Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 1899 (since 2010-04-19 03:21:04)

Showing comments 1899 - 1801

  • Clintonites knocked out platform references to 'occupation' and 'settlements' in fear of Adelson, Zogby says
    • Once again, a poll on whether a boycott is a legitimate tool is not at all the same thing as a poll supporting a boycott. According to the last poll like this, where you played up the result that a third of Americans saw a boycott as a legitimate tool, you ignored, of course, the finding that the vast majority of Americans found the idea of boycotting Israel to be antisemitic.

  • The sensitive Zionist -- a review of Natalie Portman's new film
    • Do you? I don't think that you do. I think that you view the Holocaust as a nuisance, and something that you'd rather not be reminded of.

  • Clintonites on message: Vote for Trump, and you get Putin
    • Another Mondoweissers supports an "America First" policy without any sense of irony. See what you're creating here, Phil?

    • Cue the Putin supporters. See, it's the West's fault that Ukrainians went out into the street to protest their pro-Putin leader. We should just let Russia retake Ukraine and re-establish the Soviet Union. That's clearly what you pine for. You stand for Assad as well.

      And you wonder why I laugh at you people when you claim to be "human rights activists."

    • I have little doubt that Phil supports dismantling NATO. Most on the radical left see NATO as an extension of American imperial power. Since the Cold War ended (and the radical left lost its ideological moorings), they've always taken Russia's side on this question; they opposed NATO intervention in Bosnia and Serbia (and were perfectly fine with letting a million Muslims die) and they're doing the same thing now by supporting the appeasement of Vladimir Putin. They also adopted his claim of Western "interference" in Ukraine and Georgia (read: they kept me from taking them over without opposition).

      The honest commentators here won't deny these positions. Between a world where America is a unipolar power and a multipolar one where Russia represses democracy throughout the FSU but serves to check Western power, they'll choose the latter, because they are not (and have never been) strong supporters of liberal democracy or democratic values elsewhere in the world, which they see as being the same as advancing Western imperialism.

    • I think that leftists have a bad track record when it comes to apologizing for Russia. And when it comes to apologizing for antisemitism.

  • Bible justifies rape in times of war, despite rabbis' efforts to spin or hide the teaching
    • I have no doubt that you find it highly relevant, Keith. And as usual, in a world where there are many, many scholars of Judaism, you continue to cite Israel Shahak, who was neither a scholar of Judaism nor a well-regarded author on the subject. We all know why. He says the nasty things for you.

    • Jonathan, do you really think that the readers at Mondoweiss care about the subtleties of this exegesis? this is your message, take it to the Orthodox community.

      I think you're doing to Jews exactly what Islamophobes do Muslims; you're suggesting that Orthodox Jews are fundamentally dishonest, and you're doing this in a forum already predisposed to believe the worst about Jews.

      That's pretty weak.

  • 'NYT' editors twist themselves into knots not to say the word 'Jewish'
    • Print it, Mooser. I'm proud of it, and it's true. That's why you obsessively link to it. Or drop the court jester act and tell me what part is wrong. The Middle East is a mess. Is it the fault of Israel? Is it the fault of the Jews? The owner of the Times is a secular assimilated Jew. Maybe it's his fault.

      Or is it because these societies are seriously ill, and, because some of them are fabulously wealthy, they export their illnesses elsewhere? And why is it that the radical left, whose compatriots are often the victims of these ill societies, apologize for them, remain silent, or adopt their diversionary tactic of blaming Israel for their problems?

    • Apparently, Phil is content to let the white supremacists answer for him.

    • Why is it necessary to repeat again and again the religion of the owner of the Times? What is the purpose? There's no evidence that it has anything to do with the Times' coverage of Israel anymore than Rupert Murdoch's Christianity has to do with the New York Post or Wall Street Journal's coverage.

      I'd like an explanation of that. C'mon, Phil, stop hiding behind your sycophants.

    • It is. Look at this piece, and all of the others in which Phil notes that the owner of the Times is Jewish, and suggests that it's not possible for Jews to cover the Middle East objectively. I've never seen him suggest that Christians cannot cover Europe objectively or that Muslims cannot cover the Middle East objectively.

  • Israeli rabbi who advocated rape of 'comely gentile women' during war becomes chief army rabbi
    • Mooser, that isn't remotely what I said, and you're being a super-jerk.

    • I think fake stories like this, which intentionally distort something a religious leader says in order to make it seem as if he means something that he doesn't, play into the Judaeophobic attitudes of people who want to believe the worst about Jews and Israelis in the exactly the same way as those who use decontextualized quotes from Islamic clerics or from the Qu'ran do so to smear Muslims and Islam.

      The passage in Deutoromony doesn't directly discuss rape; it's implied. It discusses what happens when a women is captured. In ancient cultures, that woman was usually enslaved. The Torah forces the captor to marry the woman or to release her. The thirty day period is for the woman to mourn her parents. Rashi, quoting the Midrash, suggested that the idea was that if she cried for 30 days, the captor, initially attracted by her appearance, would be repulsed by her appearance and release her.

      In the context of the time, the idea of not enslaving captive women against their will was progress.

      Jon S has a good answer to your question about Jews and assimilation. It was common in the ancient world for capturing armies to take women captive. Since Jews were sovereigns for a very short time in history, I doubt it happened very often, and it certainly would not have happened in Europe, because Jews were not sovereign in Europe.

    • Not sure what your deal is, Jonathan, but I'm guessing you're secular. If you knew the passage in question, you'd understand why Rabbi Qarim would talk about marriage. At the time of the Torah, it was common for soldiers to take enemy women captive and to then take them as wives. This was a practice the Torah frowned upon, precisely because the assumption was that the captive woman had been forced into the relationship.

      For that reason, the Torah decrees that a man who takes a woman captive must wait at least 30 days before marrying her, in the hope that he'll see the error of his ways and let her go.

      It is clear that Qarim is talking about the Torah here, and not about modern practice, and for anyone to claim otherwise is simply a complete lie.

  • As Dems vote against Palestine, Cornel West warns it is the 'Vietnam War' of our time
    • You're absolutely right, Blaine. Now, perhaps you can admit that the idea that BDS is Palestinian-led is a bit silly.

    • Yeah, Henry, I'm sure you'll do great calling out Barbara Lee for being insufficiently progressive. #fringeelement

    • "No, it’s the moral response to the moral outrage that is the creation of the Zionist state, one of the great crimes of the 20th Century. "

      It says a lot about you that in a Century that featured the Holocaust, the Killing Fields, Soviet repression, and countless other atrocities, you view the founding of a Jewish state as one of the great crimes of the 20th Century.

      "There was a time when it was only leveled against someone who just plain disliked or hated Jews."

      Actually, antisemitism is a philosophy that opposes the influence of Jews and Jewish culture in society. It's completely apropos to describe the paranoia that leads people to worry about the influence of Jews in secular society, or to put it as Keith does, "the Judaization of the elite," because, you see, when Jews are in a position of power, they're in a position of power as Jews, their influence is "Jewish," and they act in their own interest, rather than the interest of the countries they inhabit. That's how that philosophy goes.

      Some people here may find Keith's bluntness a step too far, but he really does a very good job at doing what Phil does in a less nice and even more offensive way. He takes the euphemisms out.

      "I am actually quite proud that you once labeled something I wrote antisemitic."

      I'm sure you are. I'm sure that you feel quite ennobled when you think you're in the right and someone else calls you on your bias and privilege.

      "When your JSIL experiment has run its bloody course I will be proud to point to that if anyone asks me how I stood on this issue."

      I certainly expect that you will, whether Jews are massacred in the process or not.

    • Replace BDS with Nazi, and Phyllis Benni's could have written the same article.

      Big kisses are always cast as victories among radical, who needs to tell themselves these things to keep the charade going.

      But their movement remains a moral outrage that most Americans view as antisemitic.

  • How Israel accidentally validated my activism
  • Jewish entitlement, and Jewish populism
    • How about the Aboriginization of the Australian Elite? You need an explanation for that as well?

    • You really need an explanation for why the phrase "the Islamicization of the Imperial elite" is Islamophobic?

    • Even Phil, who writes about the proliferation of Jews in the Establishment, can, I think understand the obviously bigotry engendered in a term like Judaization of the elite, much as his writing seems like a dog whistle for bigots like Keith.

    • Keith was permitted to write about the "Judaization of the imperial elite" on a site that supposedly does not allow antisemitism.

      The moderators here must be very confused people


  • Israel's political crisis wouldn't be happening if not for violent Palestinian resistance
  • Elie Wiesel is Dead
  • Netanyahu's bloody incitement
    • That Iran is one of the world's most closed societies and persecutes minorities, so you have to take what official Jewish leaders in Iran say with a grain of salt?

    • One wonders what would happen if people didn't make stupid, offensive analogies.

      G-d bless.

  • Michael Oren, historian, gets US history wrong to score a propaganda point
  • Palestinian teen is killed after allegedly killing 13-year-old Jewish girl in settlement
    • "How about setting fire to a home while the family was sleeping inside, killing a baby and his entire family, and later celebrating that death at a wedding, pretending to stab the picture of the dead baby?"

      Yeah, how about it? How did Israeli society react to it when it happened? Did they dance in the streets and hand out candy to children?

    • Actually, MrT, it wasn't as much about context and motive as it was about fact.

      No one, including the UN factfinding mission, has ever seriously suggested that the Israelis killed the four boys on the beach on purpose. Almost immediately, the Israelis took responsibility, described the incident as an "unfortunate human tragedy," and conducted an investigation. Israelis didn't celebrate the deaths of the four boys and didn't hand out candy in honor of the soldier who bombed the beach. I'm sure you'll say that the Israelis celebrate their soldiers and it amounts to the same thing. It doesn't. I don't begrudge the Palestinians their right to celebrate soldiers in their own society. I do take issue with their celebration of death cultists whose declared aim is to murder as many Israeli civilians as possible.

      So I don't see the comparison with a terrorist who enters a house, cuts the throat of a child, and becomes a hero to his society for doing so.

      Palestinians are burdened by small coterie of crazy Western activists who offer silly excuses and even condone this kind of thing by calling it resistance as a way of whitewashing the act itself. It severely hurts their cause in the West, even among those who sympathize with the Palestinians. Most of us can understand that the Palestinians deserve a state and some justice, but we cannot understand the motivation of someone who reacts to oppression by slitting childrens' throats and a society that reacts by celebrating acts like these. Annie prefers to ignore the difficult details of how these acts are treated in Palestinian society. Why should she confront it? She's a ceramics artist on the Left Coast and it's someone else's daughter who was just murdered. So, so easy to just identified with your adopted oppressed group and ignore the details.

      I personally think that the context you'd like to explain, which is that this an attack on a settlement, is bogus. Palestinian terrorists have killed plenty of Israeli children who live nowhere near a settlement.

    • With all due respect, nobody gives a rats ass about context and motive when the act is the stabbing of a sleeping preteen in her bed, and nobody believes that, if given the opportunity, the same perpetrator wouldn't have stabbed another preteen in Tel Aviv.

  • The view from Gaza: 'The Turkish government has sold us out and wants us to be grateful'
  • Clinton to Palestine: Drop dead
    • Because, you see, Yonah, when you talk about antisemitism, anti-Jewish bigots with guilt complexs take it as personal criticism. For them, mentioning antisemitism is the same as being anti-Gentile.

      And of course, Yonah, don't you know that there were Jewish communists? That means that there couldn't possibly have been Russian antisemitism. Or at least that if that was any, it was either the fault of the Jews or really Jew-on-Jew violence. And let me tell you, Yonah, these Jewish communists - even though they were atheists who suppressed the religion of their own people - they were Jews, and they must be highlighted as Jews, Yonah. What do you mean you've never heard Keith discuss the Eastern Orthodox religion of the vast majority of the Russians?

    • You appear to feel that because the writer mentioned the length, location, and nature of the antisemitism that Jews experienced, the writer is "anti-gentile."


    • "Quite possibly true and not all that surprising considering Jewish Zionist influence on the doctrinal system in general and the media in particular."

      Typical antisemitic response from Keith. If it comes out his way, rest assured he'll celebrate the outcome. If it doesn't, he blames the Jews.

      Then he cites an article about antisemitism in a Seattle newspaper and calls it "anti-gentile," which is his term for any article that discusses antisemitism in historical perspective.

    • "Maybe try not lying to yourself, don’t get so upset, take a chill pill hops."

      I know you all love that video, but an afternoon convention crowd of die-hard party activists simply does not represent the majority of the party. As you can plainly see, the vast majority of the hall is empty. Honesty would require that you present the prime time videos from the same day, when the hall was packed, where Israel was mentioned repeatedly, and no one booed.

    • "source?"

      It's the same poll. 62% of those asked agreed the statement that "The movement to boycott Israel is a modern form of antisemitism because it seeks to harm the national homeland of the Jewish people."

      link to

      33% agree with statement "Boycotting Israel is justified." 24% say that they'd support actions that lead to boycotting Israel.

      81% of those polled define themselves as pro-Israel and 19% define themselves as anti-Israel.

      So I have no idea why the Democratic Party would endorse something that more than 3/4 of the country opposes in service of a cause than more than 4/5 of the country opposes, and slightly under 2/3 finds to amount to hate.

    • "She is a Zionist pawn" #noeuphemismshere

      "The Zionists have not given up on their dreams to destroy the Mullah regime and Clinton is their tool in this deadly endeavor."

      Clearly, no one else is against Iran, right? #excepttheentireSunniworld

      "She is not interested in the well-being of the man in the street because she is the servant of the military-industrial-financial-intelligence-congressional-media complex" #kitchensinkleftism

      "Forget about the politically meaningless platform and vote for the independent or the green candidate" #wasteyourvote

    • Oh the anger. The anger at finding out that you're not the mainstreamers that you think you are.

    • LOL. Why would the Democratic Party do that? 2/3 of the country thinks BDS is antisemitic. Why would the Democratic Party want to endorse a position that a supermajority thinks is hate speech?

    • "The us govt is bought and paid for and will forever be the bitch of the zionist enterprise."

      The Zionist enterprise controls everything right? #noeuphemismshere

      "In the end, they’ve been played on and the Palestinians are getting an all american F&#@ Y*@ from its next president."

      Maybe try not lying to yourselves about the amount of support your cause has and you won't be so upset when nothing happens.

  • Media accusations of blood libels -- against Abbas and Sanders -- amplify a Jewish tribal fantasy
    • "Seems a bit odd to call Hebrew the national language of the Jews when many Jews do not speak it, but do speak the national languages of the nations they live in and of which they are citizens."

      Will it be odd to call Arabic the national language of the Palestinians, even though Palestinian-Americans speak English?

    • "Was Abbas’s statement innocent or malicious?"

      It was stupid. That's what it was. The only stupider thing is for pro-Palestinian activists to apologize for it.

  • Democratic establishment wants to make Palestinians go poof in platform
    • But the pro-Israel community is not the community shutting down anti-Israel events. It's not invading gay spaces to shut down their events as happened at A Wider Bridge's event in Chicago. It's not asking everyone in the international community to prioritize their issue above all others and offering nothing in return. They're not using antisemitic language and phraseology and then using leftist Jews as a figleaf for their bigotry.

      No one likes the anti-Israel activist community. You're seen as bullies advancing a partisan, violent, nationalist political agenda while disingenuously cloaking yourselves in the language of human rights.

    • Yes,act like complete assholes, pro-Palestinian people! If there's anything that wins you friends, it's nasty and shrill screaming.

  • Smile -- it's the Upper West Side
  • Post Orlando, a Muslim's comment on homophobia within the Muslim community
    • "And Judaism’s exclusivity was off putting, especially after living in Hebron where Palestinians couldn’t walk on certain streets, drive cars and were subject to constant detention, harassment and violence simply because they were not Jewish. The violence in Hebron produced a visceral reaction; despite my Jewish heritage I wanted nothing to do with Judaism. "

      Right, so you converted to Islam, and you now pass nasty judgment on the religion that you were born into, just as Pablo Christiani and others did when they converted to Catholicism, just as some atheists who were born Jewish do.

      I'm just curious. You were born in the United States. You've obviously traveled. The Jews in Hebron number under 1,000 and they're extreme religious fanatics. Why on Earth would you take them as representative of Jews? Clearly, that's not the only reason you'd chuck the religion that you were born into to convert to Islam. There must be other reasons.

  • Marching in the spirit of Nakba
    • "From its first day of operation, the TOI has been a self-declared vehicle for improving the image of the State of Israel."

      Attack the messenger . . .

      "It has even published screeds that call to genocide non-Jews in the land of Israel"

      Pretend you don't know that anyone can blog at Times of Israel, without editing. . .

      "Despite the fact that the accusation that our English subtitles were inaccurate came from a disreputable source"

      Attack the messenger some more . . .

      "despite the fact that this accusation was worded in incredibly insulting language"

      Engage in ironic whining . . .

  • The naked racism of 'Save Jewish Jerusalem'
    • "I think that hophmi’s accusation is a perfect example of antigentilism and supremacism, because it implies that Gentiles can and some do hate Jews, but not a single Jew can and does hate Gentiles. "

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

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

      "no one here talks about this endlessly"

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

      "off limits to suggest this in a mainstream forum"

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

      link to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      link to

  • 'Politico' dares to publish Ehrenreich saying occupation fosters terrorism, and 'Camera' goes haywire
    • "Lol, hophmi, how lame! Charles Glass is an internationally respected journalist, documentary film-maker, publisher and consistent advocate of human rights. "

      LOL. Bret Stephens won the Pulitzer Prize. I'm guessing you're not going to appeal to authority with him like you're doing with Glass.

      How much has Glass written about the ethnic cleansing of Christians and Yazidis in Iraq and Syria?

    • Lol, good reviews? I see one review from the Star-Tribune and one review by Charles Glass, a longtime pro-Palestinian propagandist. If you're going to complain about who is assigned by the NY Times or the Washington Post to write certain reviews, you shouldn't cite Charles Glass.

  • American Jewish identity: Moving beyond 'love for Israel' and the Holocaust
    • "I would actually place Zionism as being worst than ISIS. "

      I have no doubt that you would. It doesn't matter.

      "In addition, one of the biggest, most influential Jewish organisation in the US, Jewish Voice for Peace"

      JVP is not large or particularly influential in the Jewish community. It is influential in the anti-Israel community because it provides non-Jews in that community with permission to say nasty things about the Jewish community. But one of the biggest, most influential in the Jewish community? Not so much. That doesn't mean that it won't change in the future, but right now, it's not so.

    • Oh, you keep seeing a stabbing ritual? You mean this one? link to

      I talk about shared ritual, and you jerks post an extremist video from some wedding. Yes, that's orthodox Judaism, right Annie? A bunch of people waving knives in the air. It's like talking about Muslim rituals and posting video of a suicide bombing. That's Islamophobia. You're practicing Judaeophobia.

    • "Zionism is to Judaism as ISIS is to Islam"

      Oh please. Mondoweiss rule #5: Zionism must always be compared to the most barbaric ideas known to man. What ridiculous nonsense.

    • "Ah, so that’s what Zionism is, just part of the Jewish attempt to culturally assimilate and get along in American society?

      Why do you think you can turn Zionism on and off like a light bulb? Now you see it now you don’t.

      Okay Hophmi, what other American religious or ethnic group supports a project remotely like today’s Zionism?"

      Many immigrant minorities foster positive relationships between their homeland and the United States. Look at the Indian-American and Korean-American communities.

      " Any other groups supporting illegal settlements, occupation and expansion in accordance with extremist religious ideas. Could you name a couple offhand?"

      See, you're falling into that trap where you make a lot of assumptions that aren't warranted. Is settlement expansion about religious ideas, or is it about security? Or is it about national ideology? And who is this "group" that supports it? Is it the "Jewish community?"

      UJA doesn't support the settlements. AJC and ADL don't support them. J Street actively works against them. So do a number of other Jewish organizations. Far more American Christians actively support the settlement project than do American Jews. So "Jews" as a group don't support settlements. Some Jews do, but they're generally not secular; they're religious. Modern Orthodox Jewish organizations tend to be the strongest supporters of the settlements, but they're really not a very large percentage of the American Jewish community. If we're talking about religious groupings, there are lot of things that religious groups may support that non-religious groups may not. Religious Catholics may support bans on homosexuality and abortion. Religious Muslims support similar social policy and some, albeit a tiny number, of religious Muslims support Salafist leaders.

      So Mooser, you need to learn a little bit about what you're talking about here, because you speak in generalities that don't have a firm basis in fact. And you need to understand, first and foremost, that American support for Israel isn't just about Jews, or even primarily about Jews, and the settlement project is not one that has a great deal of support within the American Jewish community, and it really never did have much support. Of course, that doesn't mean that American Jewry has done a great deal of speaking out about settlements, but I'd say that that's because it's quite unusual for members of a small minority community to speak out against other members of that community precisely because of the risk of the divide and conquer tactics that hegemonic communities in society use and have used to persecute minority communities. And of course, these days, Jews criticize settlement policy more and more.

    • ", I thought the main way religious Jews related was by shared ritual. Didn’t know Zionism entered into it, what with all that ritual and getting the best morality out of the texts. "

      I'm not sure why you're having trouble holding two ideas in your head at the same time. The primary plane upon which orthodox Jews, including Modern Orthodox Jews, relate to one another is through praxis. That doesn't preclude the fact that Ahavat Yisrael is something that Orthodox Jews care about.

    • "No, they are not. Neither is attending a synagogue which is why Zionism evolved as a unifier of the Jews following the enlightenment and the splintering of Jews into secular Jews, Reform Jews, Conservative Jews, and Orthodox Jews. It is also why Roland Nikles seeks a replacement for Zionism to unite the Jews into a tribal peoplehood. This manufactured kinship has proved highly advantageous to organized Jews in our otherwise multicultural society. Zionist tribal solidarity transcends Judaic religious practice. "

      First of all, this denominational "splintering" took place mainly in the 19th century. Second of all, it took place mostly in Germany, which had a relatively small Jewish community, and it was carried over into the United States through German Jewish immigrants. There's nothing manufactured about the kinship that Jews feel for one another. It's the same kinship that Italians feel for one another or that Indians feel for one another or that Pakistanis feel for one another or that Muslims feel for one another or that Catholics feel for one another.

      What America do you live in Keith? You seem to think that America is this multicultural place but for the Jews. Maybe you don't get out very much, but the notion is silly on both ends. Most American ethnic and religious groups practice some kind of solidarity and kinsmanship in American society, particularly immigrant groups. Look at the Asian community today. Look at the South Asian Indian community. Look at the Catholic community. All have well-established networks to help the advancement of their own. And at the same time, depending on how recently they've immigrated here, all of these communities work with one another on issues of common interest. The Jewish community works with the Latino community on immigration. The Asian-American community does as well. And at the same time, all of these communities advance the goals of tolerance and acceptance of the other.

    • It's not necessary. It's a natural reaction to historical persecution and to living as a minority group. Persecuted people tend to be more proud of who they are, and minority groups tend to be reminded of who they are more regularly than others.

      Particularly in France, Jews face a resurgence of violent antisemitic attacks. Elsewhere, they face constant verbal abuse. Right-wing and left-wing extremism are on the rise. And Jews are a very tiny minority in Europe to begin with. So a sense of pride in their heritage is really quite a normal reaction.

    • No one is obligated to like another's cultural practices. I would posit, however, that criticism of cultural practice is often taken by other minority groups as a phobia of their religion, or, as the case may be, their race or ethnicity. Criticizing the profanity and misogeny in rap music is seen by many African-Americans as racism. Criticizing the treatment of women in the Middle East is often seen as a form of Islamophobia. Even criticism of BDS is often cast as Islamophobia.

      The context of a critique matters. If rich European countries with colonialist histories and genocidal pasts are the critics of what they term Israeli settler-colonialism, the critique has very little real value, and it is callous and offensive when it is made in a historically decontextualized manner. If Arab dictatorships are the critics of the shortcomings of Israeli democracy, what relevance does that critique have? If the United Nations, a body which suffers from structural antisemitism, allows countries like Iran to sit in judgment of Israel, how can you take their judgment seriously? And if the Zionist idea arises from historical European persecution, and Israel exists, not in some utopia, but in the real world, where most people lack basic freedom, minority rights are not generally respected, and people are dying en masse throughout the Middle East, what relevance is the critique of an America that, though protected by two oceans, has caused the deaths of more - far more - people in the last fifteen years than have died in the entire history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?

    • Mooser just doesn't know very much about the Jewish community, and his ignorance is becoming more and more clear here.

      The primary way that religious Jews relate to each other is through shared ritual, and not through Zionism or Israel. Israel is certainly an important part of their Jewish identity, but it's not what they spend the majority of their time on.

      For secular and highly assimilated Jews, there is, for the most part, nothing binding them together, including Israel. Tikkun Olam is the most popular idea among young, secular engaged Jews, which is why we've seen a proliferation of Jewish social justice organizations like Bend the Arc over the past decade and a half.

      You can see how self-hatred is Mooser's most animating characteristic. He hates Zionism. He suggests that Zionism is "all we are." Therefore, he hates all that is Judaism is today. If you spend no time at all in the actual Jewish community, you might come to a silly conclusion like this. Perhaps all Mooser does during the day is read Mondoweiss, so he thinks that the Jewish community is as obsessed as Mondoweiss is with every little detail of what occurs in Israel.

    • I always wonder when I see comments like these. What on Earth do you think caused Jews in Germany and Poland to lose their respective national identities? I can't imagine what historical event might have caused this. Could it be the one that wiped out 91% of the Polish Jewish community in less than six years' time?

      In reality, few in Europe today are particularly nationalistic, but Jews living in Germany are generally proud to be there, and Jews in Poland are starting to slowly rediscover their roots after a couple of generations of being raised either without religion or being raised as Catholics.

    • I don't know what on Earth Mooser is talking about, but it is clear from his other comments that he knows next to nothing about Judaism or modern Jewish life. Maybe the guy is stuck in his apartment and never goes outside, but his views are about two generations out of date.

      First of all, there is no uniform "Orthodox" group.

      Modern Orthodox Jews are the backbone of the National Religious movement in Israel. So they certainly haven't "spurned" Zionism. Most Orthodox Jews who are not in the Modern camp may believe that Zionism is too secular a movement for them, but with the exception of a few extreme sects, they are fervent supporters of Israel, and the notion that they would not "notice" if Israel disappeared is nuts.

    • Are there any here interested in a serious conversation? Mooser clearly isn't.

    • "Jews who see anti-Semitism as a serious problem lurking everywhere can never relate to their Gentile neighbors as their fellows. "

      Right, so if there's a serious antisemitism problem, it's anti-Gentile to point it out. Got it.

    • "How is a Christian identity separate from the Christian religion? How is a Muslim identity separate from the Islamic religion? Why do Jews need a Jewish identity separate from the Judaic religion?"

      Is it really that hard to understand civilizational religions can give birth to cultural identities that are based in religious communities without necessarily being in the realm of ritual practice? When people get together to go to the mosque or to go to church, are these examples of tribal solidarity for you?

    • There were, and are, many. I would select two. One is Judaism's applicability to the religious and secular spheres, which is why there is always this universalist/particularist tension. The second is the emphasis on text study and analysis. These really form the crux of the religion. There is a striving to find the best and most moral answer, and the manner of understanding what that is is derived from text study and analysis.

      Today, I would say that for younger, more secular Jews, the cornerstone is Tikkun Olam, which is interpreted as an emphasis on social justice. For more Orthodox Jews, one cornerstone is definitely Israel, but ritual practice is much more important than Israel is on a day-to-day basis. To the extent that the Holocaust is important, it's correlated with the proximity of the ancestors that Jews lost in the Shoah.

      Tradition certainly has a lot to do with it, but tradition changes a lot more than people may think. It is true that Jewish rituals can seem intimidating and quaint to secular people. Most of them do have explanations; understanding some traditions requires a knowledge of Jewish history and experience; others are harder to explain. The unifying theory is that for everything we do, there is either a Jewish way of doing it or a debate that informs the decision to act.

  • Dennis Ross tells American Jews, 'We need to be advocates for Israel' -- and not for Palestinians
    • Here's what you wrote:

      "when he says this he only means jews shouldn’t be exclusionary in relation to other jews. but ross, as a representative of the state department, doesn’t seem to have a problem with jews being exclusionary towards non jews under the same principle."

      First of all, he's not currently a representative of the State Department. Second of all, he's talking to a synagogue audience. Third of all, he's addressing intra-Jewish issues. None of this makes him anti-gentile, and your conclusion that he "doesn’t seem to have a problem with jews being exclusionary towards non jews under the same principle" is the editorial nonsense that you added.

      "when he says “We don’t need to be advocates for Palestinians. We need to be advocates for Israel” he doesn’t appear to grasp that as a representative of the state department his job (during negotiations) is to be an advocate of what’s best for america, our policy, and what’s best for peace or resolution. to be inclusive not exclusive with respect to all people. but for ross, it isn’t all people he’s concerned with."

      That's right, and believe it or not, most Americans believe that it's in America's best interest to favor the region's only stable democracy, rather than its many unstable dictatorships. And that's the clear implication. Antisemites have always purposely read the position of those who favor a strong US-Israel relationship as caring more about Israel than about the United States. That's garden-variety antisemitism, whether you care to admit it or not.

      "so as a reader — when he says “we are too small a people to be exclusionary” i don’t think he has a problem with excluding me."

      Well, he wasn't talking to you or about you, so I'm not sure how you draw this conclusion.

      " in the absence of balance, or advocacy for what’s fair to all people in principle, it’s not difficult to assess he is “anti” towards those who he does not afford the same principle."

      Again, there's no evidence that he's talking about the same thing that you're talking about here.

      " sure, one could say by advocating for non exclusionary practices towards fellow jews doesn’t necessarily mean he’s against non jews,"

      No, one couldn't "say" it. That's the only fair reading of what he said. Any other one is paranoid nonsense.

      "but if a gov official was advocating non exclusion for everyone except jews, wouldn’t you assess this to be bigoted against jews? wouldn’t you feel you were being excluded?"

      As Norman Finkelstein once said, this is like asking if Grandma were a baby buggy, would she have wheels? It makes no sense in context.

      "it’s the principle, it amounts to a special concern for jews only —"

      Again. This is a lecture at Central Synagogue. The implication of your paranoia that when Dennis Ross speaks to Jewish audiences, he's "excluding" you is that Jews should just not speak to Jewish audiences, or if they do, they should speak only in universalistic language that makes you feel comfortable.

      "which is what zionism does — in practice."

      In a state in the Middle East, a region where every other state has a weaker record on minority rights.

      "given his bias, he should not be representing our government as anything other than a representative for jewish people. in any kind of policy decisions or negotiations, as long as ross is participating, there should be another US government official representing non jews — and for good measure a few more representing all americans."

      This is so hateful - the idea that because Ross identifies as a Jew, he can't represent the United States, and that the United States needs someone to represent "non-Jewish" interests - my G-d, Annie, can't you see how bigoted that kind of statement is? As if supporting Israel were Jewish and not supporting it were "non-Jewish."

      "Clinton would air her disagreements with Israel “in private,” he said, and it’s “a whole lot easier for Israel” to take steps toward peace if it knows the U.S. is on its side."

      So I guess that if Clinton becomes President, there will need to be another President to represent the "non-Jews," right? Or does this not apply since Clinton isn't Jewish?

      "yes, and it would be a whole lot easier for palestinians to take those steps if they knew the US was on their side too, but as an intermediator, the US should not take sides."

      I don't know whether it would or it wouldn't be, but there are lots of countries on the side of the Palestinians.

      "it’s beyond hypocritical to hold a position that says the oppressed and the oppressor can only find resolution by direct negotiations knowing the deck is stacked against the oppressed"

      Is it stacked against the oppressed? Most countries seem to support the Palestinians.

      " — and then stack the deck even more by backing the oppressor. seriously, if the US government stacked the decks (with billions offering a military quantitative edge) towards israel’s opponents and against israel interests, you’d be the first to scream anti semitism."

      Actually, I'd just say that's really bad policy on the US's part.

      " and you have the nerve to lecture others on “ethnic slur”."

      You've proved many times over that you're a bigot, and you did so again here, suggesting that Jewish members of the State Department need non-Jewish counterparts to represent the American interest.

      Disgusting, Annie. Just disgusting.

      - See more at: link to

    • You mean ad hominem assertions like "anti-gentile"?

    • Annie, you're defending bigotry again.

      You seem super duper sensitive to say that Ross is excluding you. He's not even talking about you. But I guess for you it's "anti-Gentile" when Jews talk about the Jewish community.

      But I can understand it. You're extremely callous when it comes to Jews.

    • You may disagree with Ross, but I don't see how you conclude from this that he's "anti-Gentile". That term is an ethnic slur.

  • Clintonites oppose 'occupation' mention in platform-- as Cornel West says party is 'beholden to AIPAC'
    • "That will be followed by a demand that we goyim recognise the superiority of Jews over us . "

      More overt antisemitism at Mondoweiss.

    • Israel is a US ally. Advocating for strong relationships between the US and Israel is not advocating for Israel anymore than advocating for a strong US-UK relationship is advocating for the UK.

    • US policy is that the conflict is to be resolved between the parties, not through international organizations. That's the policy. So weird that agreement with long-standing policy is cast here as advocacy for another country. So, so weird.

    • Look, if you disagree with the policy, that's fine. Claiming that it's the same as advocating for a foreign nation is antisemitic. You'd not be making this claim if the last name was something other than Wexler.

    • "What the Hell is an advocate for a foreign nation doing on the Dem platform committee drafting committee? "

      Right, because calling for a two state solution makes someone an advocate for a foreign country.

      It's not antisemitism, folks. It's anti-Zionism. #bdsfail

    • Wexler, who leads the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace, which has long worked for a two-state solution, also called for a contiguous Palestinian state. You seem to have missed that.

      There was one person who booed, and it was the same guy who loudly yelled out when West claimed that the Democratic Party had been beholden to AIPAC for too long.

      Also interesting how you did not mention West's understanding of the preoccupation of Jews with security after 2000 years of persecution and hatred. Or his acknowledgement that antisemitism went "hand-in-hand" with most Christian and Islamic civilizations.

  • As San Francisco mourns Orlando, Trump pulls Clinton his way
    • "There is no difference between Isil and jsil other than the quality of weapons."

      This comparison is only one that is made by very sick people.

    • "Not sure if you want to go around telling people violence is alien to Islam, but integral to Judaism. Of course, that just makes it that much more noble if we eschew what we have a right to."

      That isn't what I said either. You seem to have a serious comprehension problem.

    • "Oh wait, I’ve figured it out, sorry “Hophmi”. When Muslims do it it’s a “perverse application”, but when Jews do it, they are only responding to the highest aspirations of their religion, so it’s completely different."

      That's not remotely what I said.

    • "Tell that to anyone who has ever had “raghead” shouted at them from a passing car, and they’ll tell you the words we say matter, too. They’re deeds in their own right"

      Of course words matter. But how is a clear ethnic slur like "raghead" the same thing as a term like "radical Islamic terrorism," or "radical Salafism," or any term that makes explicit what everyone, including Muslims, understands to be a perverse application of Islamic theology?

      How is it that people who are so, so quick to talk about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in terms of the forms of extreme Judaic ideology that they say informs Israeli behavior (like you all were with the ridiculous and offensive term "JSIL") are also super reluctant to use any term to terrorism motivated by extremist Islamic theology that contains any form of the word "Islam" in it?

  • By stressing accused Orlando shooter's Muslim name, Trump can gain upper hand on Clinton -- Michael Oren
    • People in other countries are permitted to offer their analysis of American politics, last I checked.

    • I don't believe that Oren was necessarily condoning this sentiment. I believe that he was acting as an analyst of US politics. He also said that had the attack been strictly homophobic, rather than related to radical Islamic terrorist, Clinton would have benefited from it.

      Wondering if Mondoweiss will be including this tweet, retweeted by Tarnopolsky: link to

  • Michael Lerner brings down the house at Muhammad Ali funeral by standing up for Palestinians and against Netanyahu
    • "These folks have living each moment of their life across generations under the constant threat and violence of white supremacy, so they don’t need some wacky white dude coming in and white mansplaining them about the struggle."

      Who are you, Silamcruz? PC Principal from South Park? Nobody appointed you spokesperson for the people who chose to cheer Lerner's speech. They seem perfectly capable of speaking for themselves without your help, and Lerner, who has spent virtually his entire life as a social activist, can say whatever he wants without your permission. And people are not to be reduced to their skin color and gender. Ali was a black man, and Lerner is a white man (who wears a Bukharian yarmulke), but their races are not the sum total of their experiences.

    • I don't believe that BDS has a real economic effect on Israel; the data does not back that up. But I don't believe that BDS's goal is to trully affect Israel economically.

      I think BDS's main goals are political and social. The goals are to denomize the Israelis, to divide the Jewish community in order to make it ok to denomize those Jews who support Israel. BDS presents itself as non-violent for Western audiences, but is really just what Jasbir K. Puar said it was - a way for Westerners to support Palestinian nationalist goals and tactics, including the recent stabbing Intifada. In Europe, where there are fewer Jews, the denomization of Israel and of the Jewish community has resulted in harassment and physical violence toward Jews, and that violence has resulted in almost no comment from the BDS movement.

      So I do feel personally threatened by BDS, and I do feel the need to speak out about it. The denomization that accompanies the BDS movement means Jews get harassed and physically attacked. So I will continue to comment here, and to make the case that BDS is morally wrong, and ultimately, hurtful to the cause of peace, the long-term emanicipation of Jews from historical persecution, and to the Palestinians themselves.

    • "“europe” is not a country. tell me the european country you’re referencing and i’ll let you know if it’s impacted by a boycott.

      This is such a silly discussion (no serious economist I've seen has suggested that BDS has had any economic impact on Israel whatsoever), but OK. The two hardest hit industries are pharmaceuticals and electronics. Neither one is a target of the BDS movement. The reasons are common enough; the shekel has been very strong in recent years, and thus, Israeli goods are priced less competitively. Israel has the largest manufacturer of generic drugs in the world, so if the pharmaceutical sector slows down, Israeli export numbers will be affected.

      As far as Europe goes, if you've read a newspaper in the last five years, you know that European economies have experienced very sluggish growth in recent years. You can look at the OECD statistics. Israel's GDP growth has averaged around 3% in the last five years. That beats almost every state in the EU except Ireland and Luxembourg. Most of Western Europe has been between .5% and 1.5% in the past five years, including Germany, France, and the UK.

    • Annie, most of Europe is experiencing slower growth than Israel is. Is that because of BDS too?

    • Not true, not true at all. The 2ss remains the most realistic and pragmatic of solutions. I'm always surprised at how people here call for solutions imposed from the outside in the Holy Land, but criticize them in virtually every other situation.

      BDS all but endorses a one state solution, their official agnosticism notwithstanding.

Showing comments 1899 - 1801