Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 7932 (since 2010-04-19 03:21:04)

Showing comments 7932 - 7901
Page:

  • 'Her absurd generals, her military junk' -- Daniel Berrigan's prophetic speech on Israel in '73
    • Of course, what Berrigan's speech shows is that the radical left has always had a yen for Arab dictators, and that has led to its absorption of the antisemitism that pervades Arab societies.

      It's also interesting that you leave out Berrigan's anti-Arab racism. Berrigan claimed that Arabs have a "capacity for deception." By Berrigan's logic, the other states in the Middle East constituted "criminal Muslim communities."

      And of course, the speech is the same brand of ignorant ridicuousness we often hear from the radical left about Israel. In 1973, Israel was still basically a socialist state; Berrigan claims that it had not yet dealt with poverty and misery. American Jews were active in the antiwar movement; Berrigan called out American Jews to an audience doubtless primed to believe the worst about Jews.

      But typically, Mondoweiss defends this kind of extreme speech, which calls Israeli Jews and American Jewish leaders criminal.

  • Sy Hersh's 'forbidden statement': Sanders's liberation from NY Jewish money could change US foreign policy
    • Giving for the causes you believe in is not corruption, and the idea that but for political giving by American Jews, we would have had a deal, is the usual naive BS. The Palestinians aren't innocents who lack any agency, and the Jews are not the only Americans. A majority of Americans support Israel.

  • Censorship in Brooklyn: Food Coop bars 'any events related to BDS or Israel' from meeting room
    • Without question. The Park Slope Coop sells food. It's not there for extreme partisans to drive everybody crazy by exporting the politics of the Middle East into Brooklyn. People are really, really tired of these folks. They're nasty.

    • Go ahead, offer every reason but the real one - people are tired of BDS activists selfishly sowing division in their institutions. They're tired of the in-your-face activism, they're tired of the nastiness, and they're tired of the anti-Semitism inherent in the movement. They're just not that into you.

  • The banality of evil as captured in a selfie
    • The banality of evil is three kids taking a selfie? I think it's more filming a suicide video before Hamas sends some kid to stab an innocent Israeli civilian.

  • Sanders 'put everything on the line' for Palestine because BDS movement has changed US conversation -- Peled
  • 'NYT' manages to make childhood detention story work for Israel
    • "There is no Jewish state nor is Israel a democracy."

      There is a Jewish state and Israel is a democracy.

      I can't stand Hebron, but it's always amazing to me that people who oppose a Jewish state because of the Naqba oppose the presence of Jews in Hebron, a place where they were the victims of a massacre in 1929, and from where they subsequently had to flee.

      "Netanyahu, [insert names here]"

      Maybe instead of name-calling, you should come up with a plan. You're not a big fan of Netanyahu, we get it.

      "Israelis have been duped, brainwashed for decades as racist lies have been fed from childhood to create a violent society that has used the Holocaust to further it’s evil intentions of a purely Jewish State"

      Or maybe they have experienced a generation of terrorism that has caused them to question whether it's possible for them to live in harmony with their neighbors. Israel isn't a violent society. Please. Look everywhere else in the Middle East if you want to see what a violent society looks like. Look at the United States. We have a much greater murder rate here. We incarcerate a lot more people.

      What is this "purely Jewish state" that you're talking about? Today, Arabs make up a sizable portion of the students in institutions of higher education and the number is rising. No one is throwing non-Jews out of Israel. Relax.

    • Diaa Hadid must be a Zionist. Lol.

  • Chabon calls occupation 'the most grievous injustice I have ever seen in my life' and says he is 'culpable'
    • I cannot fathom any reason you would make this offensive comparison except for the shock value of making yet another inflammatory comparison. Even under your progressive standard, it doesn't work. Palestinian do not completely lack rights (they publish newspapers that you quote all the time, they vote for their representatives, they may and have successfully petitioned the Israeli government, and they are the world's largest recipient of aid. But if that's your standard, then all those living in authoritarian States are surely enslaved, and should surely inspire a similar response. Slave uprisings did not, to my knowledge, purposely try to murder as many white children as possible. And ending slavery was about giving Blacks basic human freedom in a country where they were a minority group, not about fighting a land conflict where the rhetoric was about one group replacing another in order to reverse history.

    • From the piece you cite: "In using this example as a soundboard to think about the moral debate that is dividing the Jewish people, I do not claim that slavery and the occupation are equivalent."

      The entire piece makes a specious, tortured argument that the occupation amounts to slavery; I've now talked to enough people who have been to the West Bank to know that this is a ridiculous statement; occupation is difficult, but it's not slavery. Palestinian men do get arrested (and 800,000 over 45 years is not 40% of the male population). By the logic of the article, African-Americans in the inner city remain enslaved. Dalits are enslaved. Palestinians working in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are enslaved. Palestinians in Syria are enslaved.

      Do you think that most African-Americans would be ok with the idea that the occupation is as grievous as American slavery? I doubt it.

      But it seems like you can never just talk about the facts. You have to make the comparisons. It's as grievous as slavery. It's as grievous as the Holocaust. I don't think it's about explaining the Palestinian situation as it is a propaganda tactic meant to make the Israelis into demons.

    • "And the occupation is as grievous as slavery"

      That's offensive and ridiculous. The occupation should be ended, and is an injustice to Palestinians, albeit an injustice Israel was forced into to and an injustice that pales in comparison to what is occurring elsewhere in the Middle East.

      It is not as grievous as slavery. Slavery involved Americans buying Africans, shipping them here on boats in chains, a trip on which many of them died of disease and starvation, forcing their families apart by stealing and selling their children. Millions were killed. This was followed by forcing freed slaves to endure endless poverty that continues today through Jim Crow laws, redlining, and other forms of institutional discrimination.

      This may well be the most grievous injustice Chabon has ever seen, but that's more a function of the fact that he hasn't been very many places than a judgment on Israel. He can see much graver injustices virtually everywhere else in the Middle East, Tibet, and many other places. He just hasn't gone to these places, either because they're unsafe, or because he doesn't care.

  • When 'Broad City' Went On Birthright, and taught us all a lesson about American Jews and Israel
    • The Cohen Center at Brandeis has done a good deal of research on Birthright participants; the program itself has been the subject of study both on the subject of whether Birthright enhances the Jewish identity of participants and whether the model of offering a free trip enhances tourism and homeland connections.

      Here's the report of a recent study on Birthright participants who went during the Summer of 2014. link to brandeis.edu

      Here's the general webpage. You'll find that the vast majority of the participants have a positive experience. link to brandeis.edu

      Here's a link to academic literature. I haven't read it, but it's probably a good starting point: link to nyupress.org

      "A leader of Birthright tours tells me there is no follow up with participants when they get back home. "

      It depends on what you mean by follow-up. There's a Birthright Alumni community that has regular meetups. The Jewish Enrichment Center works fairly closely with them; I don't know whether JEC was specifically set up for Birthright alums or not. I'm sure that Birthright's email lists are also accessible by Jewish organizations that target Jews in the 20's, like Moishe House.

      I don't know whether Birthright participants fill out surveys or not, but there are many points of contact for them when they get back to the States.

      "What is the control group? Imagine what fantastic programs, staffing and content could be developed in Jewish communities with $50m."

      The Cohen Center studies generally compare participants and non-participants.

      I have no doubt that we could develop great programming with $50m, but there's no great shortage as far as I know. We have lots of terrific programming in the Jewish community. The main priority, however, should be day school education. If we got our act together and offered every American Jewish child an affordable, high-quality, Jewish day school education, there would be no great need for Birthright. This is a uniquely American problem. In most other countries, Jewish schools, like other parochial schools, are government subsidized and/or paid for through a communal tax, and thus, far less expensive than they are in the United States. There are a lot of ideas out there on how to make this happen; one proposal that has been experimented with is a fund to ensure that no one is paying more than 20% of AGI in tuition; another is a superfund, and another is the Chabad approach, which is to establish no-frills non-denominational schools that keep expenses down through cutting out expensive extracurriculars like sports. The joke is that day school tuition is like birth control in the Jewish community. Most people outside of very religious chassidic and haredi communities, where academics is given short shrift and extra curriculars aren't a concern, can't afford to send more than a child or two to day school.

    • Brown skinned? You mean Mizrahi Jews?

    • "That’s one of the hasbarists’ favorite words whenever they are forced to offer tepid or mild criticisms of Israel"

      You're right, nuance is not the best word. It's too intellectual for this crowd. Better I should say that the piece ignores the positive experiences of the vast majority of people who go on Birthright and basic facts about what the program is.

      I will repeat what I usually say when I read this sort of critique. The first is that I hope that any American who makes it remembers to present the Native American history of the land they reside on when they have visitors, and endeavors to prepare visits to Native American reservations.

      The second is that I yearn for the day when a state of Palestine is able to offer Birthright trips for the Palestinian Diaspora.

    • It's so interesting that more than 400,000 people from 66 different countries have gone on Birthright, and yet, you always highlight the tiny number of critics who make the same silly arguments about how the trip pushes marriage on its participants. It only confirms that like most trips geared at teenagers and young adults, a number of the people who participate are the angry types who would doubtless find a way to be unhappy in some way.

      And as usual, this critique leaves out just about every possible nuance about Birthright. First of all, there isn't one kind of Birthright trip. There are dozens of different trips, including trips that focus on environment issues, trips that focus on hiking, trips that focus on politics, trips run by different denominations, etc. Focused trips like these, rather than the garden variety 10-day nutshell tours that attract the annoying teens (newsflash: teenagers are known to be loud and annoying), tend to have less participants focused on hooking up and traveling to the beach.

      In the real world, of course, Birthright is seen as a major success for connecting Diaspora communities with their heritage, and other countries have emulated the model of providing low cost trips for their Diasporas. link to college.usatoday.com

  • Another interview on Israeli TV
    • It's a reminder of why Alice Rothschild is a marginal figure outside of the BDS cult. When actual Israelis tell her that she hurts the cause of peace by targeting the Israeli peace camp, she brays on about Palestinian universities. She's also been known to espouse conspiracy theories. One is this nonsense about the symbol of Israel being a tank. I have no clue what she's talking about, unless she's referring to the cartoons of the anti-Semitic cartoonist Latuff.

  • Clinton will hold fundraiser in Tel Aviv
    • Because Judaism is a religion, as well as a nationality and a culture. But feel free to point to all of the religious heads of state that Israel has had to prove your point.

    • "Foxman caused Sanders to have to fire Simone Zimmerman as Jewish outreach director."

      Why do you think that Foxman saying something is the reason Sanders suspended Zimmerman. Abe's retired. Do you have any proof that he's the reason she was suspended? Please present it.

      "Notice that the limestone facade of the building has the Bill of Rights’ establishment clause. And meantime Gary Ginsberg, a member of its board, is writing speeches for the leader of a foreign, religious state surely in large part out of religious affinity."

      Just stop with this demagogic bull. Israel is not a "religious state," and Gary Ginsberg has a perfect First Amendment right to write speeches for whomever he wants. I'm sure that President Modi in Indian has close relations with Indian-Americans who advise him, and I'm also sure that Prime Minister Salman of Saudi Arabia, which actually is a religious state, has Saudis and Arab-Americans here helping him.

      " If this were the Christian right, not the Jewish right, it would be a scandal."

      And with that. The Christian right in United States has the power to pass legislation that affects the day-to-day lives of all of us, and they're maybe 25 times the size of the Jewish community, and in no way comparable to Netanyahu, who is not religious, and is a head of state. This comparison is nonsense.

  • Obama's November surprise
    • I don't know why. Garland is considered one of the most accomplished circuit judges, and he's the Chief Judge of the DC Circuit, traditionally a feeder court for the Supreme Court. He's also considered a moderate that Obama can use to pressure the Republican Congress. I don't think that Garland would be nominated but for the political circumstances, which require a moderate.

      Personally, I'd like to see another African-American on the court, preferably Loretta Lynch.

    • "Sure, it’s in the Middle East, many thousands of miles away from the U.S. You do know that the M.E. and the U.S. are many thousands of miles apart, right?"

      You do know that the people who crashed planes into the WTC on 9/11 were all from the Middle East, right?

      || … There’s a lot of terrorism emanating from the dysfunctional Arab states in that region of the world. Israel is in that dysfunctional region and knows it fairly well. US and Israeli defense officials have collaborated to address these issues for years. So it’s not about the US defending Israel. It’s about Israel helping to defend the US. ||

      "There are five sentences in that paragraph, all of which whitewash the terrorism of Israel’s colonialist and (war) criminal activities and none of which explains the “military defense” obligation of defending Israel."

      Well, you characterized American-Israeli defense cooperation as defending Israel. I characterize it as defending the US. So we disagree there. I don't think that the US really defends Israel militarily. It certainly provides aid and access to new weapons, but to my knowledge, US troops have never fought side by side with Israelis in any of its wars.

      "– How does defending Israel makes the U.S. – which is many thousands of miles away from the Middle East – safer?"

      Well, to the extent that the US supports Israel by allowing it to buy American weapons, it supports the only country in the region where you're more likely to see an American flag flying, instead of burning. If the fact that Israelis don't think that America is Satan doesn't sway you, Israel is also about the only place in the Middle East that one can reliably expect to be there tomorrow and one year from now, because the rest of the region is unstable. Big powers generally go for the stable states. If you don't like the realist explanation, we also have more shared values with Israel than we do with any other country in the region. Israel is a functioning democracy, whether you like it or not. They have a free press, an independent judiciary, and a complete mess of a legislature. They don't kill hundreds of thousands of their own citizens in ethnic wars. They don't massacre, rape, and enslave ethnic minority groups like the Yazidis or expel Christian minorities that have been in the Middle East for more than 1500 years. They aren't run by a quixotic theocratic oligarchy most famous for bringing people into the street to chant death to America and death to Israel, and notable for inspiring an international guessing game about how rational they actually are. They allow women to drive cars, be Prime Minister, and, you know, go out unattended without being severely harassed, and they don't prosecute them when they get raped. They don't restrict all non-government press. They don't kill hundreds of people in one shot if they come out into the street to protest. The country contributes to the world around it in all sorts of ways.

      Again, none of this is to excuse occupation or to act like occupation doesn't exist. It does, and it's not a good thing and it needs to end. But if you're trying to figure out why the United States doesn't just abandon Israel, and why, even if they did, it would not help the United States in the region, these are the reasons.

    • "What Hophmi is trying to say is that Clinton won, so the Palestinians can go frack themselves. As far as American politics goes, he’s right."

      That's actually not what I'm trying to say. What I'm trying to say is what I said, which is that radical groups did not positively contribute to passing the Iran Deal. J Street not only promoted the deal, but organized constituencies within the Jewish community to support it. The presence of radical groups like JVP hindered their efforts by identifying proponents of the Iran Deal with those who wanted to see Israel endangered or destroyed, rather than those who felt that the deal ultimately made Israel safer.

      The notion that J Street is weak, which is a talking point on both the far left, which thinks that J Street members will eventually become JVP members, and the far right, which thinks that J Street exists only to support Obama and that without Obama, it will shrivel and die, is belied by the facts. It's growing by leaps and bounds, both in size and in influence.

    • " So I would like him to explain to a simple guy like me the “military defense” necessity and obligation (“not really a choice”) of defending Israel."

      Do you know where the Middle East is Eljay? There's a lot of terrorism emanating from the dysfunctional Arab states in that region of the world. Israel is in that dysfunctional region and knows it fairly well. US and Israeli defense officials have collaborated to address these issues for years. So it's not about the US defending Israel. It's about Israel helping to defend the US.

    • Obama just met with J Street U's national leadership at the White House. Anyone who understands military defense understands how silly it is to say that any US President "doesn't care" about Israel. It's not really a choice.
      And JVP and groups like it, who could care less if Israel dropped off the face of the Earth, can take no credit for the Iran Deal. Radical activists drive people to the right, not the moderate center. In the case of the Iran Deal, which was sold as a benefit to Israel, activists who deny Israel's right to exist are distinctly unhelpful.

  • 'Forward' columnist and Emily's List leader relate 'gigantic,' 'shocking' role of Jewish Democratic donors
    • "The traditional definition generally follows the line that anti-Semitism is the irrational hatred of Jews just because they are Jews."

      Actually, the definition of antisemitism is to be opposed to the influence of Semitism (which is used as a synonym for Judaism in this context) on European culture. The 19th century writer who coined the term, and artists like Richard Wagner, who were examples of the intellectual line of thought, felt threatened by the presence of relatively newly emancipated Jews on European culture. Wagner wrote about it in musical terms.

      That's why I find so much of Phil's writing to be problematic. His critiques actually are in that modern mode of taking the presence of Jews in general society and the power they possess as individuals, and creating a myth that they exercise it collective, as Jews, for the benefit of Jews, and to the detriment of everyone else. Jews are responsible for the Iraq War, because a few Jews supported the war (and of course, no one else did). Jews own a lot of newspapers. A Jew owns the New York Times! So because a Jew owns the New York Times (even if he's very highly assimilated), he must use his influence, as a Jew, to dictate the editorial direction of the paper to the benefit of the Jewish collective, and to the detriment of everyone else. Disregard the fact that the most rabidly pro-Israel national newspaper is owned by an Australian Christian, or that many newspapers that take a similar editorial line to the Times are owned by non-Jews, or that the invidious fallacy that because an owner is a Jew, he must therefore act as a Jew, on behalf of other Jews.

      "The current operational definition of anti-Semitism is any activity which interferes with the agenda of Zionist Jews."

      This is the definition that antisemites like to use to caricature the Jewish community. In reality, while a few rightists might propound this definition, just as many Islamists might define Islamophobia as any criticism of Islam or Muslim countries, most Jews do not take this view.

      "It is a tactic used to justify Israeli actions (safe haven from anti-Semitism, etc), and of intimidation to squelch any discussion of Jewish power and the political economy."

      I've never heard anyone ever suggest that it was antisemitic to discuss power in the Jewish community. What is antisemitic is to do it by assuming that because people were born into a certain religion, they must therefore act as members of that religious group principally on behalf of others in that group, to the detriment of everyone else. What is antisemitic is to endlessly discuss Jewish power without placing it into some meaningful comparative context, such as mentioning that Jews are under 2% of the population, that Jews have a long history of working harder than almost any other affluent minority for universal social justice, that Jews have been targeted by divisive campaigns throughout history meant to force them either to convert or to assimilate, etc. It's like talking about crime in the Black community without discussing institutional racism. It's like talking about terrorism in the Muslim community without mentioning that the vast, vast majority of Muslims are peaceful people. It's a form of covert, and sometimes overt, bigotry.

      " The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are frequently referenced along with Blood Libels and lately Pablo Christiani and Father Coughlin."

      Well, of course, when the topic is J.J. Goldberg's comments, and the part where J.J. said that we hadn't heard people making certain kinds of comments "since Father Coughlin," I think it becomes relevant to mention Father Coughlin. When a political movement uses Jews who are harshly critical of their own faith, like Israel Shahak, to talk about what Judaism is, I think mentioning Pablo Christiani, and the use of such Jews by hegemons throughout history to justify persecuting the Jewish community, are relevant. And when people talk about Jews as fifth columnists and as tribalists who are only interested in themselves, I think mentioning the Protocols is relevant.

      "Also, if you link to rense.com your quote will be tainted even though Google led you there"

      A man is defined by the company he keeps. Rense has been cited enough here to suggest to me that at least a portion of Mondoweiss commentators are Holocaust deniers of one form or another.

      "I find it curious that these Zionists seem to have such an intimate knowledge of these “anti-Semitic” websites, apparently they spend a lot of time there."

      Unfortunately, history has taught us to be vigilant.

    • "Well, of course it is a deflection. Had James restricted his reference to Nazi Germany in the 1930s, it would be quite accurate. Additionally, it must be remembered that the Holocaust occurred during wartime, which provided Nazi Germany with an environment conducive to such massive killing (and don’t forget that the Soviet Union lost well over 20 million of its citizens fighting Nazi Germany). It should also be pointed out that Israel has several hundred nuclear weapons which they may use during a war which would result in an Arab death toll many times that of the Six Million. Think of these nukes as instant gas chambers not yet used but standing in waiting for the Samson Option final solution. And it is US/Israel which block a nuclear free Middle East as advocated by the UN and supported by Iran. Tells a tale, doesn’t it?

      Here we go with the softcore Holocaust denial. The Holocaust occurred during wartime, and the massive killing of the Jews in gas chambers was like the deaths of 20 million Soviets during the war. No, it would not be accurate even if James restricted his comments to the 1930's. Immediately after Hitler took power, a country-wide boycott of Jewish businesses was instituted. The Nuremberg Laws excluded Jews from most professions by 1935. Kristallnacht was in 1938, during which 91 Jews were killed over two days. In the three months following Kristallnacht, about 2500 Jews died in concentration camps alone.

      See, because Israel has nukes that could potentially kill more than six million people, the nukes are "gas chambers in waiting." Think about the fact that this statement appeared on Mondoweiss the next time you hear me complain about the antisemitic invective here: Million of Jews died in gas chambers. Like, actually died in them. And the moderator thought that a comment that calls Israeli nuclear weapons "gas chambers in waiting" was ok.

      I wonder if Keith has ever referred to the United States arsenal of close to 5,000 nuclear warheads as "gas chambers in waiting." Or Russia's. Or India's. Or Pakistan's. Or France's. Or Great Britain's. Or China's.

    • "James was making a comment about Germans and Israelis"

      LOL. James was venting, and making a silly, offensive analogy that is used only in this context because James knows that it makes Jews crazy. He knows damn well that there is no comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany.

      "And you are deflecting using Holocaust no less. May I point out to you that as history repeats itself, and ordinary people are well capable of war crimes, the occupying power that behaves like Nazis may well progress to genocidal acts of Nazis."

      Oh please. Someone makes a stupid Nazi-Israel comparison, but I can't respond by talking about what the Nazis actually did. Listen to yourself, Eva. In the entire 67 year history of the conflict, there haven't been as many Palestinian deaths as there were Jewish deaths in Poland in an average month during the Shoah. The Palestinian population is growing. The economy in the West Bank is also growing. Gazans are under a blockade and they've been hurt by having an genocidal Islamist leadership that oppresses them and that fires rockets into Israeli civilian areas, rockets that will only get more sophisticated and deadly over time.

      "Nobody argues that Israel IS currently killing Palestinians at the rate of 100000 a month – this is your deflection from the argument."

      The argument was that Israelis use the same tactics against Palestinians as Nazis used against Jews in the 1930's and 1940's. The Nazi campaign against the Jews was avowedly genocidalist. They aimed to wipe exterminate the Jewish population Europe and tried to do it as efficiently and effectively as possible. There is no such intent, nor any comparable action, on the part of the Israelis. Bringing this up, again and again and again, is just a way of needling and heckling Jews by bringing up the most traumatic part of their history in service of a partisan political purpose. It's the same reason Iranian leaders love to deny the Holocaust. They know full well that the Holocaust occurred. They're not stupid people. But they know that denying the Holocaust makes Jews crazy. Playing on people's worst fears and traumas always makes them crazy. Obsessively bringing up the Nazi analogy is like walking up to a drug-addled Vietnam Vet with PTSD and purposely bringing up Vietnam again and again.

      "The argument is that psychological trajectory of both societies: Israel’s and German’s is frighteningly similar."

      No, Eva. Europe in the 1930's and Europe today is frighteningly similar. That's the analogy you should use if you want to make analogies. Europe today is witnessing the rise of the far-right in response to immigration, terrorism, and the loss of "European culture," whatever that is. The far-right in Europe can grab as many, if not many more, votes in Europe parliaments as they can in the Knesset. Countries in Europe are the ones banning Muslim headwear, not Israel. Switzerland is the country placing restrictions on the height of minarets. France is the country with the 400% in violent antisemitic attacks, the National Front polling at 25% and more, and the endless attempts to force North African Muslims to practice laicite. Poland is the country that refuses to face up to its past collaboration with the Nazi regime by prosecuting historians.

      Rightists in Israel call for annexing the West Bank. Many generally support affirmative actions policies for Palestinians living within the Green Line and further developing Arab communities in Israel. That's why there's been a sizable increase in the presence of Palestinian-Israeli in higher educational institutions in Israel in the last 10 or 15 years. This is not similar to Nazi Germany, which almost immediately instituted a country wide boycott of Jewish businesses, passed the Nuremberg Laws by 1935, removed Jews from higher education and most professions by 1936-37, stripped them of citizenship soon after, and by 1938, had destroyed many of their institutions of worship in country-wide pogroms. By 1939, the Nazi regime had invaded Poland and had begun taking large groups of Jews into the forest and executing them in mass graves. By 1940-41, Jews were being herded into squalid ghettos in Polish cities, where they were dying in the hundreds every day. Jews were also being gassed to death in trucks. In 1941, the Nazis invaded Russia, where, in places like Babi Yar, they killed tens of thousands of Jews in a single day. By 1942, the Final Solution was in place, and Jews were being gassed in gas chambers throughout Poland in concentration camps. That's how 91% of the Polish Jewish community died in 6 years time.

      And of course, Jews weren't attacking other German civilians, and they weren't surrounded by countries without diplomatic relationships with Germany who were keen to see Germany destroyed. Jews were a major part of German society for hundreds of years and the community was heavily assimilated and highly patriotic. In a depressed economy, a crazy demagogue took power in a democratic election and, zeroing in on classical antisemitic tropes about Jews having too much money and influence, and more modern ones about Jews and Bolshevism, in a country primed to follow authority, opened the gates the hell by carefully and systematically turning German society against the Other, particularly the Jews.

      Maybe you just don't know very much about the Nazi regime, or you purposely use it as propaganda fodder. Maybe in Poland they focus on Polish victimhood, and you don't learn much about how Nazis treated Jews. It's offensive either way, and you need to stop doing it.

    • Well, Lillian, they're quite routine here. And they're evidence of a serious antisemitism problem within the BDS movement.

    • "But what should be extremely shocking (but isn’t) is how this panel of seven distinguished individuals who happen to be Jewish can sit for so long a time and not deal with the horrific reality of Zionist Israel’s six-decade (and counting) brutal, ruthless, racist, genocidal, ethnic cleansing military occupation and rule of an ever-shrinking Palestine, as unlawful colonial Zionist “settlers” aided by their Zionist “government continue to steal at gunpoint Palestinian villages and lands for still more unlawful colonies. "

      Did you throw enough adjectives in there, James? Are they all Jewish? I'm not sure. Neera Tanden is from an Indian family.

      I think if you want horrific and genocidal, you have to look next door in Syria and next door to that in Iraq.

      "Tragic, very, very tragic and chillingly ironic, since Zionist Israel’s “government” and “army” continue to use some of the very same tactics in occupying what remains of Palestine that were used by the Nazis against the Jews in the 1930s and 1940s. "

      Which would those be? An average of around 100,000 Jews a month died during the Holocaust. How many Palestinians, on average, die in the West Bank or Gaza? Did the pre-Nazi Era Jews shoot rockets at German civilians and blow up their children on buses?

    • "The current primary function of the Protocols is as a perjorative label used by Zionist propagandists such as you to avoid any empirical evaluation, relying instead on proof by labeling."

      Because saying that the owner of the NY Times is Jewish as an argument for why the NY Times takes the editorial position that it does is an empirical evaluation, right? See, that's the problem. You talk about an empirical evaluation. That's not what's going on at Mondoweiss. What goes on here is polemical extremist, not dispassionate science.

      "Pablo Christiani, blood libel, Protocols, Father Coughlin, conspiracy theory, etc. You throwing mud doesn’t alter the empirical reality."

      What mud? Yoni said that Pablo Christiani, who advocating making Jews wear badges, forced Jewish audiences to listen to him give pro-conversion speeches and to pay him for the privilege, told the Pope to burn Jewish books, and used the force of both monarch and Church to do all of it, was not a Jew-hater. This is the level of dreck we have here.

      And I bring up Father Coughlin because J.J. referenced him, and Phil cleverly left that out of his summary; J.J. said that people hadn't spoken of Jews in the way some speak about them now since Father Coughlin. That's why it's a conspiracy theory. When you use someone's religion as an explanation of all you find disagreeable, and you go further than that to suggest that people of that religion work together to subvert the country, that's a conspiracy theory, not an empirical case. And it's the very definition of bigotry.

    • J Street shuts out Palestinians? There were at least six featured Palestinian speakers at its national conference 2015.

    • Gentile is an insult now? It's just a Latin-derived word that means non-Jew. But it's interesting that it pisses you off this much. #hegemonyproblems

    • I think that readers here think the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a work of non-fiction and that they're primed to believe any conspiracy theory someone spins about the American Jewish community.

      Jew baiting is wrong. Emulating Father Coughlin is wrong. Speaking about the fact the the owner of the NY Times is Jewish, as if the fact of his Jewishness proved anything, is wrong.

    • Page: 79
    • You're cleverly leaving out a bit of J.J.'s comment and adding a lot of stuff that isn't there. J.J. said that there was a PERCEPTION that some neocons who were Jewish advocated for the Iraq War. This perception led some (clearly he's thinking of people like you) to suggest that Jews were dually loyal, which hadn't been heard since "Father Coughlin.". Your response is to tall about how the Jews own the media, and you mention that the New York Times is owned by a (heavily, heavily assimilated) Jewish family, as if this proves that the Times editorial line, which is indistinguishable from a number of other liberal newspapers that are not owned by Jews, is somehow what it is because it's owned by a Jew.

      Your type of poison is exactly the reason why Jews can't speak out about these things. You contribute, dishonorably, to our vilification.

  • In Brooklyn, Sanders stand on Israel attracts support despite controversy
    • Not really. Most of those counties are very small and have few Democrats. He still can't seem to get Blacks and Hispanics to vote for him.

    • It's a simple question. Does Dizard have any evidence or not? He's the journalist. It's his claim to prove.

    • I'm not celebrating. I know people who know her, and she sounds like a cool person. I think the campaign didn't do right by her by setting her up to fail like that. I honestly don't understand her hire, in all honesty. I don't know how it would have really helped him.

    • "But just typing “fuck” in spring 2015 got a recent Sanders hire suspended by the campaign last week, pending investigation."

      I'm just curious: do you have any evidence that this was the reason that she was suspended? Because it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. It would mean that the Sanders campaign did zero vetting of her before they hired her.

  • Sanders's leftwing base made him take on Netanyahu
    • " she noted that Sanders was cheered “wildly” for his remarks"

      I wouldn't say that. It was clear that the applause was not uniform throughout the auditorium. It sounded like one section of activists who were sitting together. There was much louder applause at several other moments in the debate.

    • "She says, as the room falls silent, that the Orthodoxy on Israel was never about votes; it was about money. "

      Sorry for organizing. Are you not for holding candidates accountable for their views? I think that's part of being an American.

    • "Soon every democrat will recoil at the sight of AIPAC like they are at the sight of the NRA. "

      Soon, the Bolshevik revolution will reign Supreme!

      It's not gonna happen, Krauss. Most Americans support Israel, not the Palestinians, and the most left-wing member of Congress criticizing Bibi Netanyahu (and did we suddenly forget the other Democrats that did so, like Jan Schakowsky, last March? ) isn't going to change that.

      " Then inevitably J Street will be exposed as the conservative organisation it is, working to support an Apartheid state, and the true democratic debate will come out."

      R-i-i-i-g-h-t. Fortunately, America is not an uber-radical college campus, so I wouldn't count on this either.

      "The Zionist organisations fear this, because they believe they will not win such a debate if it is conducted fairly and even-handedly. They’re right."

      I think that most Zionist organizations are quite confident of their ability to win that debate, pal. It's Palestinian activists who are trying to censor Zionist voices in the public square, not the other way around. And that's because when the debate is even-handed, instead of one in which one side gets to exclude the other while claiming the mantle of human rights on behalf of a people who show no inclination toward it in their society and hurling false accusations of racism at everyone who disagrees with them, Israel wins hands down every time.

    • Here we go with the "he-was-brave" comment, written in the same sentence as "he's-getting-votes-out-of-it comment.

      Plenty of Jews, particularly the liberal Zionists who lay the best claim to Bernie Sanders's views on Israel (and whose views you now co-opt), were happy to hear Sanders criticize Netanyahu, who is a very easy target, and to repeat what Paul Wolfowitz said 14 years ago about having sympathy for the Palestinians.

      As you can also see, Sanders isn't a BDS fan, and the reason he suspended Simone Zimmerman (which almost seems like a plan to promote her more than it does to hurt her, since hiring her as Jewish Outreach Coordinator made no sense in the first place), is probably because she's widely perceived as a BDS advocate (even though she does not advocate BDS).

  • 'Anti-Zionism = anti-semitism' is a formal logical fallacy
    • "Typical Zionist misrepresentation of reality. The “human rights” situation in Iraq is a disaster precisely because of the imperial invasion and occupation of Iraq strongly supported by AIPAC and Israel. Your hands are double dirty on this one. Saudi Arabia? Imperial asset and Israeli de facto ally Saudi Arabia? Israel loves Saudi Arabia and the whole GCC."

      Israel didn't invade Iraq. Neither did AIPAC. And invoking both hardly gives the anti-Israel left a pass on its complete failure to speak up about these human rights disasters. Start learning not to blame others for your problems, Keith, and you might get somewhere.

    • "The racist E. European, S. Arabian, N. African, and Aramean-Mesopotamian invaders certainly don’t belong in Palestine as I didn’t. "

      Every Jew in Israel is an invader, including the Arab Jews who were kicked out of the rest of the Middle East. Got it.

      "As for Pablo Christiani, Petrus Alphonsi, etc., we simply don’t have enough information to delve into the motivations of these people. There is no reason to believe they hated Jews per se."

      We have no reason to believe that a guy who prevailed about Louis IX to compel Jews to wear badges singling them out as Jews, prevailed on the Pope to order all copies of the Talmud burned, and used the power of King James 1 and Raymond de Penyafort to force Jewish communities to listen to his speeches and to pay the expenses for his travel hated Jews per se. He was just an anti-Zionist, right?

    • I know that you think you're clever, Eljay, but you're missing a couple of things here. The first is that fighting for human rights in Iraq is a far, far more urgent matter than Israel is. The second is that human rights activists in Iraq tend not to be allied with one faction fighting for a nationalist cause. The third is that pro-Palestinian activists not only have little to say about human rights elsewhere in the Middle East. When confronted with the hypocrisy, they say that it's not their place to dictate to people in the Middle East how to live. That's not universalism and that's not human rights activism.

    • It's not hard, especially when calling your movement universal, humanistic, or about human rights doesn't pass the laugh test. Sorry. You don't get to call yourself an advocate of universalism, humanism, or human rights when your activism in the Middle East is focused on Israel, but not on states like Iraq, where minority groups are facing a genocide, or Saudi Arabia, where human rights are nonexistent.

      You do get to call yourself an armchair Palestinian nationalist, if achieving a state for the Palestinians is your goal, or an armchair Hamasnik, if your goal is simply ending the state of Israel.

    • Hophmi knows that using "ex-Jews" to say harsh things about Judaism has a long, disreputable history. Hophmi also knows that ex-Muslims who speak this way about Islam, like Ayaan Hirst Ali, are pillorized here. Hophmi also knows that it's by now a tried and true technique of Mooser's to refuse to distinguish between criticism of Israel and crazy things that anti-Zionists say, like calling on Jews to "relocate" from Israel, and then to suggest that I'm arguing that all criticism of Israel is bad when I call people here out on some of the outrageous things that they say.

    • Pablo Christiani speaks. It's always the ex-whatevers who hate their peoples the most. The ex-Muslims hate Islam, the ex-Christians hate Christianity, and the ex-Jews hate Judaism.

      It's not enough to call for Israel's dismantlement. No. Jews should be "relocated." Wonder what that means.

  • 'Any legislation having to do with Middle East has to be vetted and approved by AIPAC' -- Tom DeLay
  • Sanders slams Clinton for ignoring Palestinian needs and thinking Netanyahu is 'right all the time'
    • I also want the occupation to end, but I see no evidence that publicly second guessing democratically-elected Israeli leaders works. The Middle East is just not a place where you can be even-handed. You'll be assigned a side whether you take one or not.

      And it's also hypocritical coming from an American politician. Bernie Sanders has long criticized the decision to go to war in Iraq. But he's never suggested, to my knowledge, that killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis was disproportionate, or that drone strikes were disproportionate. This is why American leaders stay away from condemnations like this. They know that if the US faced a similar situation, they'd react in the same way, and in fact, if Iraq and Afghanistan are examples, they'd react much more harshly.

    • I think that it's interesting that you're getting this excited about a debate between two strongly pro-Israel Democrats who agreed that Israel has a right to defend itself against terrorist attacks, and that Hamas is a terrible, embeds itself in civilian areas, and targets Israeli civilians, over whether Israel acted disproportionately in Gaza.

      I think this is a negation of your entire program. When push comes to shove, Bernie Sanders is not going to pressure Israel. He's not a foreign policy guy, and he's not going to risk his other programs to bother with it.

  • Note to Progressive Jews: The right of return is not the 'i'm-doing-you-a-favor' of return
    • It shouldn't amaze you, Dan. I don't always need multiple posts to prove my point, and no MWer has ever "trounced" me.

      If you cannot acknowledge the obvious injustice and frank bigotry of the idea that Jews should move back to the countries that murdered millions of them, then it says far more about you than it does about me. Right of return for Palestinians refugees is a legitimate position, even if I disagree with the idea. Calling for Jews who have been in Israel for generations to leave and return to non-existent houses in European countries where they were murdered in the millions and where they were persecuted for hundreds of years make you a barbarian. It has nothing to do with whether I'm a Zionist or not. It has to do with whether the extremists at MW possess basic humanity that extends beyond their anti-Israel advocacy.

    • The idea that Jews living in Israel for several generations should return to the site of the mass murder of their relatives is deeply unjust.

  • Democratic debate: Is Netanyahu welcome at White House on Day 1 or an arrogant, deceptive asshole?
    • Keith can't handle the truth, unfortunately.

      First he does the usual two step where he claims, after making statement after statement about Jews and tribalism, that he's just referring to Zionists.

      Then, he ignores his bigoted statements about Jews using advocating multiculturalism to advance themselves and then abandoning it when it no longer benefited them and says "didn't Jews benefit from multiculturalism?" as if this is what the argument was about, and then asking why Jews need Israel if they believe in multiculturalism. I suppose that the Irish don't need Ireland, and the Chinese don't need China. One sign of intelligence is the ability to hold two ideas in your head at the same time. Keith doesn't seem to possess that quality.

      Then he referred to the frankly uncontroversial history of antisemitism in Europe and the culmination of centuries of hatred in the Holocaust as a "Zionist construct."

      Then he complains about personal attacks in the Mondoweiss comment section, LOL.

      What a joke this guy is.

    • It's true, Keith, there are certain radical lefties who are known for their harsh criticism of Jews whom you "don't hate." You have Jewish friends. Congrats. I don't think that most of those people would return the favor, BTW.

      You simply blame the Jews for advocating multiculturalism for their own purposes, call them fifth-column tribalists who are unpatriotic, claim that historical persecution of Jews in Europe is a myth because Jews had it better than some others did, scream anti-Gentile anytime someone calls you out, and shriek on about how Ukrainian and Poles are being ignored if anyone dares to speak about the Shoah, because, like white supremacists, every time you're not directly mentioned, it's somehow a slight.

    • "For a variety of reasons, American Jews have a relatively strong sense of tribal identity, even as they have promoted multiculturalism for non-Jews. One consequence is that non-Jews have come to accept Jews (who they usually are unable to identify as Jews in any event) as an integral part of the body politic, whereas, many Jews continue to see the world through the eyes of Jews as apart from non-Jews."

      You see, no matter how much Jews may assimilate, people like Keith will continue to tell us that we're "tribal." But this takes the cake. We "promoted" multiculturalism for other people without practicing it ourselves, you see. It was all a grand plot to get people to like us. We didn't take stances on religious liberty, church-state separation, civil rights because we wanted a better society. We don't continue to vote overwhelming Democratic because we favor civil liberties. No. It's all about us.

      "Multiculturalism is very different from tribalism and sectarianism which seek to divide a society based upon tribal groupings, each exhibiting an “us” versus “them” group loyalty which fundamentally rejects a unified society of diverse equals. The tribe is more concerned with the group than with the individual member."

      Right, it's always us vs them with those damn Jews.

      "The “us” versus “them” emphasis in Jewish tribalism which exists in varying degrees and which usually manifests itself when widely different individual Jews (Orthodox and secular, for example) unite as Jews to pursue a “Jewish” agenda."

      Right, because when Jews collectively pursue policy goals, they do it for themselves and for no other reason. No, there's nothing whatsoever ethnocentric or bigoted about this thinking. I mean, you've seen Keith talk about other groups this way, right? Other minority groups have no organizations dedicated to their better welfare who pursue goals that they believe are for the betterment of the society in which they live. It's only Jews who form organizations.

      "One characteristic of Jewish tribalism which may be unique is the transnational nature of the tribal identity"

      Ah yes, The International Jew. The Cosmopolitan Jew, who must never advocate for himself or his people, lest he be accused of being a Fifth Columnist, a tribalist, an "Other."

      "such that Israel can claim to be the state of world Jewry and the French CRIF is a member of the World Zionist Organization and can count on American Jewish Zionist support as they pursue a Jewish Zionist agenda in France. I am unaware of any other self-defined ethnic group which yields this type of power."

      Mostly, French CRIF worries about the high rate of violent antisemitism in France. I guess that's pursue Zionist agenda for you.

      Gee, I can't understand why Jews would care about one another in other countries. I mean, we've never seen this ever with anyone else. Does it have something to do with the fact that there are only around 14,000,000 Jews in the world? Does it have to do with the fact that a third of the world's Jewish population was wiped out 70-75 years ago?

      But maybe not. American Muslims don't care about other Muslims, right? There's no major international Christian organization that wields much transnational power, except, oh, what the hell is it called - the CATHOLIC CHURCH. Do they wield any power?

      "Confining ourselves to individuals, the factors would be the same for any individual whether Jew or non-Jew. Education, ambition, hard work, etc. Once anyone climbs high enough in any organization, organizational politics plays a key role. Machiavelli placed a great emphasis upon artful deception and cunning, which I tend to agree with."

      So when Jews go far as a community, they do it deceptively and with fraud.

      WHY IS THIS GUY STILL HERE?

    • Keith: "All you do is name call."

      Keith: "As for Simone Zimmerman, she is rather obviously an anti-Zionist tribalist[.]"

      Keith: "You are the very essence of tribalism"

      Keith "Again and again you fulminate with vile accusations."

      Again and again you think criticizing the history of European antisemitism is akin to labeling all Gentile as murderous Jewhaters because, like most white supremacists, you can't deal with that criticism. And as usual, you selectively quote in order to support your bigotry.

      Please tell me which major Jewish organizations complained about "reverse discrimination." Maybe you can tell me which Jewish politicians in the Congress oppose affirmative action. Also, please tell me which minority groups have been as active historically as the Jewish community was in helping the African-American community, and when it was that Jewish community "threw the African-American community under the bus." The civil rights movement took a turn toward sectarianism in the late 1960's, when militant leaders decided that Jews were too white for the civil rights movement. And by the way, opposition to racial quota was a principled stance based on the Jewish experience with anti-Jewish quotas in the first half of the 20th Century. Most Jews supported race-based affirmative-action post-Bakke when the Supreme Court made clear that racial quotas were unconstitutional, though some major Jewish organizations have remained opposed to race-based affirmative action.

      While major Jewish organizations have historically opposed race-based affirmative action, they have supported class-based affirmative action. The ADL supports class-based affirmative action. So did the AJCongress. The AJCommittee filed a lead amicus on behalf of UMich in the Grutter case. Jewish organizations have worked with the NAACP on discrimination issues many times. So you're quite wrong, and you're engaging in revisionist history when you suggest that Jews used African-Americans primarily to advance themselves. In fact, you're making my point for me; for antisemites, when Jews act as a group to benefit others, they're just trying to help themselves.

    • "Seriously Hophmi are you just trying to embarrass yourself by contradicting everything said here, even by those clearly better informed than you. The latest polling average for a straight Trump-Sanders contest puts Sanders 16.3% ahead. "

      You misunderstand. I said "seriously?" because you appear to be surprised that Sanders would beat Trump by a wide margin. I'm quite well-informed on the poll numbers.

      "Thanks though for your apparent endorsement of two points I was contradicting you upon: (a) the Democratic establishment isn’t really that bothered about Sanders approach to Israel(*), and (b) the American people don’t really care much (or as you paraphrase it, “prioritise”) Israel."

      The Establishment isn't that bothered about Sanders' position on Israel because it amounts to a criticism of Netanyahu, who's basically a surrogate Republican, and Americans do not usually vote on the basis of foreign policy.

      You weren't contradicting me in any way.

    • "Here you have tribalism for the (mostly Zionist) organized Jews and universalism for the non-Jews (plus unorganized universalist Jews). In effect, Jewish tribalism hiding behind multiculturalism’s skirts. It is a key factor in Jewish success, one which Zionists don’t want discussed."

      This is great example of Keith's anti-Jewish fundamentalism and the way in which Jews are uniquely labeled as tribal in order to cast them as "Other." A cabal of Jews uses the tool of multiculturalism to work against the "non-Jews," who are "universal" in contrast to their "tribal." Jews use this "tribalism" to get ahead at the expense of the rest of us. This is straight out of the White supremacist playbook.

    • There is a lot of truth to French Jew's comment. Most the world is tribal! It's the organizing principle for all nation-states to some extent. When people talk about Jews as tribal, there's a nefarious meaning behind it, as in, Jews are tribal and care more about themselves than the societies they live in, as in Jews are the "Other."

    • "Phil’s specific reference was to Democratic Establishment concern about Israel AND other anti-establishment principles"

      It's not accurate with respect to the Democratic Establishment either.

      "n truth Israel is the least of the problem; a politician talking about disproportionate killing worries the Israeli establishment far more than it does the Democratic establishment, since the latter must have known that the truth would eventual come out"

      Who in the Democratic establishment got super upset about Bernie misstating the casualty rates? I don't know of anyone. If they expressed dismay, it was more about his lack of basic knowledge.

      "how come polls so consistently say that Sanders would beat Trump"

      Seriously?

      "Could that be because he is not anti-Israel (though he does recognise that many Americans are fed up with being exploited by Israel), very few Americans really care about Israel (compared with far more pressing economic, social, environmental and other problems, and because he is not particularly leftist (he would be close to the political centre in much of Europe)."

      I wouldn't say that "very few Americans" care about Israel, but very few Americans prioritize Israel (or any foreign policy issue) above all others.

    • " It’s as worried that the Israel question could bring the party down as the Republican establishment is panicked by Trump. "

      What evidence is there that the Democratic Establishment is as worried about Israel as the GOP Establishment is about Trump? Zimmerman isn't going to keep the Democratic nominee from being elected like Trump will keep the GOP nominee from being elected.

      The values espoused by Trump are shared by around 1/3 of the populace. The values espoused by anti-Israel leftists are shared by maybe 1/20 of the populace.

  • Sanders hires a Jewish critic of Israel, as Clinton gets 'Daily News' nod as 'warrior realist'
    • Ethiopians are twice as likely to be arrested, Marnie? You really should boycott the United States. African-Americans here are six times as likely to be incarcerated as whites, and that's in a country where African-Americans have been here for hundreds of years, not one in which they've been citizens for a generation, and it's in a country with the world's highest incarceration rate. #BlackLivesMatter

    • Qualtrough, your opinions don't mean much in a room where everyone is already guaranteed to agree with everything that you say.

    • "“Do the “Jews of color” have the same “historical homeland” as the “white Jews”? "

      Surely.

      "And did we start out all diverse, or did diversity come when some Jews got exiled to the north and some got exiled to the south, with more sun?"

      We have always been a racially diverse people.

    • "Seeing that the main excluders of “Jews of color” are, in the order, the Zionist governments "

      Blah, blah, blah, LOL. Israel has more Jews of color than anyplace else in the world, including over a hundred thousand Ethiopian Jews, and millions of brown Jews from the rest of the Middle East. Get your facts straight.

      "BDSers make racist comments about white Jews? "

      Yes, frequently. BDSers essentialize Jews as white all the time in order to dismiss their concerns about antisemitism. See, if you label it white, you can argue that their concerns about oppression don't matter because they're the beneficiaries of white privilege. If you acknowledge that Jews are a religion, rather than a race, and that Jews are White, Black, Brown, and every color in between, then that argument is weaker.

    • You keep repeating this racist line about Jews being white and excluding Jews of color, just as Phil did. That's very telling. It seems as though BDSers make some racist assumptions about the Jewish community.

    • "what about the fact that her Jewish advantage is way bigger than her white people advantage with Bernie"

      What are you talking about? Her advantage with white voters according to the Siena poll is 49-46 and 49-40 among Jews. That's not "way bigger." That's pretty similar. And you seem to have made the very common, but subtly racist, assumption that all Jews in NY are white. That's certainly not true. And even if it were, it certainly wouldn't show that Jews were more conservative than the average white Democratic voter. It could show many things, including that Hillary is perceived as the likely nominee, that people think Sanders's program is politically unrealistic, etc.

      "Also, the guy who tipped me on that poll said that Simone Z hire shows Bernie isn’t going for the W. "

      Well, it's not a great idea if the purpose is to do general outreach to the Jewish community, but Simone Zimmerman is quite well-connected and has a base in both New York and California, and she seems to know how to organize, and Sanders relies on young voter turnout, so if the goal is to turn out young voters, it makes some sense.

      But I think that the fact that Simone is willing to work for a candidate who proclaims his love for Israel, supports its existence, and has voted for most of the pro-Israel legislation that has come through the Congress during his tenure, may say more about her than it does about him.

    • Phil's the one assigning right and left labels.

    • Sorry, but foreign policy realism isn't a left-wing position. It's a conservative position. So you're distorting history and politics by claiming that liberals like Eric Yoffie are "right-wing" because they reject far-left politics on Israel, or that Jews who support Hillary Clinton are "conservative." I guess supporting Obamacare is a conservative position now.

  • Against Balance: Thoughts on teaching Israel/Palestine
    • Yes, Yeshayahu Leibowitz, who was a religious Jew, said Judaism "practically died" 200 years ago. OK. Avnery loves to use that quote (and white supremacists love to repeat it). It's hearsay from a man with a fantastic imagination, but if it is accurate, it's interesting coming from a Jew who lived in Israel as a religious Jew, along with millions of other religious Jews. It's also incredibly silly. There's a great deal that unites Jews other than the Holocaust; culture, ritual, history - but of course, the white supremacist community is obsessed with the Holocaust, and thinks that Jews use the Holocaust to keep them down, so they actually take hyperbolic alleged statement like this for their literal meaning.

  • 'NY Times' has double standard for Arab and Jewish reporters
    • Certainly not as much as an American reporter covering the US Army would have or as much as a reporter who has actually written for advocacy websites would have. Bronner wrote plenty of stories that were critical of Israel during his tenure as Jerusalem bureau chief, and so did Rudoren. Look, be honest. If the Jerusalem Bureau Chief is Jewish, you're going to find some way to suggest they're biased because they're Jewish. Bronner has a son in the Army. Rudoren didn't, so you complained that she went on USY trips as a child (even though the ranks of JVP include a number of people who grew up similarly). I can't remember; did you ever suggest that Anthony Shahid's Arab background made him a biased report in Syria, Libya, and Iraq? Have you done a comparative analysis of Bronner's and Rudoren's work with reporters for other major newspapers who don't have children in the IDF? That's what's required to make this inflammatory, ethnocentric claim of yours.

    • Your analogy just doesn't hold. No one mentioned Hadid's religion. They mentioned her previous career as an advocacy journalist. You compare that to questioning the bias of people like Rudoren and Bronner, complete with your false perceptions about Rudoren speaking only to American Jewish advocacy groups, based solely on their religion. The former is completely warranted. The latter is cheap bigotry.

  • Bernie Sanders and the Brooklyn dream
    • Wow, I think that echinococcus found something more offensive than advocating the Jews return to Europe. He's advocating sending them to the South Pole instead, kind of like Stalin and Siberia.

  • Advice to North Carolina
  • BDS has arrived
    • I'm sorry you don't understand the meaning of the saying, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander." I understand it just fine, thanks, and you don't "own" any terminology.

    • What is this, BDS pinkwashing? Like, BDS has only arrived if Israeli Grindr members mention it?

  • Israeli journalist Derfner succinctly analyzes the anti-Semitism vs. anti-Zionism debate
    • "hops, just cuz you hang w/the absolutist crowd (anti-Semitism = anti-Zionism) doesn’t mean your opposition is also absolutist i say that because nobody claimed “Zionists are Islamophobic” — albeit — clearly and obviously many are."

      I don't hand with the absolutist crowd. That's your deal; you're the one who tends to view the world in black and white.

      "if we ran into eachother on the street and you were wearing red pants and i told you that red pants symbolized racism and therefore you were a racist it would not be ‘whataboutery’, if, in your response to me, you noted i was wearing red pants. that’s not a diversion, it’s pertinent to the conversation."

      Do you understand how analogies work? This is not a matter of red pants. This is the equivalent of me telling you that your house is on fire and you reacting by telling me that the real problem is that there are forest fires in California.

      This is a version of an endemic problem here - the denial that antisemitism is a serious problem. You've frequently denied it in the French context. Others, like Keith, blame Jews for antisemitism. Here, your response is to react by talking about Islamophobia. That's not a response. That's the definition of whataboutery. It's part of the anti-semitic atmosphere at Mondoweiss that reflects that antisemitism that is endemic to the BDS movement.

    • "This belief that Gentiles are the eternal enemy of Jews motivates much Zionist thought and action. One has only to observe some of our Zionist commenters to observe this phenomenon on full display."

      Antisemite trope #115. This is Keith's old and tired line that he trots out to smear people with whom he disagrees; you see, the problem is that most Jews hate Gentiles.

      Since he's clearly referring to me here, I do not believe that Gentiles are the "eternal enemy" of the Jews, and I do not believe that Zionists are motivated by that belief. I believe that Jews are motivated by historical experience, pure and simple. Some religious Jews who have internalized historical antisemitic tropes of Jews being an eternal enemy of Christians may reverse the trope and say that Gentiles are an eternal enemy of Jews, but Zionists like Theodore Herzl were principally motivated by a desire to escape European anti-Jewish hatred, and that's the long and short of it.

      It's really a classic antisemitic trope - you invert antisemitism by claiming that it's really Jews who have attacked Gentiles, and not the other way around. Keith does this all the time; you talk about persecution that Jews have experienced, and he goes into old canards about peasants suffering at the hands of Jewish financiers.

    • Do you believe that it's justified when a Palestinian suicide bomber blows up Israeli children, Annie? Yes or no, please.

    • Yeah, you're right, Annie, it's totally not whataboutery to answer charges of anti-Semitism in anti-Zionism by claiming that Zionists are Islamophobic or that Islamophobia is a more serious problem. Totally not whataboutery. #lookoverthere

    • "Eighteen words that say it all. "

      A. Nonsense.

      B. Seems like you're perfectly OK with whataboutery when it serves your purposes.

  • The Jewish-Israeli navel-gazers
  • 'Israel will not have better friend in White House than Hillary' -- Clinton adviser assures NY
    • Myerson doesn't response to Goldberg. He hurls insults at him. Myerson's Village Voice piece was inaccurate garbage.

      And whatever pretensions you may have, this site, and anti-Zionist in general, remains the province of a fringe few.

  • Zionism is not really secular
    • "Ah, yes, rense.com. Isn’t rense.com that Zionist Black Ops website designed to taint inconvenient truths by association with an “anti-Semitic” website? I am sure that it is your go-to site when you are desperate to smear? In the past, even I had linked to rense.com because of a Google search. The information I sought was accurately quoted. I was unaware of any problem until recently Kay24 linked to rense.com and Jon S questioned her choice of the anti-Semitic rense.com. I asked him to show the anti-Semitism. He sent a link to an article on rense.com which was blatantly anti-Semitic. What is going on here? Since a lot of us naive folk are being directed to rense.com by Google, the connection snapped into place. Google has close ties to the US State Department and is a powerhouse at the anti-BDS Council on Foreign Relations. If you can’t hide it, taint it. And for someone like me who has figured this out and will not quote rense.com under any circumstances, you claim that just because the Zionist Black Ops website quotes something, it is tainted in any event. How convenient. How dishonest. How scurrilous. How Hophmi."

      How typical of you not to get the point, which is that your selective quoting of a text that doesn't support the poison you're pushing, is that antisemitic websites engage in exactly the same kind of selective quoting.

      "As for Google, it is a very convenient search engine, however, never believe, even for a minute, that Google is your friend."

      Google was my #bestfriendforever until now.

      "Google is an extremely powerful corporation that is practically synonymous with global empire and neoliberalism."

      The doodles contain secret Illuminati messages.

      "They are a dominating force on the Council of Foreign Relations."

      Every time someone does a Google search for "Ukraine," a small child descended from Cossacks dies in Kiev.

      "Their business model is based upon data mining"

      Data mining contains 50% of the same words as Coal mining. Coincidence? I think not.

      " and, I suspect, that the US government (NSA?) is a primary customer."

      I suspect that NSA members also may use Google.

      "We all have a government spy and agent provocateur in our homes. It is our computer. Use with caution."

      Mine wears tennis shoes. I knew something was up when my webcam started looking left and right repeatedly.

    • "The Czarist Empire had an internal passport system, and the peoples of the Czarist Empire were more or less restricted to their historical homelands. For descendants of Yiddish-speaking Jewish communities that area was Czarist Poland + some provinces added to this region. Jews of other ethnicities were restricted to other areas."

      Right, again, so Yoni's ridiculous argument is that the selective integration of a few assimilated Jews in the 19th century, which resulted in restrictions on their admittance to universities and professions because, like American elites in the first half of the 20th century who used quota systems to restrict the number of the Jews in their schools, somehow negates the existence of antisemitism in Czarist Russia. You can't make this garbage up.

    • "I said that relatively speaking they were not a persecuted people compared to other people, primarily the peasants whom they helped the nobility to subjugate and control."

      Right, the frequent massacres and expulsions of Jews throughout the Middle Ages, culminating in the murder of 6,000,000 of them at once was not persecution.

      " Pogroms notwithstanding, they had relatively more power and privilege than the average Gentile"

      Thanks for the privilege of more than half of my people's population on the European continent being murder in the span of six years. This is all irrelevant nonsense. I'm sorry if you're resentful that a few Jews, restricted from most jobs, but focused on learning, took up lending, and as a result, became influential. Jealously of the financial success of this elite has always been a major motivating factor for antisemites. Get over it. Gentiles in Europe are not peasants anymore. They're wealthy people from the world's richest countries.

      "Can you even conceive of a Black Rothschilds?"

      Can you conceive of a relevant argument?

      "The Jews have always been RELATIVELY privileged."

      Can someone get me the world's tiniest violin?

      " Why do you deny this?"

      Because it is the same nonsense that antisemites always talk about - Jews are financially successful and influential; let's stop them.

      "Why do you continue to pretend that the relatively powerful and privileged Jews are victims?"

      Why do you continue to be unable to understand that power and privilege aren't bulwarks against antisemitism, and that your obsessive jealous of successful Jews is exactly the kind of BS that antisemites have always used to motivate bigots to kill Jews?

      " Are American Jews subject to persecution? Is AIPAC weak? Is the current reality unique? Or have Jews had political/economic power for centuries?"

      American Jews have thankfully been free from persecution for a couple of generations, and we no longer must worry that the elevation of this or that leader might threaten our community. That reality is indeed quite unique in history; in most countries, Jewish success depended on who was in power. Franz Joseph? Not bad. Ferdinand and Isabella? Big problem. Czar Alexander II? OK. Czar Alexander III? Hide your kids.

      But you are reminding my people again that when some Jews do achieve some measure of success in countries with a non-Jewish majority, there will always be jealous bigots like you who crawl out of the woodwork to complain that it's too much, that Jews are acting as a group to destabilize your society, and so on.

    • And here we have that brand of anti-Zionism that denies Jews were actually ever persecuted in Europe because (?) Black slavery. Keith, you win the stupid straw man award.

      Also, ladies and gentlemen, it's bizarre to note that antisemitism before the Shoah had any relationship to the antisemitism that resulted in the Shoah. Anti-zionism, you see. Norman Finkelstein's book continues as the uncontested leader in cited worked on the Holocaust at Mondoweiss. Interesting.

    • KUTGW, Ossinev. There are close to 5 dozen Muslim countries and about 100 times the number of Muslims in the world as there are Jews. Just about every one of those states are more religiously Muslim in orientation than Israel is Jewish in orientation. So your comparison is silly.

    • Keith reminds us that antisemitic tropes about Jews in finance, characterized by the usual comments about Jews were prominent in finance, usually because they were banned from other trades. Did you get that quote from Rense, Keith? I notice they have it there.

      "The Eastern European converts to Judaism never lived in exile, and Jews never lived in submission"

      Here we go again with the peasants-had-it-worse so shut-up-and-don't-complain bullshit and the antisemitism-was-really-a-peasant-revolt bullshit, which is one step removed from Nazi-Holocaust-was-really-about-Jews-and-finance bullshit.

      As if Keith was trying to go for most garden-variety antisemite of the year, he manages to complain about Judeo-Bolshevism at the same time as he complains about Jews in finance. Sense the common thread yet? Maybe Keith could save himself some time by just posting a link to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in lieu of commenting, since his comments amount to the same thing.

      It's complete with a selective quote from Benjamin Ginzburg's book, which is not just a touchstone for antisemitic websites like Rense.com and the people who patronize them who wish to argue that Jews have too much power and that they were idenitified with 19th century excess, but an actual, in-depth history book about how Jewish communities were left with little choice but to become close to regimes, and how these often become the basis for antisemites like Keith to complain about Jewish power. But perhaps Keith should also pay attention to Jonathan Sarna's criticism of Ginzburg for confusing 19th century perceptions of Jews with the reality, which is that Jews experienced antisemitism whether they were allied with the state or not. He should also pay attention to the book itself, which is an analysis of antisemitism, and not the get-out-of-bigotry-free card that Keith seems to think that it is.

      The same goes for people who use outliers like Israel Shahak to say the things that they themselves know are antisemitic. It's amazing that with the thousands of books written by historians on Jewish history, that no one book seems to come up more here than the polemical one written by the atheist chemist.

    • "the solution to injustice is justice and accountability"

      Look, eljay, cut the sanctimonious act. No one would disagree that the solution to injustice is justice and accountability. It was also true in Poland in 1943. But there was no justice or accountability, and 91% of the Jewish population of Poland died. So I'm not in the business of asking persecuted people to continue to be persecuted because the solution to injustice is justice and accountability.

    • "I presume you mean states such as Spain, Italy and Ireland. While it is true that their populations are – actively or nominally – Catholic, this is not central to their development as states."

      Spain is a place where Catholic rulers expelled its Jewish population or forced them to convert. So you can't just wipe that away by talking about the modern nation-state. There's a reason these states are so religiously homogeneous. They tried to tamp everything else down. Italy put its Jews in ghettos.

      "I was born and brought up Catholic, and one of its more benevolent aspects is that anyone, anywhere, can be one. "

      You'll pardon me for saying that in Jewish history, Catholic conversion was not benevolent. It was often forced upon my people. One wonders how many Jews there would be Europe if Jewish communities in places like Spain if Jews hadn't been persecuted.

    • "There are religious Jews who believe that the ‘return’ to the ‘holy land’ of Zion must await the return of the Messiah. This idea has been generally accepted in Jewish culture for many centuries. But with the rise of Zionism, the nationalist vein of Judaism was lured to accommodate a man-made return. Rabbi Zvi Yehuda Kook, the founding father of the national-religious movement and spiritual leader of the religious settlement movement, advocated that man-made ‘return’ was not anathema to the arrival of the Messiah, but would rather hasten it."

      So what? The fact that there's a ongoing debate (which is mostly dead at this point) within the religious community about whether Jews should live in exile and submission until the return of the Messiah (be honest about what the whole position is), doesn't make Zionism a fundamentally secular idea any more than the ongoing (and much more relevant) debate within the United States over whether the United States should adhere to Christian values makes the Constitution a Christian document. That Israel is full of non-Zionist religious communities proves the point that other than with small, extremist sects like Neturei Karta, the argument is over what kind of government Israel should have, and not whether Jews should be living there.

      "So I perceive that separation to be semantic. The non-Zionist religious movement does not essentially oppose Zionism morally; for them it’s a timing question."

      Actually, that's inaccurate, and it undermines your entire case. Most non-Zionist religious Jews would say that they morally oppose Zionism precisely because it's a secular movement and because Israel has a secular government.

      "The belief in ‘return’ is more deeply rooted in ‘secular’ Zionism than one might think."

      Again, just because Ben-Gurion, who was a socialist and an atheist, used the Bible in this way, it does not mean that Zionism is a form of religion. Many Americans of the Revolutionary Era would have claimed the support of Providence. It doesn't make American democracy a form of Christianity.

      "The ‘return’ idea was a religious one, and it had to have its basis in the idea that the Jews are not merely people who share a faith, but also an ethnic heritage."

      And a cultural one, which is how secular Israelis think of the Jewish in Jewish state. The idea of return may have religious overtones. But in practice, it's an idea based on the persecution of Jews in Europe. The Law of Return isn't written to pattern the Bible. It's written to pattern the category of people of Jewish ancestry who were subjected to Nazi persecution.

      "One would essentially have to claim that they descended from the ancient Judeans. But such a claim is highly disputed scientifically, to put it mildly. Most Jews today are not even Semites (don’t originate from the Middle East), and the Zionists who colonized Palestine until 1948 were overwhelmingly European."

      It's far more accurate to say that they hailed from Europe, than to suggest that they were Europeans. Jews were the "other" in Europe for a millenia and more. So don't oversimplify the story. In any case, that's not a case for Zionism as a religion. It's also not a description of Israel today. In Israel today, Ashkenazim are a minority.

      "The inherently powerful aspect of religion is, that it transcends reason. And Zionism had to have this mystical aspect, rooted in Judaism itself, to persuade its constituency that this is a ‘special case’; to persuade that this is not just about religion, it is about survival as a nation."

      I think that centuries of European persecution, culminating in the Shoah, was what convinced people that Zionism was about national survival, rather than mythology, which characterizes every form of nationalism on Earth. It is wholly logical to devise a strategy to escape centuries of endemic persecution.

      "Secular Zionists would often refer to Jewish persecution as an indication that such a nation does indeed exist. But persecution of a group of people who share religious beliefs does not necessarily prove they are a nation."

      The argument that Jews are a national grouping is about much more than a history of persecution, and predates the 19th century, and I'm sure you know that.

      "So Zionism created the ‘Jewish State’. One could rightfully ask the simple question, how on earth could a state be ‘secular’ when by its very definition it is religious?"

      Because, Judaism is a civilization that encompasses a nation, a culture, and a religion. Is the concept really so hard to understand? Roman-Catholicism is largely the same. So is Islam. In the Roman-Catholic case, we have overwhelmingly Catholic societies in Europe today that are essentially secular states. If you're argument is consistent, they remain religious states, despite the secularization. In the Middle East, Islam is the state religion of a number of states. It's a more open question whether these states are Islamic; some are much closer to pure theocracies. But the term "Islamic state" also connotes a culture and in the thinking of many Muslims, a supranational idea.

    • My bad. I never hit the post button.

    • Maybe Mooser should follow his own advice and get his own site. He posts far more than I do, with far less substance.

    • So I guess that the talk of Providence and G-d by early Americans makes American nationalism a religion. Silly argument, Tzvia.

    • Submitted an extended response to this. Why isn't up here?

      Argument is silly for all sorts of reasons. By this logic, every nationalism is a religion.

  • Attachment to Israel is 'central part of Jewish identity,' Forward editor says
    • "Oh for Heaven’s sake, Phil, you know all too well that Forward is a Zionist publication–always has been: Always Israel, right or wrong! "

      You're clueless. The Forward is well over one hundred years old; it began in 1897 as a socialist newspaper. It has never taken an Israel right or wrong editorial stance, and anyone who has read it recently knows that it prints pro-BDS pieces today.

    • "But how often do we hear what would surely be an equally valid argument that espousing pro-Zionism on campus could be unsettling or irritating to those with Christian or Moslem beliefs, or those with Palestinian or Arab backgrounds, or those of no specific faith who espouse justice and peace in the world?"

      Actually, that's exactly how one of the pro-BDS arguments went at Vassar - passing a BDS resolution was seen as a way of recognizing the concerns of "marginalized Muslims" on campus.

      But, of course, the analogy is complete BS. There are 14 million Jews, and Israel is the only Jewish state and home to the world's largest Jewish population. Israel is in one of the world's most unstable and undemocratic regions, a region rife with human rights violations. Jews have a perfect right to question the intentions of anti-Zionists who obsess over Israel as a Jewish state, but have little to say about the murder, violence, misogyny, homophobia, and genocide that characterize the rest of the Middle East, which happens to be comprised of religious Muslim states.

    • "so how is that defined by religion vs politics? while it can be argued Hillel is a religious organization since it has a zionist (political) benchmark for collaboration and co sponsorship once cannot assume opposition to the group is based on their religious beliefs."

      And again, the question is whether you apply this standard to other religious student groups; every religious student group, particularly if we're talking about their national parent organization, takes political positions. And no, this is not the equivalent of a KKK event on campus, because in this case, we're not talking about the substance of the event, but about the sponsors. Is it religious discrimination to prevail on a speaker to reject MSA co-sponsorship because the position of national parent organizations on Middle East dictators, Palestine, etc? Or is that a form of religious bigotry? I bet anything that if that happened, students at Brown would claim that it's religious bigotry.

    • "Hillel is a rigidly pro-Israel organization that censors critical voices."

      Neither part of that statement is true; Hillel is not "rigidly pro-Israel" and it does not "censor critical voices." There are voices critical of Israel appearing at Hillels all the time, including Breaking the Silence. Hillel has never censored anyone. It has simply taken the position that it will not pay for voices representing the BDS movement. It has not taken the position that such voices should not appear at all, which is in distinction to the BDS movement, which censors Zionist voices and attempts to keep other students from hearing them.

      "Hillel is a fierce supporter of Israel, and if groups urge speakers not to endorse the organization on that basis, it’s understandable"

      So, of course, the question arises (and without conceding your contention that Hillel is a "fierce supporter" of Israel: do you apply this standard to any other religious group? If someone prevails on a lecturer who is speaking about Mother Theresa and is supported by the campus chapter of Catholic Fellowship not to come become the Catholic Church is a rigid opponent of a women's right to choose and of gay rights, is that "understandable?" How about if the campus MSA sponsors a speaker on halal? Is it ok to lobby that speaker not to come because the national MSA takes a pro-Hamas political position?

  • Here are 6 incidents of Islamophobia on campus in the last week
    • Zaid's comment should be deleted. He cites two stories, one from almost 10 years ago. There have been nemesis swastikas incidents targeting Jews. These two stories are the exception that proves the rule. It's utterly offensive to suggest that Jews are drawing all of these swastikas themselves, but sadly, totally predictable here.

    • Any evidence to support this premise, Eva? Didn't think so. Maybe you should focus on your own country's anti-Semitism problem.

  • Iceland proves corruption is far from extinct in the Global North
    • The banks were deregulated and became very highly leveraged, and there was a credit crunch. The banking industry is a very big part of the Icelandic economy, so Iceland was hit very hard by the worldwide recession. There was certainly a share of corruption involved, as there always is in the incestuous financial services industry, but that's hardly the whole story.

      For left-wingers who wish that the US had let the banks fail and prosecuted more bad actors, Iceland is an example. Iceland's actually let the banks fail, which went against conventional wisdom, and actually put 20 people in jail, and the country bounced back very quickly.

      In any case, overall, this is not a corrupt society (Transparency International is one of the most reputable NGO's in the world), and the corruption issues it faces are in no way comparable to the complete corruption that some countries in the global South experience, which has helped contribute to overwhelming poverty and danger in those countries.

    • Obviously. That's my point. To compare the corruption in Iceland (which is not at all corrupt), and places like the DRC, which is almost completely so, is really silly.

    • LOL. Another reason why you can't trust BDSers who proclaim themselves for international law and human rights. This guy "just" is celebrating Putin and Assad, two war criminals who have together killed hundreds of thousands of people.

      Yeah, yeah, that's why someone leaked the Panama Papers. It was all a plot to get back at Putin and Assad. Because before now, nobody had any clue that Putin was corrupt.

    • "But for some years now, many in the Icelandic elite have turned out to be just as greedy and dishonest as their criminal counterparts in Mexico or the Democratic Republic of Congo."

      Transparency International measures corruption by country. The DRC is 147 of the 168 countries ranked and scores a 22. Mexico is 95th and scores a 35. Iceland is 13th and scores a 79. There is certainly corruption in the West, but until we are paying militiamen bribes to travel from town to town, or have entire municipalities run by drug lords, as is the case in Mexico, comparisons like these are unhelpful.

      I'll grant you that by Scandinavian standards, Iceland is a cesspool of corruption. Denmark, Finland, and Sweden are 1, 2, and 3 in the world, and Norway is 5th.

  • Sanders walks free of the shadows of anti-Communism, Zionism and materialism
    • Again, it's reductive to look at these things as binaries, as if there was some stark choice for Jews in the 1950's between socialism and Zionism. It's particularly silly when one considers that the Israel Jews supported in the 1950's and 1960's was a socialist state whose most well-known feature was its small agrarian communes.

      Myerson's piece is just one inaccuracy after another. Al Shankar, the leader of the 1968 teachers' strike, marched on Washington and at Selma, and also had Bayard Rustin's support. Bernie Sanders is a Zionist, not a non-Zionist.

  • For first time, Hamas publishes photographs of captive Israelis
  • Shocker: 'NYT' forum on anti-Zionism tilts toward equating Zionism with racism
    • It's not a concession of the facts of your argument. It's an exposing the hypocrisy of your argument and the peculiarity of your priorities, which reflect a less-than honorable purpose.

    • Shlomo Sand isn't an historian; he's a polemicist, so maybe you shouldn't rely on him for historical knowledge. It is certainly the case that Jews have made pilgrimage to the Land of Israel for many hundreds of years.

    • Except that anti-Zionism is not a principled anti-racism position because the conflict isn't a racial conflict, anti-Zionists do not condemn racism anywhere in the Middle East, and the fact that at a time when Iraqi Christians are being subjected to a genocide, and hundreds of thousands are dying in Syria, anti-Zionists are focused on Israel suggests that anti-racism is not what motivates anti-Zionists at all; what motivates them is support for a nationalist cause, and sometimes simple rejection of Jewish nationalism in the Middle East for the crime of being neither Muslim or Arab.

  • 'Zionism is nationalism, not Judaism,' a former Hebrew school teacher explains
    • Money doesn't have a religion. I've never seen anyone here refer to "Muslim money".

      You're using anti-Semitic language, and it is in no way ad hominem to point that out. I'm sorry if you're unable or unwilling to accept your biases.

    • For Keith, there's such a thing as "Jewish money", apparently, and he has an issue with it.

      How long is this bigot going to be permitted to stay here?

    • "Who cares how many Jews are billionaires"

      Apparently, Keith does, and he's not the only one here who does.

      " .Best of luck to them.What we care about is those billionaires , (Saban and Adelson , for instance ) ,who use their wealth to

      A, Interfere in the affairs of sovereign nations , by attempting to bribe their leaders ( often in opposition to the wishes of their citizens ) to support the crimes of Israel ."

      To bribe who? You mean, they lobby for a cause that they believe in like, oh, EVERYONE ELSE IN AMERICA?

      This you call "Interfering in the affairs of sovereign nations." Hey, Amigo! Guess what? Both are American citizens. So they're not interfering in anybody's affairs. They're lobbying their government, which they have a perfect constitutional right to do. Your language about "interfering in the affairs of sovereign nations" is antisemitic hate speech meant to cast them not as Americans doing what they believe is right, but as Jewish fifth columnists attempting to consciously undermine the United States for not doing their bidding. I guess you'd say that Muslim-Americans who lobby Congress to support investigations into Egyptian war crimes are also interfering in the affairs of sovereign nations. What a bigot you are.

      "B, To pay for birthright trips for neophyte Congress ?Senate critters with the goal of brainwashing them and ensuring they start their careers as servants of Israel instead of those who elected them."

      Guess what, Amigo? No one is required to go on an AICE trip (where, by the way, members of Congress will hear from both Israelis and Palestinians). You're more than welcome to organize trips to the West Bank and Gaza for the same group of people.

      "C, Support the construction of illegal squats on land stolen from Palestinians."

      Haim Saban is supporting settlement construction? In any event, Americans support all kinds of causes. Some I agree with, some I don't. But I don't question people's patriotism over it.

      There,s lots more , but you get the idea which is not the point of this post.It is offered as food for thought for those readers who might be fooled by your attempts to raise the specter of antisemitism where none exists."

    • "It always amazes me the extent to which you Zionists tirelessly search for examples of anti-Semitism. Once again I find myself compared to someone I never heard of. I gather that you have read him rather extensively. Actually, you seem quite obsessed with searching for the faintest hints of what you falsely claim is anti-Semitism. You wear your anti-Gentile chauvinism on your sleeve, Hophmi."

      I imagine you're amazed on a regular basis, especially since you talk a lot about antisemitism but don't even know who the progenitor of the term is. Marr defined anti-semitism as being against the influence of Jewish culture on European, and particularly German, society. You're worried about the influence of Jews on American society. That's why you obsess over how much money Jews have, how many are billionaires, etc.

Showing comments 7932 - 7901
Page: