionists and their stooges) as anti-Semitism.

        But C’s view is morally correct. It is not bad.

        Thus, the Zionists and their stooges have led us to the position where we can say “This anti-Semitism is not bad, but actually good.”

        Of course, since anti-Semitism is a blanket term, this carries the risk that people will start thinking that all anti-Semitism is good. To avoid this risk, we have, I think, three choices.

        The first is to declare C’s view morally mistaken, and say that it is bad. But this involves a rejection of common morality.

        The second is to stop classing C’s view as anti-Semitism. But this means that the Zionists lose a propaganda ploy.

        The third is to acknowledge that there are multiple anti-Semitisms. But this vitiates the force of the “anti-Semite” accusation.

        I don’t know whether the Zionists recognize the difficulty, but, since they already reject common morality, the first choice seems to be their current preference.

        (*It is quite possible for both these prejudices to be held by the same person, but they need not be. A may have no ideas about finance at all, while B may be an atheist.)

      • inbound39
        October 20, 2016, 2:03 pm

        Great link Mooser….thanks for that! Very informative and extensive read. I have bookmarked the site.

      • Mooser
        October 20, 2016, 4:27 pm

        .” I have bookmarked the site.”

        It is a good site!

      • HarryLaw
        October 21, 2016, 5:11 am

        This open Democracy piece on Jackie Walker by Professor Jonathan Rosenhead complements ‘Jews sans frontieres’ and mentions David Rich’s book.
        “In response to a moral panic about Left antisemitism seemingly expanding without limit, the group Free Speech on Israel coalesced in April out of a loosely-knit band of Jewish Labour Party supporters. Some 15 of us got together at a couple of days’ notice for the inaugural gathering. We found that over our lifetimes we could muster only a handful of antisemitic experiences between us. And, crucially, although in aggregate we had hundreds of years of Labour Party membership, no single one of us had ever experienced an incident of antisemitism in the Party.”

        “Some time in May the ex-Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks was interviewed on Radio 4 about the antisemitism ‘crisis’ by now gripping the nation. Helpfully his interviewer invited him to share some of his own personal experiences of antisemitism. His response, from memory ran rather like this: “Well….actually I have never experienced antisemitism myself. Which is odd, because most people know that the Chief Rabbi is Jewish”.

      • HarryLaw
        October 21, 2016, 7:53 am

        By the way, if any Palestinian supporters visit Scotland, be careful what you say or you could be arrested “It is extremely sinister for anyone to be charged with expressing the idea of saying ‘long live’ to a community,” commented SPSC co-founder Mick Napier. “The charge therefore seems to have a patina of wishing harm to the Palestinian people. If so, this is certainly breaking new ground in the Scottish legal system; that by saying ‘Viva Palestina’ you are considered to be attacking someone.”

        After Coutts had said “Viva Palestina” a policeman arrived and ordered him to leave the shopping mall, a request which, his defence team will argue, was in itself illegal. As soon as he stepped outside, he was handcuffed, held for seven hours and charged.

        “He is now deemed to be a racist for saying Viva Palestina in the vicinity of a cosmetics stall,” Napier pointed out. “In the meantime, we are examining what some might regard as the overly-chummy emails.”

      • talknic
        October 21, 2016, 7:58 am

        @ HarryLaw

        Rabbi Jonathan Sacks “Well….actually I have never experienced antisemitism myself”

        Nor have I, except from Zionist supporters who hate more than anyone Jews who do not support the Zionist Colonization of Palestine

  15. Jane Porter
    October 19, 2016, 5:44 pm

    Thanks, Echinococcus! What you wrote is the simple historical truth.
    The Algerian colonial history has, more than South -Africa as so many compare the israeli conquest of Palestine. At the end of the 19th century, the French republic wanted to get rid of their many poor afraid of an other revolution, and having lost Alsace and Lorraine provinces
    decide to settle them on lands they had conquered in Algeria. In Kabylia, Marechal Bugeaud ordered the population to leave their lands and their farms to install the french settlers.
    the kabylian refused, so He ordered the army to burn theirs villages, and farms. Lots of them were murdered. Guy de Maupassant who had visited this beautiful part of Algeria, returned there after the massacre and was horrified. In a history school- book about the colonial french empire, published in 1905, this story is commented as indeed “sad but necessary”.(see M.Albright about 500.00 Iraqi Childen’s death.
    So, Bugeaud/Kabylia, Ariel Sharon /Deir Yassin…….Nothing new under the sun.
    And get rid of people who they thought a threat to their capitalist polity and using them in their colonial project. And who was admiring in France and lauding the israeli for there success in palestine
    the xenophobic ant-jews French bourgeoisie ! and this was felt and commented by most of my jewish friends with whom I grew up.

    • echinococcus
      October 19, 2016, 7:09 pm

      Jane, thank you for the reminder that some aspects of Algerian history are comparable to the settler-colonial invasion of Palestine. A lot of it is very different, though. Essentially, the relevance of the Algerian example is in reminding us all not to presume that the people will drop their request for full justice and grab some substitute. Especially in warning all the chattering classes that any solutions they imagine, no matter how admirable and full of the milk of human kindness and brothership and all that kind of rot, are subject to radical review when the entire population of the owners of the place is consulted.

      The Algerians suffered a lot but remained firm in offering the invader to either remain as a fully loyal Algerian citizen or to scram. My little finger is a little achy today, suggesting that Palestinians, consulted fairly, may well come out with something similar, no matter all the brotherhood BS.

      • lysias
        October 20, 2016, 10:54 am

        A lot of the reason the Algerian freedom-fighters ended up terrorizing the bulk of the pieds noirs into fleeing Algeria is the mass support the pieds noirs in the last months of French rule gave to the terrorist OAS, the Secret Army Organization, which perpetrated many atrocities during those months.

      • echinococcus
        October 20, 2016, 7:20 pm


        Of course the grip of the OAS on the colonial settlers was the main motor of both the scare and the expulsion.
        But then, we also have the illustrative example of Pied-Noir FLN or sympathizers who enthusiastically took Algerian citizenship (even before that was a thing.) Admittedly few.

        Anyway, the OAS has nothing on today’s Zionists, liberal or illiberal.

  16. Ossinev
    October 21, 2016, 10:17 am

    Just finished watching a talk given by the magnificent Gideon Levy. As incisive and as clinical as ever he completely demolishes the possibility of a 2SS for what it is and has always been since 1948 – an elaborate Israeli Zionist scam.

    Basically he is stating the blindingly obvious – that the only game left in town is a single state and that it will either be a democratic state with full rights for all be they Israelis or Palestinians or it will be a non democratic Jewish Apartheid State (a La South Africa).
    The West ( even before the days of Internet information ) could not ignore Apartheid then and it will not be able to ignore the Jewish Israeli version.

    The State of Israel despite all the Yahoo hype as Gideon aptly points out is an outwardly large and strong tree which is totally infected and crumbling within and it is only a matter of time before it falls over.

    • inbound39
      October 22, 2016, 7:07 pm

      Very true Ossinev. Regardless of what Israel does now, the damage it has done and the harm inflicted on Palestinians does not sit well with the majority global population so no matter what Israel does it has permanently delegitimized itself by its illegal and abhorrent actions. It effectively has isolated itself. Americans have put themselves in the same boat as Israeli’s by supporting,financing and weaponising Israel so it can maintain its unlawful actions. Israel has a future of withering on the vine. It eventually will be overrun. Arabs are close to saying enough is enough to Israel and regardless of Israeli nukes the Arabs and I suspect Iranians will forcibly bring Israel down. Such a state has no chance of longevity in a modern world.

Leave a Reply