Trending Topics:

Commenter Profile

Searching for: Phil (296 results found)

You can also use % as a wildcard: %ondoweis% will match mondoweiss

Showing comments 296 - 201

  • Joyless in Zion
  • By wrecking Iran deal, Trump politicized Israel
  • Flynn's plea on Russian influence reveals... Israel's influence!
    • Predicably antisemitic response from Phil.

      Of course, nearly 2/3 of Americans did not support UN Resolution 2334. So if Jared Kushner is dually loyal, then I guess most of America deserves the same charge. But you're only bringing it out for Kushner because he's Jewish. #antisemitism #stopBDSantisemitism

  • Israel has more legitimacy than US because the bible mentions Jerusalem, not New York -- says David Harris
    • So I'm assuming that you agree with this argument, Phil. The point is that people living in comfort in the West and in the Arab Middle East criticize Israel from a place of privilege and comfort and as a way to avoid criticism of their own societies.

  • Bret Stephens equates anti-Zionists with white nationalists in the 'New York Times'
    • According to Phil, they don't even have the right to hold powerful positions in American society unless they're willing to put up with antisemitic attitudes like his.

  • 'A blot on Judaism, Jewish history and ethics' -- British Jews regret the Balfour Declaration
  • Support for Israel is tumbling-- even among young Orthodox Jews
    • There's a lot of unpacking to do with a survey like this, because there is almost nothing examining the Modern Orthodox community in any detail. Most surveys tend to lump Orthodoxy into one basket, and they ignore the major differences between more fervently orthodox Jews and Modern Orthodox Jews.

      In any case, the engagement level is still quite high. As far as active support, I'd like to see what that means. The 55 and older generation is the generation of the 1967 and 1973 wars and also the generation with the most time on its hands. It's natural that it would have a higher rate of active support than a younger MO population that not only has less to be directly active about, but also has no time, because many are working as professionals of one kind or another, and because, unlike their parents, they're making aliyah in significant numbers.

      The big thing Phil (and many others) are missing is that while there may be lower levels of active support amongst younger American MO Jews, there are also many, many more MO Jews than ever before making aliyah both for ideological reasons and especially because of the prohibitively high price of day school education. That has had the effect of cutting a substantial part of the heart out of American Modern Orthodoxy.

      As far as OTD, the numbers overall are pretty stable and the definition of what OTD is isn't clear.

  • Dershowitz and Chomsky agree on one thing
  • Head of American Jewish Committee is Israel's 'Foreign Minister,' said Netanyahu minister
    • Another antisemitic post by Phil Weiss, who continues to conflate lobbying for a strong US-Israel relationship with working for the Israeli government.

      Does Phil also want Trita Parsi to register as a foreign agent of Iran, and for Ibrahim Hooper to register as a foreign agent of Saudi Arabia?

  • Through 'severe pressure,' U.S. can impose a two-state solution on Israel -- Nathan Thrall
  • Trump may want a deal, but Israeli Jews are not interested
    • And then, Phil Weiss was humbled as he realized that not being Israeli, and being from a country that just put Donald Trump in office, even though it faced no comparable threat, he had no right to judge the people who actually lived there.

      He also admitted that Palestinians in East Jerusalem certainly do have the right to be citizens of Israel and to vote, but that they refuse to exercise those rights, and then cynically complain about inequality in the city.

  • Editor is fired then reinstated after he refuses to cut Sarah Schulman's paragraph on Palestine solidarity
    • Typical BS from Sarah Schulman. SJP is anti-free speech. It supports excluding all who do not agree with them on Israel, and it attempts to bully student government into supporting unpopular resolutions on campus by threatening to libel student leaders as racist if they do not support them.

      But of course, Phil is right about one thing - anti-Jewish activism has enriched her career, as it often does today in the academy.

  • AIPAC underwrote Islamophobia in the Republican Party, and the Democratic Party too
    • This is the same reasoning used by certain groups to depict Muslim charities who give to Gaza relief as terrorist. Except it's weaker here. I guess you believe that one too, Phil.

  • The immaculate conception of Louis Brandeis
    • How is Phil convincing? In what way? This theory is not well-supported, either by Shapiro or by the scholarly community. It involves doing what Phil always does - attributing a ridiculous amount of power to rich Jews out of all proportion with facts or reality.

  • Hell just froze over: the New York Times runs an article saying Zionism is racist
    • "“Hophmi” do you think “Yoni” will “fall away” like Phil Weiss?"

      Fall away? He renounced his Judaism. He hates the religion. He's been quite clear about that. There's nothing for him to fall away from.

      “Hophmi” wouldn’t it be less effort, and achieve the same result, if you simply used the “fall away” comment, (which you have never bettered, it was a masterpiece!) and plugged in new names, as required? Instead of writing essentially the same comment over and over."

      Phil is a lot more interesting to me than Yoni is, but Yoni fits into a certain pattern of Jews who completely broke with their faith, and treat it much like ex-smokers treat cigarettes - with extreme loathing (I would say self-loathing). Every minority group contain folks like this; they're people who internalize the bigotry directed toward them and regurgitate it toward their own. What's more interesting is the reaction of other Mondoweissers toward Yoni. Predictably, it's the same acceptance that BDS proponents show toward other overt antisemites like him. Uncritical acceptance.

      “He’s, of course, neither a scholar of religion or a scholar of genetics”

      "You are right , and he’s never claimed to be those things. He is, however, a well educated person who grew up in Israel, participated in Zionist life, and knows the score."

      Well, there are certainly many books by, you know, geneticists and scholars of religion, on these topics, so it's interesting to me that none of you seem to have time to look at them, but endless time to quote political extremists with no demonstrated expertise in the fields that they're writing about.

  • 'Atlantic' editor says that Israel's 1948 expulsion of Palestinians was not 'a tragedy'
    • Phil is against Jewish education and criticizes Jews for marrying other Jews. That's someone who has a problem with Judaism, not Zionism.

  • Clinton to drop Israel from 'public' speeches, put it back in 'with donors' -- email
    • Your gloating is unbecoming, Phil. Dem activists aren't the majority of the parties. Like GOP "activists," who are in the tank for Trump, Dem activists are just as likely to be ill-informed, shrill, and incapable of reaching independents.

      And Robby Mook, who has run a poor campaign in which it took him until October to place distance between Clinton and the worst GOP candidate in modern history, is wrong here. Most Democrats are pro-Israel, including those who oppose the occupation.

  • Sanders-backed candidate in FL says Wasserman Schultz won't 'protect' Israel
    • "Law professor Tim Canova, a 56-year-old Jew "

      Again referring to the religion of the candidate, and this time, it's not accurate. You're a pretty weak journalist, Phil, and a pretty weak human being too.

  • Jewish organizations' response to Black Lives Matter platform demonstrates inability to engage with reality in Israel
  • Clintonites on message: Vote for Trump, and you get Putin
    • Another Mondoweissers supports an "America First" policy without any sense of irony. See what you're creating here, Phil?

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

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

  • 'NYT' editors twist themselves into knots not to say the word 'Jewish'
    • Apparently, Phil is content to let the white supremacists answer for him.

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

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

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

  • As Dems vote against Palestine, Cornel West warns it is the 'Vietnam War' of our time
    • "No, it’s the moral response to the moral outrage that is the creation of the Zionist state, one of the great crimes of the 20th Century. "

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Democratic Party leadership lines up against BDS -- and the 'nuts' who support it
    • Read the article. No support for Phil's claim in it.

    • "and it’s anti semitic to report ““Rep. Israel said that he didn’t vote against the Iran deal last year for political reasons, but because he’s Jewish” ?"

      Well, first of all, that's NOT WHAT HE SAID. He said that it was in his DNA, not that he voted against the JCPOA because he's Jewish.

      "no one is required to run around interviewing christian or muslim legislators for counter opinions to deflect from possible future charges of anti semitism. "

      This site has made dual loyalty-type accusations about Jewish members of Congress dozens of times. It is the kind of thing that is only ever directed at a minority group. No one asks whether white legislators vote a certain way because they're white, but people ask this about African-American legislators all the time, particularly when it's on an issue of importance to the African-American community. No one ever asks whether Southern Baptist members of Congress vote the way that they do because they're Southern Baptists, but if a Congressperson is a Jew, and he votes a certain way on an issue of concern to the Jewish community, it must be because he's Jewish. And of course, if he suggests that he was motivated in any way by religion, bigots seize on that to suggest that Jews put their own before everyone else. It's pretty classic antisemitism.

      "before jumping for top comment, which we understand is a priority for you (and trolls in general), try opening the embeds and reading the context regarding what you’re opining on"

      You must be kidding. Phil is basing his conclusion on Jacob Kornbluh's tweet. There's no transcript that I know of, and the webcast isn't up yet. So it's beyond ironic that you're telling ME that I should "read the context" of what I'm opining on. How about you people wait a hot second for the transcript or the webcast before you (predictably) suggest that Steve Israel's Jewishness is the main reason that he voted against the JCPOA?

      What makes you look like a bigger idiot is that I was actually there, so I can tell you that that's not the impression that Steve Israel gave.

      "Out of my DNA" is not quite the same thing as saying "because I'm Jewish." It can mean a lot of things. It can be "in your DNA" not to vote for agreements with countries you deem hostile to the United States.

      Israel said one of his main reasons for voting against the deal was that it didn't address Iran's ballistic missile stockpile. He didn't just say that it was because of his DNA, and he certainly didn't say: "I voted against the JCPOA because I'm Jewish."

      There should be a webcast of his speech up in a day or so, so we can check to see exactly what he said in context. As usual, the notion that Israel's Jewishness is the main reason that he voted the way that he did is deeply antisemitic, and it's the kind of thing that you'd never analyze for any of the hundreds of non-Jewish members of Congress of both parties that voted against the JCPOA, and frankly, Annie, you damn well know it.

      As I said, many non-Jewish members of Congress voted against the JCPOA. I'm not aware of any effort made by this site to ascertain whether their religion was the reason that they voted the way that they did. As I've said many times, examining whether members of minority groups took certain policy positions because they were members of those groups has a long and sordid history in the United States, and the practice is per se bigotry as far as I'm concerned.

  • Top donor to Clinton super PAC is Haim Saban
    • It's amazing, really, how Phil repeats white supremacist agitprop about George Soros. Another sign that the BDS movement has a serious anti-Semitism problem.

  • 'Her absurd generals, her military junk' -- Daniel Berrigan's prophetic speech on Israel in '73
    • "Hophmi, how little you understand as you vilify one of our greatest human rights activists. "

      How willing you are to lionize a person who claimed that Arabs have a "capacity for deception."

      "please post the context of the quote if you’re using it to substantiate an allegation of racism."

      Are you incapable of opening the link that Phil provided to the NY Times coverage of Berrigan's speech? It's right in there.

  • '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 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.

    • "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.

  • Sanders hires a Jewish critic of Israel, as Clinton gets 'Daily News' nod as 'warrior realist'
    • 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.

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

  • 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.

  • 'Zionism is nationalism, not Judaism,' a former Hebrew school teacher explains
    • No, Jewish organizations do not compile stats on how many Jewish billionaires there are. We leave that to the KKK.

      "Now one can debate whether this represents a problem and what, if anything should be done about it, but I think that disproportionate influence in the intelligentsia and the entire doctrinal system is something which we should be aware of and be able to discuss."

      Says you and Wilhelm Marr. Entire doctrinal system? Right, because Jews aren't just 25% of McGill. They're the Jewish 25%, and they act collectively, and use their influence collectively. They have big meetings where they discuss how they're going to influence the doctrinal system.

      This is the kind of overt antisemitic thinking that the BDS movement needs to reject. And unfortunately, Phil not only rejects it; he enables it.

  • Pushed by alumni claiming anti-Semitism, Vassar officials oppose BDS and promote 'Israel-positive' programs
    • First of all, Phil, it's not right-wing alumni pushing Vassar to change. Vassar has exceedingly few right-wing alums, as in, next to none. It is people who are tired of hearing about Vassar students getting harassed on campus over their views on Israel. The BDS vote at Vassar was an ugly scene. The BDS kids were laughing as Jewish students spoke about antisemitism that they had experienced on campus and about the pain the entire situation was causing the Jewish community at Vassar.

      You're being a bit silly, Phil. Vassar is one of the most secular campuses in the country. I would have thought that you would support the campus's presentation of Jewish life as cultural and religious, rather than as tied to Israel. The only reason one would be disturbed by the presence of Jewish cultural life at a place like Vassar would be . . . well, I'm not going to say it.

  • As Trump takes on the neocons, Kristol likens him to Hitler
    • "Oh, hophmi, give it a rest with the cheesy conflation of Phil with David Duke."

      Why? Their views on Jews in America are nearly identical. They even use a lot of the same language.

      "And “Pat Buchanan, Phil’s old boss?” Where and when?"

      Phil used to write for The American Conservative, which was founded by Buchanan.

    • It's clearly what he's talking about, Annie. But go ahead, play dumb, and act like this is only post that this site has ever written on this issue. Pat Buchanan, Phil's old boss, used to play the same game. It's no surprise that David Duke and Phil Weiss have positive things to say about Donald Trump.

  • US writer Kristian Davis Bailey is racially profiled, arrested, strip-searched, detained, silenced, traumatized on trip to Palestine
    • "so what you mean is even had bailey not been racially profiled before arriving at the Israeli terminal he would have gotten the same treatment once they figured out he was an activist anyway?"

      I don't see any evidence here that his treatment had anything to do with his race.

      " if that’s the case why weren’t adam and phil profiled when they entered?"

      Were border guards on the lookout for drug dealers when Adam and Phil crossed? The Israelis don't give everyone a hard time, and everyone they do give a hard time to is not a person of color. Look, just admit that it's important for your propaganda to play up stories of people of color who have trouble in Israel so that you can sell BDS to people of color in the US. I get it. You don't have to be sanctimonious about it. Racializing the conflict in the Middle East is super-important for BDS Central.

      "both easily identified as bds activist had anyone bothered to do a minimum amount of research?"

      So you've learned a valuable lesson. The Israelis don't deport every BDS activist, and they're not looking to deport every BDS activist. When they do deport BDS activists or give them a hard time (which they have to activists who are white and Jewish, as you've reported on this site) there is usually a reason. Occam's Razor.

      I wonder if Kristian Davis Bailey is planning to visit Burundi. Bailey could really raise awareness of the possible genocide that could take place in Burundi if the world doesn't wake up. But I guess, like always, Palestine is the world's most important issue, and there aren't a lot of Jews in Burundi.

  • Nobody cares that Bernie Sanders is Jewish
  • 'New York Times' picks up Bernie Sanders's 'socialist' kibbutz but leaves out the ethnic cleansing
    • Just nonsense. This is land that was legally purchased. There's nothing "Palestinian" about it. I wonder, Phil, whether it's necessary to include in all profiles about you, that you live on Native American land in Westchester.

  • Israel and its lobby lose the Iran Deal all over again, in news of damning wiretaps
    • Ask Phil what a patriotic American is. He's the one who shamefully implied that American Jews who support Israel are unpatriotic.

      Yes, like every other nation on earth, Israel has supported some bad regimes. Name a country that hasn't.

  • Trump's claim of 9/11 celebration in New Jersey is based on arrest of 5 'laughing' Israelis
  • 'Jewish Communal Fund' seeds Islamophobia as toxic as Trump's
    • "It’s nice to see you actually present a counter argument. However, you haven’t actually shown a fault with the logic. Rather, you are attacking my first premise"

      Your assumption is wrong, so your argument is irrelevant.

      "If it is true, is it still anti-Semitic? And if it is both true and anti-Semitic, does that mean that some truths should be suppressed?"

      It isn't true, remotely. The United States is a country of 320,000,000 people. Around 5-6 million are Jews. When the United States chose to go to war with Iraq, the President was a Protestant and so was the Vice-President and Secretary of Defense. It is illogical to suggest that Jews were the ones who caused the war to take place, as Phil has done repeatedly. It's antisemitic because it asserts both that Jews act collectively as a fifth column to undermine the United States, which is, of course, untrue.

      "Same question."

      Same answer. It's untrue, and frankly, the vast majority of rational people don't need to go through this game to understand that.

      "But we are supposed to pretend there are 1.5 billion Jews and 15 million Muslims? Why would anybody do that?"

      Is it too challenging for you, Mooser? I think it's a fairly simple thought experiment. If Jews represented 1.5 billion people and 57 countries at the United Nations, rather 15 million people and 1 country, I don't think that there would be an international campaign to target Israel.

    • As usual, logical arguments fall apart when they're based on faulty assumptions as yours is, RoHa, and as Phil's is.

      Here's what Phil wrote:

      "Geller is pro-Israel. The JCF is also pro-Israel. That’s why Clifton’s report is so meaningful to me. Defining the Jewish community as pro-Israel was the great project of Zionists in the years following the Biltmore program of 1942 and leading up to the Yom Kippur War in 1973, by which time the American Jewish community was wholly identified with support for Israel. Israel needed us; and we became one! as propagandists exclaimed. In fact, the Jewish community lost other broad bases of Jewish identification outside of Israel; it became completely Zionist– which is why members of that community assert with sincerity that anti-Zionists are anti-Semites.

      Let's break it down.

      "Geller is pro-Israel. The JCF is also pro-Israel. "

      That's the logical equivalent of saying that the sky is blue, and a racquet ball is blue, so they must be the same thing, since both are blue.

      "Defining the Jewish community as pro-Israel was the great project of Zionists in the years following the Biltmore program of 1942 and leading up to the Yom Kippur War in 1973, by which time the American Jewish community was wholly identified with support for Israel"

      It's amazing the way Phil always omits history when he makes statements like this one. The main achievement of the Biltmore program was to marshall support in the Jewish community for the establishment of a Jewish state. Zionists didn't have to work hard to get Jews to understand the importance of a Jewish state post-Holocaust and especially post-1967 War.

      "In fact, the Jewish community lost other broad bases of Jewish identification outside of Israel; it became completely Zionist"

      That statement is silly. The most ardent supporters of Israel today are Modern Orthodox Jews. Their base of Jewish identification is based around common practice, as are most religious Jews, which is the fastest growing sector of the Jewish community. Their Jewish identification incorporates Israel, but is not based exclusively or even mostly on it.

      "which is why members of that community assert with sincerity that anti-Zionists are anti-Semites."

      The reason why so many members of the Jewish community assert that anti-Zionists are anti-Semites is because so many of them seem to be anti-semites. Phil himself repeatedly blames Jews for starting the Iraq War and speculates that there are too many Jews in powerful political positions in the United States. Antisemitic canards, which for decades weren't heard outside of the far-right, like referring to the US Congress as "Zionist occupied," are common in the anti-Zionist community. Holocaust denial is common among anti-Zionists, I've seen people cite the Rense cite more than once.

      Then, of course, there's the structural antisemitism inherent in anti-Zionism - the obsessive targeting of the world's only Jewish state, and the concurrent silence by comparison from anti-Zionists about nearly every other human rights abuse in the region, the truth that if there were 15 million Muslims and 1.5 billion Jews, we probably wouldn't hear much about a Jewish state, because there would be dozens of them, rather than one, etc.

      So save your self-referential nonsense, RoHa. Your argument is not remotely logical or clever.

  • I went from Bar Mitzvah to BDS at Temple Emanu-el
    • "So what poor old Phil is actually all about is secretly trying to achieve “secular universalism” – God I have heard some bullshit terms in my life but this really takes the biscuit."

      Why? Do you need it explained to you? Phil's written about how he views his Judaism at great length.

      "So his condemnation of apartheid in Israel,the cold blooded slaughter of hundreds of innocent Palestinian children in Gaza, the extra judicial killings at checkpoints , the burning alive of Palestinians , the 3.00 am raiding and trashing of Palestinian homes , the detention without trial of Palestinian teenagers – all that is just a front for his secret drive for “secular universalism”."

      No, I think his calls for an end to Jewish day school education and an end to circumcision, and his conspiracy theories about powerful Jews, which echo antisemitic tropes, all of which is amplified by the readership here, all point to his preference for secularism over Judaism, and his preference that Judaism disappear through assimilation.

    • "please explain. how is association w/ flick misogynistic?"

      It's a way of smearing confident, ambitious women. No one would ever say something like this about an ambitious male.

      I've seen Lauren Rogers speak. There's nothing ruthless or desperate about her; she . Rob was clearly intimidated by her.

      "and you’re familiar with “most of them” how?"

      I've had enough experience with them both here and in my work on campus to know that political savvy is not a term I'd use to describe them. They're OK with coalition building on campus; building activist coalitions on campus is like shooting fish in a barrel. But they have no clue about life outside of the college bubble.

      "The vast majority of the Jews involved with the BDS movement have little to no Jewish education whatsoever"

      You can go over the Pew study. There's a direct correlation between Jewish educational attainment and attachment to Israel and to Jewish institutions. But it's really just common sense, Annie. People who have a connection to their fellow Jews and see themselves as a part of a Jewish community don't launch boycotts of the world's largest Jewish community. That's not to say that there aren't Jews in the BDS movement with Jewish educational backgrounds; there certainly are. But they're a small minority. Most are like Phil - they don't particularly like religion, and they're uncomfortable with Jewish identity insofar as it suggests something other than the secular universalism to which they aspire, and fighting against the idea of a Jewish state is part of that struggle.

  • Goldberg says the root of the conflict is the Palestinians' anti-Jewish 'narrative'
    • Also, Zionists are ruining peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.

      Seriously, Phil, is there any problem for which you won't blame Zionism in your campaign to demonize Israel and your fellow Jews?

  • Adelson will mold Rubio into 'perfect little puppet' -- Trump
  • Anti-WASP tropes in the 'NYT'
    • Lol, brother, please. This is more nonsense; Phil saw a Jewish name in the byline and drew aa ridiculous conclusion for which he provide zero evidence.

  • It was heroic to throw a brick at Stonewall but Palestinians who throw stones can be shot
    • Why is it different? Because Palestinian stone throwing actually kills and maims people. The Palestinians at Al-Aqsa have a long history of throwing stones at the worshippers below, well before there were any checkpoints or restrictions on who could pray at Al-Aqsa. In the West Bank, it's killed families driving on the roads.

      If you don't believe me, Phil, stand at a 20 foot distance and have a Palestinian slingshot a stone at your head, and let me know if you still have all of your senses after the stone hits you. Or stand at the Wailing Wall and experience stone throwing from a few dozen feet above. Generally, when people drop large, heavy objects on the heads of crowds below, people get injured.

      Since you're critical of the Israeli response, you would certainly be critical of the American response. In the United States, if someone throws a stone with the intent to kill, as many Palestinians have done, it's a lot more than 4 years in prison. And if they throw stones at police officers, and they don't stop throwing them when they're told to stop, what do you think will happen here?

  • Pro-Israel Jews have 'inexcusable prejudice' against Obama -- Sandy Berger
    • Well Mooser, it's a fact that Berger wasn't referring to Jews only when he talked about right-wingers. My statement is an opinion. You can disagree with it. As for Phil's take on Berger, it's a blatant mischaracterization.

    • Still waiting for Phil's correction vis-a-vis his mistaken definition of Berger's comment as referring to Jews.

  • U.S. is even more implicated in Israeli settlement project than we thought
    • I'd like to see the breakdown in her numbers in terms of which settlements Americans are going to.

      As far as American settlers coming from an idealist left-wing background: that may have been true a generation ago, but it's hard for me to believe that that remains the case. Most of the people I know who are making aliyah from the United States today are Modern Orthodox. They usually make aliyah either at the end of high school or college, or they are make aliyah when they are young families. Single people often go to West Jerusalem neighborhoods, and they span the political spectrum; I know a few who are left-wing social activists. As far as the young families, while there is an ideological bent to their aliyah, they tend to be motivated more by the high cost of living in the United States, especially by day school tuition. Many of them are moving to places like Modi'in. Meirav Zonszein complained about these American aliyot; American aliyot have helped to make the cost of living in Israel unaffordable for many Israelis.

      If Phil Weiss wanted to reduce the flow of young American orthodox Jews to Israel, he'd propose a workable education plan; day school tuition today is probably the biggest motivator of aliyah among young Modern Orthodox families. And no, calling for people to assimilate isn't going to cut it.

  • It's not bigoted to call out the Israel lobby over Iran Deal
    • I mean, it's also completely beside the point. Defining the advocacy of a strong US-Israel relationship as dual loyalty is itself antisemitic. But you're welcome to read Schumer's long defense of his position, and point out to me where the parts are where he says that he cares more about Israel than he does the United States.

      It is an old American bigot's game to ascribe dual loyalty positions to people of minority ethnicities, religions, races, or nationalities. It's something you expect from KKK members, not self-styled human rights activists and not from radical leftists. But politics has come full circle. The radical left and the radical right are in league on this one. And Phil Weiss, a radical leftist who used to work for Pat Buchanan, a radical rightist, is the embodiment of that evil alliance.

  • AIPAC taking all but 3 freshmen Congresspeople to Israel in effort to sabotage Iran deal
    • "You think a trip from behind the tinted glass of a first class air conditioned motor coach thru beautified little islands of Palestine really put one in touch . . ."

      The claim was made that Israel would never allow a sponsored trip to the West Bank. That claim was incorrect. I surmise that it's a surprise to people here that the AIEF trip includes a trip to Ramallah and Bethlehem and meeting with Palestinian leaders.

      You know, members of Congress are not stupid, and neither is AIEF. Both understand that there's a conflict in the region, and that the Palestinians are one party to that conflict. It would be stupid to present Israel as perfect or as a place where everything is hunky dory for Palestinians.

      You might just take a moment to consider that like most people who visit Israel, these folks walk away with a better understanding of the country and the people. Doubtless, some of the impression that they get will be negative. But overwhelmingly, it will be positive, because the sum total of the country is not the cartoon Phil Weiss or any of the rest of you present.

      Part of the problem with all of you is that you're so hateful, that you have trouble understand how anyone could have a positive opinion of what you hate. It's a classic logic trap that bigots fall into. Because you have trouble understanding what most understand, you have trouble understanding why your message barely penetrates mainstream society, and why, even when it does, the target of your hate continues to thrive. Your views have their analogue among extreme Zionists. But they're not shared by most people.

  • Pelosi says Iran deal has the votes, and Podhoretz urges Israel to attack Iran
    • Because the end all and be all of supporting Israel is opposing the Iran deal. So to make his argument, Phil will find common cause with hard right-wingers, whom he detests. So Phil must believe that Iran aims to destroy Israel as they do.

  • 'NYT' must think it has no Amish readers
    • "but, as it turns out, a reader wrote in and it seems they were offended by what they read."

      Good. It WAS offensive. I don't recall denying that it was. I recall calling bollocks on the idea that there was something especially unusual about Amish jokes. You apparently were shocked by them. Perhaps it's because you're in California; since most Amish live in Pennsylvania, and it's a tourist destination, it's common for people on the East Coast to travel there.

      "but it doesn’t take much to send you into high gear. you remind me of a chihuahua going crazy over the slightest details — when it comes to criticizing phil. "

      This is an odd thing to say when Phil is a guy who reads an essay about a 12 year old at sleepaway camp and decides it's worthy of a blog post because the writer is Jewish and inserted a couple of Amish jokes into it, and, let's face it, has a habit of this kind of dog whistling, whether it's raising a question of whether there are too many Jews on the Supreme Court or in government.

      In any event, I will continue to criticize Phil when I see fit to do so.

    • "You don’t notice because you take it for granted."

      Oh, I notice it. I just also notice that Phil Weiss would not give two hoots about a couple of Amish jokes in the NY Times (and neither would the rest of you) if the writer didn't have a Jewish last name.

    • Yeah, lots of Amish jokes. The Amish are a quietist sect who don't use electricity. They don't tend to complain. See Kingpin for an idea of how bad it can get.

      Yes, you could joke about ultra Orthodox Jews in much the same way, and people do.

      I think it's legit to ask whether Phil would care about this if this writer didn't have a Jewish last name.

    • How am I supposed to address Phil's friend? Is he here? By the way, I'm sure that Phil can speak for himself. He doesn't need you.

  • 'If we don't take out Iran,' it will reenact the Holocaust in US and Israel -- Steven Emerson to Times Square rally
    • "but, you’re wrong in that, when informed, they don’t want to fight more wars for rogue Israel."

      You mean for Saudi Arabia and Bahrain?

      I don't think the specter of an Iranian nuke falling into the hands of anti-American terrorists falls under "threat to Israel."

      "I hope Dick and Jane show up in tens of thousands and inform these maniacs that no more American blood will be wasted on Israel,s behalf."

      Not a drop of American blood has ever been spilled on "Israel's behalf." American blood spilled in Iraq was spilled because America had a President who thought toppling Saddam would be a nice way to avenge his dad, among other things. The invasion of Iraq, pushed by George Bush and Dick Cheney, who are as Jewish as the Ayatollah Khamanei is, was purely an American project, and people shouldn't be relieving America of responsibility for it by blaming the Jews, as Phil Weiss does.

  • If Americans support Iran deal, 56-37, what gives Israel the power to 'croak' it?
    • I'm glad you're so obsessed with me, Mooser. Retirement - it gives you time, doesn't it?

      Just to remind you, Phil Weiss cited polling that most Americans supported the Iran deal, asking what business Israel had trying to scuttle it, and pointedly (purposefully, I would say), left out the polling suggesting that the matter was just a bit more complex than that. He asked why more Americans (other than Jews, who are somehow less American than the rest of us on this because they're dually loyal, right?) don't get engaged. Being the nice guy that I am, I offered him one explanation of why.

      I have pretty good prognostication record on Iran. When this blog was predicting an attack on Iran, something it did several times, I said repeatedly that it was not going to happen. I was right about that, and when I made that call, I was going against the majority of the pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian communities.

      And I'm right about this: if Iran cheats on this deal, and it's clear that it's getting close to having a nuke, the American people will, as they have for years, support a military attack to prevent them from having one.

  • Abe Foxman says goodbye to an America of secret Jew haters
    • Yeah, you could argue that too; I'm referring to more recent Asian immigrant communities. I'm sure it's a two-way street. I'm drawing on my own personal experience to make a point about why philosemitism is not necessarily a fantastic thing, so save your snark for someone who cares.

      Phil Weiss illustrates another reason why philosemitism can be a negative thing - it encourages people to start to question whether Jews have too much power in society or whether they misuse the power that they have, as he routinely does, defending such questioning on the basis that America loves Jews, so they should be able to withstand the critique.

  • Michael Oren misrepresents 1971 synagogue bombing that changed his life
    • "Thanks for that 2Sense… Confirms my own instinct/memory on these matters"

      Again Phil, what evidence do you have that the specific incidents that Oren mentions did not take place? You seem to be under this impression that West Orange, New Jersey was this Jewish town. It isn't. Jews are a relatively small part of the population of West Orange. Why do feel entitled to question the personal histories of other people?

      Maybe a synagogue bombing has a different effect on some people. Oren says it was a formative experience, and since it damaged the sanctuary, I assume his account of firefighters carrying out Torah scrolls is accurate. NY Times reporting makes no mention of Kahane either, by the way, so I guess they left out what you think is the most important detail. And that may be because despite "assumptions," there was no evidence that the bombing was linked to Kahane's appearance. In fact, there at least one similar incident in 1971. On September 20, 1971, a bomb was discovered in the Great Neck Synagogue on Long Island on the first day of Rosh Hashanah.,%201968-2003

    • "tree, just saw your comment. i already contacted phil immediately upon reading the original comment – plus the email address of 2sense in case he might want to contact/interview this person."

      Since 2sense isn't willing to reveal his identity, his account is suspect, and I'm not sure what 2sense's credibility is to know what Michael Oren himself experienced. Oren says that he got into fistfights on the bus to school, that racist slogans were scrawled on the door to his family home, and that the family car windshield was smashed. If 2sense has any evidence that these events did not take place, he should present it.

      Crestmont Country Club was one of the country clubs started by Jews in the 1950's (the club dates from 1913) because they were excluded from Christian clubs. Regardless, I'm not sure what the relevance is of the fact that they live across the street from a club.

      The New York Times covered the bombing of West Orange Jewish Center. According to the 4/18/71 report, police and firefighters said the damage appeared to be "heavy" and the 4/19/71 report indicated that there were several broken windows and that the FBI was investigating the attack.

    • Yes, yes, I'm aware of the trend here of blaming every anti-Jewish attack on Jews. It's an old antisemitic game. And I'm sure no one here will call that out for Tue baseless accusation that it is, because underplaying antisemitism (I noticed that Phil seems to have ignored the long article in Vanity Fair about antisemitism in Paris too,

      I'm sorry, but the idea that Michael Oren was privileged because he was a middle class kid is BS, particularly since he was clearly targeted repeatedly, as he makes clear in the book, where he connects the antisemitism his family experienced to his father's Zionism:

      "In the post–World War II, WASP-dominated America in which I grew up, anti-Semitism was a constant. Hardly confined to my blue-collar neighborhood, it festered in the elite universities with their quotas on Jewish admissions, and pervaded the restricted communities and clubs. Superficially, at least, we American Jews ranked among the nation’s most successful minorities. We took pride in the Dodgers’ace pitcher Sandy Koufax, in folksinger Bob Dylan, and actors Tony Curtis and Kirk Douglas. It tickled us that Jewish humor became, in large measure, America’s humor, and the bagel grew as popular as pizza. Jewish artists wrote five of America’s most beloved Christmas songs and practically invented Hollywood. One could hardly imagine a community more integrated, and yet we remained different. Alone among the hyphenated ethnic identities—Italian-American, African-American—ours placed “American”first. And only ours was based on religion. No one ever referred to Buddhist or Methodist Americans. As Jews and as Americans we were sui generis, as difficult for us to define as for others. A graffito on the wall of my bathroom at school asked, “Are Jews white?”A different hand scrawled beneath it, “Yes, but…”Anti-Semitism completed that sentence.

      "Whether being beaten up for my identity or denied certain opportunities because of it, I often encountered hatred. And after each incident, my father took me down to our basement. There, in a cubbyhole behind the stairwell, he secreted a musty album that his brother, another veteran, had brought home from World War II. Inside were yellowing photographs of concentration camps, piles of incinerated corpses, and snickering Nazis. “This is why we must be strong,”my father reminded me. “This is why we need Israel.”

    • This is yet another example of Phil Weiss assuming that every American Jew had the same experience he had, and grafting his own experience onto everyone elses's, which is one of the fatal problems of his activism. First of all, Weiss is lying. Oren did not grow up in particularly privileged circumstances. His family was far from wealthy. But since Phil Weiss apparently grew up privileged, he assumes Oren did as well.

      Meir Kahane and the JDL also became popular because Jews in NYC neighborhoods were frequently the targets of attack by others in NYC. He was not just about Soviet Jewry, although you would think that people here could appreciate an extremist like Kahane, who gained a following criticizing the inaction of American Jewish organizations on a major human rights issue, the oppression of Soviet Jews.

      Jews who lived in Canarsie in the 1960's and 1970's were frequently beat up in school, for instance. Ocean Hill/Brownsville and the fights over local control led to a considerable amount of antisemitic invective hurled at Jewish educational professionals and Jewish leaders. Most Jews from that era experienced acts of antisemitism of some kind.

  • Shifting the Discourse: Katie Miranda interviews Adam Horowitz on challenging the mainstream media
    • "For whatever reason Phil and I just don’t really care about that so it’s never prevent us from saying or doing anything."

      Usually, radical ideologues don't care much about criticism. Most of time, that means that their ideas don't really go anywhere. Sometimes, it means that they wreak real havoc.

      You've not been subject to any real Zionist pushback, because most Zionists just ignore you, so the question is a non-sequitor. You don't intimidate anyone, but you do scare a lot of people, because you advance antisemitic views, and allow others to promote them here.

  • Does Israel have a toxic personality? Ask Michael Oren
    • Or maybe Netanyahu doesn't smile with his teeth. Come to think of it, I haven't seen a picture of you smiling with your teeth either; you must be a joyless person. C'mon, Phil, this is stupider than body language nonsense Bill O'Reilly puts on TV.

  • Goldberg predicts 'civil war' between American and Israeli Jews as Israel is 'defined as an apartheid state'
    • Hardly. Obama has admitted that he holds Israel to a higher standard than other countries because Israel is a democracy. Phil is free to disagree with Obama's policies, but he's not free to simply dismiss Obama's statements and to substitute his own reasons for Obama's viewpoint because he thinks that there is no such thing as Jewish values.

    • Like many, Phil, you are incapable of seeing anything in any other way but your own.

  • The U.S. is at last facing the neocon captivity
    • Shorter Phil: Blame the Jews for a policy supported by the vast majority of the Gentiles in the United States by studiously missing the forest for a small tree.

      We did not go to war in Iraq for Israel's sake. We went because we have national security and oil interests in the Middle East, because we'd fought a war with Saddam before in which he had ethnically cleansed Kurds, and because the President of the United States had a personal vendetta against the guy. To the extent that neocons wished for democracies in the Middle East, it was out of that old belief that people do better when they're not living under authoritarian dictators, although I realize that the radical left has never taken this up, because they've supported many of these same dictators over time.

      Phil's Israel fallacy is a house of cards, and unfortunately, it's tinged with antisemitism.

      "A letter surely regretted by Francis Fukuyama, who later accused the neocons of seeing everything through a pro-Israel lens"

      That is not what Fukuyama said; you're spinning it. Fukuyama said simply that American problems were not the same as Israeli problems, and that the neocons had a habit of viewing them as the same. That is not the same thing as saying that neocons see everything through a pro-Israel lens.

  • 'NYT' and 'MSNBC' leave Marco Rubio backer's Israel agenda out of the story
    • The caption of the first photograph in the piece mentions that they're at a pro-Israel event and that Israel is part of what brought them together.

      So where should we put in the piece that Braman is Jewish, a fact that is super-obvious already to anyone reading the article with an IQ higher than 5? And what is the journalistic reason for doing so? Mr. Braman supports Israel. So do Christians, Jews, atheists, conservatives, liberals, Muslims, Hindus, and most other Americans. Mr. Braman lives in Miami. So do Christians, atheists, conservatives, liberals, Cubans, Mexicans, African-Americans, Chinese people, Hindus and gay people. Mr. Braman works in the auto industry. So do . . .

      Your approach isn't defensible, Phil, and it isn't something the New York Times does for other religious and ethnic groups unless there is some journalistic reason.

  • Forgiving the anti-Semites
    • "You said that there were “far more” American movies about Vietnam than the Holocaust. "

      And that was completely accurate, particularly from the standpoint of feature films, not documentaries that basically no one sees.

      "And as I noted, the Vietnam films never showed the Vietnamese as victims of American aggression whereas Jews are always portrayed as victims in these never ending Holocaust flix,"

      What neverending flix? And why is this relevant? Jews were the victims of the Holocaust.

      "which you disingenuously suggest was due to popular demand not Jewish influence in Hollywood. "

      What disingenuous suggestion? YOU HAVEN'T PROVIDED AN IOTA OF EVIDENCE FOR THE CLAIM.

      "And then you have the audacity to misrepresent the numbers I provided showing that there was an explosion of Holocaust movies in the 1990s which continued slightly reduced into the 2000s, for a total of 188 movies in those two decades versus 96 movies in the previous four decades. Please note that “20 or 30 years after the events they cover,” would be the 1960s and 1970s during which there were 41 Holocaust movies. And I’m getting these numbers from your sources!"

      You keep aggregated European films and American films. There were not 41 American movies about the Holocaust in the 1960's and 1970's. There were 11. One was an international collaboration. Another was Jerry Lewis's movie, which was never shown to the public. Another was "The Pawnbroker," which no one would regard as a sympathetic portrait. Another is Exodus, which is about the smuggling of Jews into Palestine, not the Holocaust. Another is Judgment at Nuremberg, which is about the Nuremberg trials, not the Shoah. So your assertions are just sheer nonsense. Most movies touching on the Holocaust were not made in the United States.

      "And then what? You talk about all of the Russian films on WWII as if this was relevant. And how many of these films were shown in the US? Promoted by Hollywood?"

      Here's what you wrote: "How many Holocaust films deal with the horrific losses of the former USSR in stopping and eventually defeating Hitler?"

      And my answer was lots and lots of them, but not many American films, because Americans films don't generally focus on what happened in Russia. Why would Hollywood promote Russian films? The point is that Russian films tell stories about what happened to Russians, and American films generally focus on things that happen to Americans. Your assertion was that there are no films made about the Russian experience during the war. That's nonsense.

      "You top it all off by referencing two films about the Jasenovac death camp, the first a Yugoslavian film short made in 1945. Are you claiming that this film was released in the US? The second a Spielberg film made for the Holocaust film archive, hardly a blockbuster."

      No. It would be highly unusual for an American studio to make a film about a Yugoslav subject. How many American films are there about Yugoslav subjects of any kind? Is this the fault of the Jews?

      You complain that the Spielberg archive is "hardly a blockbuster." Are we talking about blockbusters now? How many films about the Shoah have been "blockbusters?" I can think of maybe two; Sophie's Choice and Schindler's List. The documentaries are certainly not.

      "As for Jewish/Zionist support for the US/NATO Yugoslavia intervention, I am not talking about passivity, I am talking about active complicity. I am talking about the ADL, the American Jewish Committee and the American Jewish Congress took out newspaper advertisement and organized demonstrations demonizing the Serbs. "

      OK. You probably supported Milosevic like a lot of radical leftists did. Whatever. The Kosovo War was supported by most Americans, and the Kosovo War didn't happen because a few Jewish organizations wanted it. I can understand, being the antisemite that you are, why you would think that way. What can you do? If organizations like AJC or ADL hadn't supported the Kosovo War, rest assured that people like Phil Weiss would say that it was because the Jewish community hates Muslims. Oh well. Serbia is doing well now, especially since that war criminal Milosevic left. Perhaps, since you're so big on holding people to account, you should apologize for your support of a brutal, hypernationalist dictator like Milosevic, who murdered hundreds of thousands of people, and helped Al-Qaeda get its feet wet. But I won't hold my breath.

      Your invective, Keith, does not move me, and I'd advise you to stop trying (and failing) to promote your pro-Serbian extreme nationalist agenda here.

    • "Holey Mole’ (yummmmm) you can catch the self-hatred from reading? Maybe if he wore some kind of safety glasses, or an air-fed hood while he read, it would help. That is one hell of a contagion, this Jewish self-hatred, you can catch it from a book!"

      Mooser, I don't know what makes people crazy, but I know that when they post these pieces ruminating about how some small Jewish businessowner cheated the record company by breaking records, or how Jews cheat in finance or need to "forgive Europe," (as if Israelis hadn't, or as if forgiveness was possible, or as if even this did not echo old antisemitic tropes about Jews being unforgiving, unlike their Christian brethren and their turn-the-other-cheek Jesus [see "The Merchant of Venice"]), it's a form of self-hating psychosis that comes from a legacy of Jews being persecuted. This is vile, vile stuff. Maybe Phil needs to tell it to his therapist, instead of putting it out there for the bigots of the world to pick over.

    • I don't know what Phil was subjected to; I think he's read a lot about Jewish persecution, and wondered whether Jews were at fault for some of it.

  • Understanding the Jewish National Home
    • "1. Plans before the Holocaust to take the whole of Palestine

      In 1938, Ben Gurion made it clear of his support for the establishment of a Jewish state on parts of Palestine ONLY as an intermediary stage, he wrote:

      “[I am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state–we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel.” (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p. 107, One Palestine Complete, p. 403)"

      Sorry Ian, but an oft-repeated quote from a controversial letter Ben-Gurion wrote in 1937 is not proof that the Zionists collectively planned to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians before the Holocaust; this quote is not even proof Ben-Gurion favored such an outcome, and certainly is not proof that the Zionists "conceived a plan" to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians in 1938.

      "2. Where does the 10% of Holocaust survivors come from?

      Doubting the number is hardly dispositive. Look it up."

      I did. That's why I asked your source. I can't find the reference.

      "I don’t want to blow my own horn, but I’m quite well read and never heard of universalism."

      Really? Then I doubt you're as well-read as you say. This site discusses it fairly frequently. In any event, those who criticize Zionism from the left usually pillorize its instinct toward tribalism, and suggest that Jews would be better off promoting a more universalist vision of Judaism shorn of its status as a nation. That's a generous reading of Phil Weiss, and also of Marc Ellis. Jews are successful, Jews have a lot to contribute, and instead of focusing on themselves and Israel, they should apply themselves to the societies in which they live. I would argue that universalism and tribalism are not mutually exclusive, and that both are necessary for the survival of a people and a multicultural civilization, but that's the debate in a nutshell.

      "More importantly, you are playing the persecution card with this argument."

      LOL. Yeah, I'm playing the persecution card. Actually, I'm playing the history card. The history is that in most places, Jews have either been periodically persecuted or otherwise have been made to live as second-class citizens, and the Enlightenment didn't prove to be an antidote to the barbarous instincts of the civilized Europeans. So the Jews diversified their options, and stopped depending on Gentiles for safety and security.

      "Most people who do care about this issue wouldn’t think twice if Israel had formed on an uninhabited island or some uninhabited desert or tundra or forest"

      This is a meaningless hypothetical argument. People did not oppose Zionism in the 1930's and 1940's principally because there were other people in the Mandate. They opposed it in the West because they wanted to protect their relationship with Arab dictators, and the Arabs themselves opposed it because they opposed the idea of Jews holding political power in the Middle East. The Arabs themselves have shown no inclination in the last half-century to treat minorities well or to stop ethnic cleansing in their own countries. Neither have people in West shown much interest in the issue of ethnic cleansing outside of the Israeli context. So I simply disagree with the assumption that it's the ethnic cleansing most people really care about. There are too many other examples around the world.

      "Most critics, especially knowledgeable, vocal and articulate ones are ANTI-ZIONIST, not anti-Semitic."

      Actually, I think the most knowledgeable and articulate critics are liberal Zionists, because unlike the anti-Zionists, they make an effort to understand both Palestinians and Israelis. Anti-Zionists are just partisans for the Palestinian cause, and they take that cause on with all of its mythology and propaganda.

  • Just like the Nazis, Iran 'plans to exterminate six million Jews' -- Netanyahu
    • So which part of what Netanyahu said is wrong, Phil? Has Iran not threatened to annihilate the Jewish state repeatedly? Has it not held Holocaust denial conferences? Have there not been moments in the past when do-gooders have valued paper agreements over common sense? Iran is a totalitarian state ruled by a cleric. It funds terrorist groups and terrorist attacks around the world. Why is that reality absent, completely, from your analysis? Because it's too hard for you to contemplate? Because you hate the United States more than you hate Iran? Because you think your Judaism requires you to support Iran? These are questions you should answer, rather than reverting to silly accusations of fascism.

      One doesn't need to agree with Netanyahu to understand his argument. I don't agree with him, but I don't think opposing the Iran deal is fascism.

  • 'United States of Israel' has compromised U.S. 'sovereignty' on Iran policy -- Gideon Levy in D.C.
    • Phil, if you know, how many non-Zionist Israelis have been killed or seriously injured because their political views? Yitzhak Rabin was one; he was assassinated by an extremist. Ze'ev Sternhall was physically attacked. But that's about it.

      In India, multiple heads of state and high ranking officials have been murdered for their political views. In the United States, four Presidents have been assassinated, and virtually all of them have been targeted for assassination.

      Gideon Levy loves to complain as if he were the only radical columnist in Israel. He isn't. The only difference I know of between him and other radical columnists in Israel is his endless nasty streak; he writes these nasty columns bashing his fellow citizens, and he loves to give speeches abroad doing the same thing; abroad, of course, he's a celebrated Pablo Christiani. He has a vested interest in claiming that he's under threat. There is nothing at all significant about some commentator who claims that a guy like Gideon Levy is a traitor. You can find similar discourse about Barack Obama any day of the week in the right-wing blogosphere, and, I bet, about any number of figures throughout the world.

      Somehow, Dimi Rieder and Noam Sheizaf, and many others write leftist criticism of Israeli society, and live there at the same time. Somehow Sefi Rachlefsky writes in Ha'aretz from a post-Zionist and sometimes an anti-ZIonist perspective. Somehow, Dov Kheinin keeps getting elected to the Knesset. So maybe Israeli society is not as sick as Gideon Levy claims that it is.

  • Faithwashing: the Muslim Leadership Institute and the academic boycott
    • "what mooser said “Must be a ‘covert outreach’ thing.” is not what i would consider a personal attack nor harassment."

      Then you don't understand the meaning of the term, or you purposely do not read things in context. Mooser is a clown. I ignore him 95% of the time. Where I have drawn the line in the past is his serial attempts to try to get me to divulge details about my personal life, and he is not the first to do it here. And yes, after a while, even I get tired of his constant and obsessive needling, which you lovingly enable by putting through I don't how many comments regarding my participation in Jewish-Muslim interfaith work.

      Phil agrees with me, by the way, that I put up with a lot of nonsense here; I've written him a number of times, and he's always been a gentleman. I think he's repulsed by a good deal of the commentary here.

      "in fact, there’s a very public campaign to smear all pro palestinian activism on american campuses as anti semitic! "

      That's nice. It has nothing to do with me. I would never say that all pro-Palestinian activism on American campuses is antisemitic.

      "so please, nothing like that is happening to you here. you can’t dish it out and then scream foul when the information you provide is used against your argument."

      OK, Annie. It's just a coincidence that you have maybe three Zionists who post here regularly, and that, in clear violation of the commenting rules, you allow through dozens and dozens of non-substantive comments that do little but attack us in personal terms. It doesn't surprise me that you have blinders on, and it doesn't really bother me very much; I've spent enough time around radical activists to know that many of them are very, very angry people, especially when they are Westerners. Feeling perpetually disenfranchised and feeling like no one in society ever listens to you can make you really upset, just as it does most two-year-olds. Phil, by the way, is not in that group.

      So, with all due respect, don't lecture me about "taking it." I've been here a long time and I've taken it better than anyone here does. As I've said many times, if I wanted to take it easy, I'd go somewhere where everyone already agrees with me, like most people here have done.

  • Hurt by the Israel lobby, Obama kisses it goodbye
    • "Hurt by the Israel lobby, Obama kisses it goodbye"

      Once again, you're engaging in magical thinking here that is the mirror image of the thinking of rightists who say that the President is anti-Israel. I don't know how many times the President has to demonstrate his support for Israel for you to believe that he means it. It's clearly a difference of opinion over tactics, not a difference over whether Iran should have nuclear weapons.

      I don't know why, Phil, you and others are so supportive of a theocracy that is anti-progressive, antisemitic, and anti-democracy. You quote their media, and you carry their water. You accuse others of being PEP, progressive except for Palestine, but that's a lot better than what you are, PEME, progressive except for the Middle East. Maybe you're not progressive at all. Maybe you just oppose a mostly secular Jewish state, but not religious states in general, since you apparently have no criticism to offer of Iranian theocracy.

  • Double standard in US political culture: BDS is fine for Indiana, not Israel
    • Apples and oranges, Phil. Indiana faces no threat from gay people. Israel faces a threat from terrorism in the Middle East. People understand the difference, even if you studiously do not.

  • I want my country back
    • " I didn’t want to extrapolate beyond what I’d seen before my eyes. But this piece suggests that the lobby is imbedded in the New York Times itself, that our leading newspaper sees it as its job to support Israel when the president is seeking to reassess his relationship with the country– supporting a rightwing racist foreign leader over the president. "

      Or it's just an article giving the perspective of mainstream Israelis, which, true to form, you simply can't deal with. Phil, you can't play both sides. Anyone who has read the Times over the past week cannot honestly conclude that it sees its role as supporting Israel over the President. It hasn't supported Israel editorially or journalistically; it has, if anything, served as a mouthpiece for the Administration's anger over the past week.

  • Paris university reverses decision, allows Israeli apartheid event with Blumenthal
    • It is true that a square has four sides. That's an objective statement. It is not true that small cabal of Jews controls the foreign policy of the United States for their own interests. That's an antisemitic smear. It is common on the far-left on sites like this, and it is common on the far-right, amongst people like David Duke. I have no trouble talking about elites in the Jewish community. I have a problem with people who take that and suggest that not only are these elites in control of our country, which is ridiculous enough, but that they exercise that control not in the American interest, but in their own interest as Jews. That's garden variety antisemitism that mimics the antisemitism of the 19th and 20th centuries, and it is common to David Duke and Max Blumenthal and Phil Weiss. It is why Phil Weiss lost his job at the NY Observer, and it is why Max Blumenthal should not be given a campus platform.

      You can't deal with this reality because it's too uncomfortable for most of you to think that you might have gone over to the dark side here.

    • The point I tried to make is that Max Blumenthal isn't being permitted certain platforms because the views of the extremists in the anti-Zionist community bear more than a passing resemblance to those of white supremacists.

      I have clearly hit a nerve here, Annie; in fact, nearly everything David Duke said in his interview with Ray Suarez for Al Jazeera about Zionists being a small minority with disproportionate power in the United States that they wield to injure other Americans could have been taken verbatim from this site.

      Duke: "We have many, many Jewish organizations, very powerful organizations in this country working for what they consider to be the Jewish agenda or the Israeli agenda."

      Mondoweiss would agree with that statement; it has accused the American Jewish community of dual loyalty many times.

      Duke: "I believe the Zionists control the country. They literally control the top financing of the Republican and Democratic Party... the largest political financiers in America absolutely are Zionists."

      Mondoweiss has said as much by claiming that the only reason Netanyahu spoke in Congress and that Democrats attended was the role of Jewish money and Jewish presence in media and politics. Commentators here have said this far more explicitly, and you have let many of their antisemitic comments through.

      Duke: "[Zionists] look at themselves a distinct people not only to Europeans but everybody else on the planet. And it's a very ethnic-oriented organization."

      These are both sentiments expressed many times here by posts purposely conflating notions of chosenness with notions of superiority.

      Duke: "Every major Jewish organization in America, such as the American Jewish Committee, which is, in fact, a worldwide organization and as far as Israel's concerned, they have programs to prevent Jewish intermarriage."

      Again, a point made many times here exactly the same way Duke makes it; rather than contextualizing Jewish campaigns for in-marriage as simply an attempt by a very small people to preserve their religious traditions, it is presented as a belief in Jewish supremacy.

      Duke: "The most powerful lobby in the American government, by far, over any domestic lobby, certainly any foreign lobby is AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee."

      Definitely something Mondoweiss would agree with.

      Duke: "The reason they have this power is not because they are the only people with smarts. It's because they are very tribal. They support each other. They network with each other. They give each other a true privilege, and that's the true privilege in this country. Harvard — 25 percent of the student body at Harvard is Jewish … if 98 percent of European-Americans can't get similar to their percentage of the population in the leading institution of America, is that white privilege? "

      All points made here at Mondoweiss. Jews are tribal, and their support of Israel is tribal, and Jews use their networks to advance themselves and keep others down. Phil has claimed that he and many of his generation have benefited from such networking. Phil has also argued here that there are too many Jews at Harvard precisely because of that kind of networking. After all, Jews are 3 out of 4 Democrats on the Supreme Court, right? Must be that tribal networking.

      Duke: " If European-Americans still had a country where the media was controlled by our people for our interests, truly the majority interest of this country, we had a financial system that was in our own interest and we have a government in our own true interest, I don't think Israel would even exist. "

      A version of points made here at Mondoweiss. Jews use their money to influence our government to support Israel, and they've replaced the European-Americans (read WASPs) as the elite. Phil has made this point many times.

      Duke: " But we can only preserve America, and the Palestinians and the other peoples of the world can only be free if we, ourselves, in America and Europe are free again from this tiny minority that controls our lives."

      Mondoweiss says all of the time that the so-called Jewish elite he talks about should be replaced.

      There's no qualitative difference between the ideas of David Duke and Phil Weiss. They're the same.

  • Netanyahu's speech and the American Jewish condition
    • "so why the anonymity hops? too afraid, weak and powerless to spew your accusatory ad hominems in an identifiable way, always hiding behind a mask as you stalk phil?"

      Phil knows who I am. Curious that you ask me for my identity, but no one else here. And really, really bad faith on your part, since you allow through ad hominem comment after ad hominem comment that violates the rules and do nothing but target me personally. You really are a piece of work, Annie.

    • "Kids are brainwashed with a mixture of chosen people/everyone’s an anti semite/out to get you as soon as they get the chance. "

      Well, I grew up in one of the largest Jewish neighborhood in the United States. And while there are certainly some people who think this way (and who could blame them given the last 150 years of history), they are basically limited to right-wing religious Jews, who are a minority int he American Jewish community.

      "Zionist parents, Jewish schools, Summer camps and visits to Israel, Auschwitz and hanging around almost exclusively in each others’ company."

      Comparatively few Jews, even orthodox ones, travel to Auschwitz, but learning about the Holocaust is obviously a major part of Jewish communal learning, since, most Eastern European Jews either have a relative who was murdered or know someone who does. This is part of the Jewish people's history.

      "They have an irrational attitude of defiance, of perceived threats that don’t exist and they seem to lose all empathy for anyone else on the planet who isn’t a Jew."

      That's simply untrue in my experience. The Jewish community I grew up in was a religious one. I attended day school. The day school I attended, like most Jewish day schools, had an extensive chessed (community service) program.

      "Jews are the eternal victims and at the same time somehow perfect people who can do no wrong . "

      I've never once heard another Jew suggest that Jews are perfect people or that Jews are "eternal victims." The fact of the matter is that Jews have often been victims in Western history.

      "Hophmi makes me laugh. In Hophmi’s world, Phil Weiss is not allowed to be a decent human being by pointing out that Israel/Zionists are treating the Palestinians in a very bad way."

      As usual, you don't read. I've never said that Phil has no right to criticize Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. What I have taken issue with is the matter in which Phil criticizes American Jewry, particularly his overall critique of the American Jewish community as a privileged elite that does not have America's best interest at heart. Regrettably, Phil's ranting often mimics classic antisemitic tropes. It is quite common for people who belong to minorities that have long histories of persecution to internalize that persecution and to regurgitate it. Phil does that often, in my view, because he is uncomfortable with who he is. He has trouble embracing the idea of Jewish political consciousness unless it is identical to radical political consciousness. He has trouble embracing Jewish practices to the point of pillorizing others who choose them, even as they respect his choice not to adopt them. He pillorizes his people for being "chosen," and then insists on holding them to a much higher standard than everyone else when it comes to the exercise of power and national sovereignty. He takes his insecurities and advances them onto everyone else.

      "Stop the horror, the terror and the injustice and we’ll all go away, promise!"

      I don't believe you, not for a second. You won't go away until Israel no longer exists.

    • "The angle that Phil didn’t mention is finance. The last 4 heads of the Fed have been Jewish. 1 dollar out of every four earned in the US goes to the top 0.1%. Many of the big hedge fund managers who pay themselves tens of millions are Jewish. ..Meanwhile ordinary Americans haven’t got pay rises for years. Labor repression is real."

      And here we go. Antisemitism - the communism of fools. There are wealthy Jews, and they are keeping down "ordinary Americans." It's just amazing how this filth keeps repeating itself.

    • Well, Phil just wrote a post asserting that Jewish power is a problem, and you think it's great. So you seem to think that Jews have too much power, and you seem to resent that.

    • This analysis is nothing new. It is typical of Phil's writing, which suggests, as it always does, the Phil has internalized anti-Jewish hatred, and like those secularist Jews in Europe who looked down upon their brethren or converted to Christianity to escape their Judaism, Phil adopts the classic tropes of the self-hater. The key point here is that he quotes Gilad Atzmon's views, shared by some commentators on his site, that Jews control the world, ostensibly to illustrate the challenge of criticizing the Jewish community, and he missed the irony, which is that his critique amounts to the same claim.

      There are, of course, the mistakes. Zionism was not a response to the elite Jewish condition. It was a response to antisemitism of non-Jewish elites, and the failure of those non-Jewish elites, even in a time of emancipation and enlightenment, to offer basic protection for their Jewish populations. Those who believed in it most strongly were not European elites, but Eastern European peasants, who wished to shuck off perpetual discrimination and poverty at the hands of Christian brethren and to exchange it for a better life.

      There are several clear American national security interests in maintaining a strong alliance with Israel. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, and more importantly, it is only stable country in the region. It is the only one that reflects anything approaching American values. It is the only one where people can speak freely, and do. It is the only one where democratic elections are routine, rather than American-engineered one-time events. It is only place where gay people are not kept in the closet or thrown off of the buildings and stoned to death. It is the only place in the Middle East where Americans can go to conduct joint research in any number of fields, including military technology. It is the only place America can count on, and for that reason alone, the amount of change possible because of a tiff between two leaders is extraordinarily limited. America doesn't have other choices in the Middle East, and common sense, not to mention polling, shows it again and again. Who is America going to ally itself with? Iran? A country that brings people out into the street to wish it death? Saudi Arabia? A country where women don't drive? It won't happen, because if it did, America would be a worse place and a less great country.

      It is astounding that anyone could look at the Middle East today and conclude that any meaningful share of the problems there are traceable to Israel. It is nonsense. Sunni and Shia Muslims do not war with one another because of Israel. Libya is not in pieces because of Israel. The radical clerics that constitute Al-Azhar University in Egypt are not there because of Israel. ISIS does not exist because of Israel. Bashar al-Assad isn't murdering his own citizens because of Israel. Omar al-Bashir didn't commit genocide because of Israel. These things are happening because the places in which they are happening have been troubled societies for a long time, and this is how they are choosing to resolve their problems. And in too many cases, to justify the horrors that occur there, they blame others. And unfortunately, there are many, many more of them than there are Jews in this world, and if you repeat the big lie enough, it has an effect. Because people in the region are seen as victims of Western machinations, left-wingers have picked up on these themes, and they too repeat them. They're wrong, and history will be brutal to them for it, just as it will be brutal to them for opposing US intervention in Bosnia and Serbia and for favoring the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

      As he has forever, Phil offers nothing but anecdotes (read: stereotypes) to support his analysis. Jews are all over the media, and this is why Israel comes in for less criticism than it should. Except, of course, when it is criticized. By Jews like Anthony Lewis. By non-Jews like Charlie Reese. By Jews like Tom Friedman. By non-Jews like Zbigniew Brzezinski. But the media is Jewish for Phil, because the stereotype serves his political outlook and feeds his insecurity with power and supposed privilege.

      Phil compares treatment of Jews to treatment of Catholics. He fails to mention, of course, that there are more than five times as many Catholics as Jews in the United States, several dozen times internationally, and financially, the Catholic Church is second to no institution in opulent wealth, some of it brazenly stolen from elsewhere around the world, including the Jewish community.

      He posits a Jewish establishment that he says took the place of the WASP establishment, a nonsense point that he can't begin to prove, and that is laughable given the stark difference in size, influence, and history between the two. He says Jews are here and Jews are there, and then he blames them for a lack of diversity in the same breath as he notes that the same institutions have fostered diversity. So when he can attribute negative characteristics to this supposed Establishment, he does so. When he talks about positive developments, he does what he can to make sure and not give the Jewish community he says is so elite any credit for them.

      Self-hatred is a disease. It is a sad disease borne of many generations of persecution, but it is a disease. And Phil is afflicted with it, as many Jews have been in the past. And it is usually the self-haters who cause the worst damage to the Jewish community, precisely because of how small it is.

      American Jewry, and the American-Israel relationship will survive the Phils of this world. American Jews, long a positive force in American society, will continue to be, far into the future, and Israel will endure, far into the future. The Phils will fall away, as they always do.

  • Hillel's segregated lunch counter
    • I am hopeful that National SJP will now drop their ban on Zionist speakers and Palestinian dissidents who disagree with BDS, such as human rights activist Bassam Eid, and follow the lead of the Harvard Hillel by inviting speakers who dissent from their point of view on Israel, particularly since most members of SJP are ignorant about Israel. Will you join me in this call, Phil?

  • Jewish groups that blindly support Israel make US and European Jews potential victims of violence -- Avnery
    • So someone shoots up a kosher supermarket and the reason is the role Jews played in Algeria?

      Why Jews? Why not French government officials?

      Because the entire theory is BS, just like everything Avnery writes.

      It is antisemitic to blame Jews for their own persecution. Period. And if your argument is that because a member of a religious group does something you don't like in one place, other members of that group should die in another place, then you're just making an argument for why Westerners should slaughter Arabs and Muslims en masse. Disgusting. Disgusting and shameful, Phil.

  • Chair of Democratic National Committee opposes Jewish intermarriage and MSNBC showing Gaza carnage
    • I'd bet the answer is zero or close to it, and I'd bet most of the websites that claim that there are Jews who hold Israeli citizenship are lying about it. The last one of these claims I saw involved Michael Mukasey, and it was 100% false.

      This is another example of how this site trades in neo-Nazi memes. Phil Weiss made a very big deal out of it when Stanley Fischer was nominated to be vice-chair of the Fed. Wrote a long post on how it was a "sop to the Israel lobby," ignoring, of course, Fischer's entire resume as one of the world's most distinguished economists and as a professor of economics at MIT. It's a neo-Nazi meme to suggest that every Jew who attains a high position should be scrutinized in this way.

  • Shit dead rabbis say about gentiles
    • The ad is for a pamphlet of supposed writing by the Rebbe from 1991 and 1992, when he was about 90 years old. You can be fairly sure he didn't write them on his own. In any event, since Schneerson was quite well-known for receiving people of all walks of life and for the creation of a worldwide organization that serves Jews and non-Jews alike (whatever the views of the Chabadniks, they tend to be happy guys who treat everyone with respect and good cheer), the quote, which I can find no direct source for, is most likely not reflective of his actual views. Like many religious men, the Rebbe tended to analyze the world in binary terms, a Jewish one, and a non-Jewish one, and his focus was on the Jewish one. This makes him no different from many clerics. In practice, he was clearly a welcoming guy, and if you want to learn more about him, you can peruse Chabad's website, where I do not see very much reflecting this view.

      In any case, Phil, you join a long line of mostly neo-Nazis, and a few far-leftists who have taken Schneerson's very long career and corpus of works and emphasized a few quotes like this, almost certainly taken out of context, much in the manner that bigots like Pamela Geller take the statements of prominent Imams out of context to bash Muslims. I hope, for your sake, that no one uses this particular post as justification for violent attacks on Jews.

Showing comments 296 - 201