Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 765 (since 2010-10-06 04:27:13)

irishmoses

I'm a retired civil rights attorney and a writer of both non-fiction and fiction. My interest in the Israel-Palestine issue came from my father's involvement flying Jewish refugees from around the world to the new state of Israel in 1948-49. David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister called my father "the Irish Moses" because of his exploits, hence the name of my blog site -- www.irishmoses.com

Website: http://www.irishmoses.com

Showing comments 765 - 701
Page:

  • Front-page attack in New York Times says BDS movement is driven by minorities' 'hostility toward Jews'
    • Chu,

      Omar Barghouti, in his NYT op-ed today, claimed that a recent poll shows one out six American Jews favors boycotting Israeli products. link to platosguns.wordpress.com

      That's a pretty encouraging number, if correct.

    • Ckg and Chu,

      This is the discussion I was hoping for, generated by Blaine raising this important issue albeit in a less than civil manner.

      At this point, I still don't know which side I come down on, but my opinion matters little as I'm not on the front lines demonstrating and organizing like Blaine and all the other brave souls in JVP and other activist organizations who are on the cutting edge of BDS.

      I've noticed, over the years, that we have a disturbing tendency to start eating our own when we have internal disputes over tactics and doctrine. Some are even banished into the desert despite being important, if controversial, voices, and tarred with the (you guessed it) brush of antisemitism (e.g. Gilad Atzmon).

    • Annie,
      My first response was based on the initial 5 replies to Blaine's comment, all of which were directed at him and not at his argument. At that point, I had no idea of his history with you and MW. As my latest reply to you shows, his strident and emotional approach to this issue is counterproductive and he needs to change it if he wants to have any real impact.

      I'm not sure what else I can say. I am sorry you had to put so much effort into responding to his charges.

    • CKG,

      I mentioned that dilemma in my response to Annie (above).Politics is the art of the possible. My point, in all of this, was that Blaine's point should be discussed on the merits (which you did).

    • Annie,

      Thanks for responding.

      My main point was that the issue of whether the current BDS-Lite is working or whether a stronger version is needed is an important discussion. Taking the stronger view, extending BDS to cover Israel, not just its settlement-produced products, is not intrinsically disrespectful of the immense efforts of JVP and MW. Discussions about whether tactics or strategies are working are important.

      That said, Blaine's tone and approach to this important discussion does seem pretty confrontational and strident. His approach is having the opposite affect intended by angering those who he thinks disagree with his side of the argument. The more he does that, the less people will be willing to listen to his otherwise valid points. My advice to him would be tone it down several notches and try to persuade people to accept his point of view. To his credit, he sees the continuing oppression of the Palestinians as unacceptable and that BDS-Lite, in his view, is not making any tangible difference in their suffering. His frustration is certainly understandable.

      As to MW editorial decisions about what to publish, that's your call. Those decisions are difficult to make and I don't envy you and the time and effort it takes to review submission and make those decisions (or recommendations in your case). I personally like the mix of articles published on MW and the current more moderated tone of discussion.

      Finally, Blaine raised an important issue that's worthy of discussion, but Blaine, with his current overly strident approach, is inhibiting that discussion by making adversaries of those who he needs as allies.

    • Good points and interesting connections but scary in the sense that these could feed into some of the old antisemitic Protocol tropes.

    • JeffB,

      Nice try. Illegal behavior is illegal whether or not it is committed by Zionist Jews. I would condemn that behavior if it was committed by the Swiss, or even the Danes. You've again resorted to your favorite fallacy, "You're singling out the Israelis for their bad behavior, ergo you are an antisemite."

    • Great quote. Scary times. Pabelmount made a comment earlier in this thread that seems to dovetail with yours. link to mondoweiss.net

    • Great quote. Scary times. Pabelmount made a comment earlier in this thread that seems to dovetail with yours.

    • Donald,

      Thanks for the clarification.

      I don't see Israel's existence as justified by the Holocaust, after all, the idea of allowing Jews to create a homeland within Palestine came from the Balfour Declaration which was ratified by the League of Nations in 1922. The legality of Israel as a state seems to stem from the UNGA's ratification of the 1947 Partition Plan and Israel's subsequent acceptance an a member state of the UN under the terms of that plan.

      To me, while grossly unfair to the Palestinians, that's the legal justification for the existence of the state of Israel. A liberal Zionist, like Jerry Slater, may see that as a reasonable basis for being a Zionist while disagreeing with and condemning all illegal Zionist actions post ratification. So, to me, being a liberal Zionist is not necessarily a fatal flaw so long as one doesn't deny Palestinian rights (e.g. the other half of the Balfour Declaration) or attempt to justify illegal Zionist behavior.

    • Hmmm,

      What if someone doesn't approve of specific Zionist behavior, like ethnic cleansing, illegally occupying and colonizing someone else's land, etc., and criticizes that behavior? Since that criticism is directed at a specific subset of Jews (including some non-Jews) and not all Jews, why is that person ipso facto an antisemite?

      If I can recall what I've learned about basic rules of logic from the learned Roha, you have said,
      "All antisemities are anti-Zionists. Jose is an anti-Zionist. Ergo, Jose must also be an antisemite.

      I'll leave it to Roha to provide the Venn diagram showing why your argument and conclusion is a classic non sequitur.

    • Donald,

      "Slater and his ilk..." has a very disparaging sound to it. although I don't think you intended it that way. Jerry Slater is a very important voice (as you point out). He is well past "liberal Zionism" and has put his academic credentials on the line with a very brave and accurate analysis of Jewish terrorism: link to mondoweiss.net which was rejected outright by a host of gutless academic publications that normally publish his work.

    • Hmmm. Not one of the 5 responses to Blaine dealt with the substance of his argument, that BDS-lite isn't working. Your responses were little more than ad hominem. If you don't like the man's argument, dispute it with your own. Snarky personal attacks are unbecoming and unproductive.

      As to Blaine's tone, sure it was a bit over the top, but sometimes blunt, impolite language is necessary to wake people up to the reality of what is happening and how current efforts are having a marginal impact at best.

    • Hey, Blaine has a point. Fiddle fucking around with BDS on the edges to hurt Israeli manufacturers for products made in the territories is a pathetically weak response for a state that has been knowingly committing apartheid for half a century. link to mondoweiss.net

      If it really is apartheid, and it is, you need a South Africa-like response. The problem isn't Israeli manufacturers who operate in the territories, the problem is Israel itself. You need to make Israel and Israelis pay the price of continuing apartheid, not just a few manufacturers.

      The man's analysis is spot-on even if it is making some of you uncomfortable.

    • Pabelmount,

      I would sign your petition, but I'm not now nor have I even been a member of the Antisemite Party.

    • "Israel Sans Frontieres". Absolutely hilarious Amigo, and so apt. That phrase should become the new label or watcxhword for Israel on college campuses, if not everywhere. It perfectly evokes the hypocrisy of the Greater Israel project:

      "'Israel Sans Frontieres', like 'Medecins Sans Frontieres', only different, better." link to en.wikipedia.org

      Why should we impose borders on the only democracy in the Middle East which has the most moral army in the world?

    • Well put. Trying to figure out which Israeli products were produced in Judea and Samaria seems to miss the point. Is the point of BDS to exonerate Israel proper for crimes it commits in its occupied territories?

    • Is this a good sign or a more ominous one? To me, it shows the Nation's Paper of Record has now joined the campaign to redefine antisemitism into a more broad category which encompasses any and all criticism of Israel, including the tactic of BDS.

      That's kind of scary in view of nations like France and Canada changing their hate speech laws to include criticism of Israel as a form of Jew Hatred. Maybe we are seeing the beginning of a full-court press aimed at smothering all critical dialogue about Israel on the grounds that it is really just criminal antisemitic hate speech?

      To allow my paranoia to run to its logical conclusion, once these laws are passed, anyone who criticizes or has criticized Israel, becomes a antisemitic felon, whether post facto or ex. Under that unpleasant scenario, would MW qualify as the greatest antisemitic criminal conspiracy in recent history?

  • 'Israel should extend the right of return to all Palestinian refugees' -- Jebreal in 'The Nation'
    • DoublesSandard,

      To be fair, your fare was so substandard that the correction of a misspelled word is ludicrous. Why don't you start by correcting the substance of your hasbara-speak post? We'll forgive your spelling errors. You can start by researching the many posts on refugees by Hostage, Tree, and many others.

      Do I detect something new in your charge that the article is "...racist and is basically blaming the Jews..."? Normally, that would be simplified into the more standard claim of antisemitism, or Jew-Hatred (self and non-self). Perhaps Hasbara-Central has concluded that the antisemitism/Jew Hater card has been so overused as to lose its impact? Is "racist" to be the new term for "antisemite" in the deck of Likud-Zionism's House of Cards?

    • The only wild card in Krauss' analysis may be the Russian "Jewish" immigrant population. How many are there and do they really fit in as Ashkenazim?

    • My attempted edit to my previous post apparently took too long. Here's what was left out:

      Maybe the Ashkenazi (Ashkenazim?) mirror the once-dominant New England, White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant ruling class in the US, and maybe they'll suffer the same fate when their darker-skinned, working class lessers suddenly realize they too can have power.

      While this may seem unlikely, the dawning of the Arab List may humanize the Arab minority in the eyes of Mizrahi and even Ashkenazi Jews, opening political doors never before seen possible. Suddenly, the demographic threat is not the Palestinian Arab population, but the Israeli Arab population of Jews, Christians, Druze, and Muslims, all people of color, all with a true historical connection to their ancient homeland.

      Wonderful, perceptive post, Krauss.

    • Krauss said:

      "The big nightmare is if the Mizrahi start to realize that they have more in common with the Palestinians than the Ashkenazi ruling class who lord over them. "

      A brilliant post, Krauss, Imagine the effect on Israeli politics if suddenly the Arab List and the Mizrahi see a common cause together. Suddenly, Israel becomes a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society in which all groups vie for power and the Zionist connection slowly recedes.

      Maybe the Ashkenazi (Ashkenazim?) mirror the once-dominant New England, White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant ruling class in the US, and maybe they'll suffer the same fate?

      Wonderful, perceptive post, Krauss.

    • Elizabeth quoted:

      “Another reason for the attachment of Orientals to the Right in Israel is their socio-economic status. It is a world-wide phenomenon that in colonial countries, the lowest layer of the dominant nation (“white scum” in the US) is the most extreme enemy of the national minorities.”

      Maybe the distinction is that the Mizrahi are not white scum and that their relative darkness is what makes them scum, or at least inferior in the eyes of the Ashkenazi.

  • Israeli army can't stop patting itself on the back for helping Nepal victims
  • Haneen Zoabi's power and vision (and answers to Theodore)
  • Obama's role model to journalists -- Dorothy Thompson -- turned against Zionism and was silenced
    • I appreciate the retraction. I'll dial my invective back if you do as well. I see you are brand new to Mondoweiss so I'll cut you some slack. On the positive side, you seem to do some research. On the negative, you go way over the top on emotional labeling {"monsters", etc.), and you stray pretty far from the field in your historical analogies. If you cut back on some of that, you'll fit in better here.

      Mondoweiss is definitely a blog with a viewpoint. It focuses on behavior by Israel that violates international law and the rights of the Palestinian people to a state of their own and a modicum of basic civil rights and protection from oppression in the meantime. It also focuses on the excesses of Israel's US lobby. It is not anti-Jewish, anti-Israel, or antisemitic. It is anti illegal and dysfunctional behavior. The dialog here is generally pretty analytic and civil although it quickly can deteriorate when one or another commentator goes over the top. Moderation has helped MW keep on topic and control commentors who cross lines, but it's not perfect and it's a thankless task at best.

      I suggest you watch a bit and get a feel for the site then jump in when you have a point of value to make. So, welcome aboard and welcome to Mondoweiss.

    • DT's and AFME's CIA connection is real and fascinating. I'm just finishing a book that describes that connection. I hope to write about it soon.

      The ARAMCO donations to AFME, if true, might be the basis for the claim AFME was receiving support from Saudi Arabia.

    • Thanks IAK. I attributed the DT find to Alison further up-thread. link to mondoweiss.net

      Do you know how Alison discovered DT?

    • Good catch Annie. I bought and read her book along with the Kurth biography about DT. She seemed to dismiss DT a bit too easily. I wondered about her connections. Her book seems pretty well written in other respects but she clearly had an ax to grind when it came to DT's later anti-Israel statements and her connections to AFME. Certainly not a hit piece (half the book is about another famous woman of that era, and good friend of DT, Rebecca West.

      Good to have you back.

    • Jupiter,
      I'm not going to comment on partial quotes from you sprinkled with interpretations by you of somehow who I'm unfamiliar with and can see little if any relevance to DT.

      There also seems to be a decidedly anti-Catholic and anti-Christian element in your argument that is causing me some concern. e.g. "Note the reference to “charity” listed; in Catholic liturgy before Vatican II, it meant, not alms to the less fortunate, but the love of Christ, originally meaning, & here implied, in opposition to the love proclaimed by Judaism. One loved Christ by opposing his enemies the Jews." You seem to be suggesting that Christians' love of Christ is antisemitic and based on Jew hatred.

      In any case, as I said earlier, DT favored and advocated a non-revenge based rehabilitation of Germany and Germans rather than duplicating the vindictive/punitive methods used by the Allies after World War I which many scholars believe provided the circumstances that allowed Hitler and the Nazis to come to power. Judging from the results of the US policy of rehabilitation, in both Germany and Japan, DT’s view seems to have stood the test of time.

      Since you don't agree with the US policy toward Germany after WWII, what should the US have done?

    • Jupiter said:
      "You list from the set America First the elements Gerald Ford & JFK, implying that America First is presidential, perhaps even heroic. If follows, as surely as night does day, that you, Mr. Maguire are positively characterizing America First, perhaps even lionizing it. Every member of America First bears the characteristic “morally reprehensible while a member”. This is so because the delay of entry into WWII, such as was done by President Hoover as respects the Manchurian incident, inflated the violent deaths beyond belief, given that whacking Japan would have cost minimal lives, instead of the hundreds of thousands in the Pacific theater. Similarly, the failure to whack Nazi Germany after the Rheinland militarization resulted in the growth of military power of Nazi Germany, such that, whereas crushing the thugs, according to a Nazi German general, at the Rheinland would have crushed the pigs with certainty, tens of millions of violently disrupted corpses were produce by persistent delay. Hence, JFK & Gerald Ford acted in a morally reprehensible manner when they were members of America First."

      I don't know where to start in replying to your latest drivil and I don't even know why I'm trying. You seem to feel you are entitled to play monday morning quarterback with history and then make moral judgments about decisions leaders and citizens made, in good faith, without knowing with any certainty what the future would bring. You are also big on drawing entirely unwarranted and nefarious implications from statements or questions directed at you, such as I was lionizing America First, or that all members of that organization were "morally reprehensible while members" because they didn't have the same knowledge about the future as you now have, 75 years later.

      Scurrilous, despicable, embarrassing? I've run out of adjectives.

    • Jupiter said:
      "One possible reason that Ms. Thompson supported Wilkie was an as yet subconscious desire to see all the Jews gassed; that’s a quite reasonable suspicion, given that Ms. Thompson claimed the US & the UK were gassing the Germans."

      You have totally lost it. Clearly you will say anything, not matter how unfair, unsubstantiated, or outlandish, in an attempt to make a point. You are either a fool or you need to get caught up on your meds.

      You've expressed a fear that your comments might be moderated on Mondoweiss. Certainly your last comment should have been. Continuing this sort of unrestrained discourse may well get you excluded from Mondoweiss, but only because your comments are rapidly going far beyond the pale of rational discourse and discussion.

    • Having just reread the quote by Kurth you cite, I see no basis whatsover for concluding Kurth was a neo-fascist, nor for concluding that Kurth felt Germans were somehow the exclusive suffering souls after the war. Your comment is shameful.

    • Here's a basic link to a discussion about America's "Germany First" strategy in WWII. While both Germany and Japan were "monsters", Germany was by far a greater threat to the US than Japan, not to mention being a greater threat to Europe's Jews, Slavs, Roma, Homosexuals, etc.

    • You seem to have modified your original claim that DT favored "German Nazis" after the war to her and Kurth (not "Karch") merely favoring and exonerating "Germans" after war. I suppose that's progress. However, a more fair and balanced view would be that she favored and advocated a non-revenge based rehabilitation of Germany and Germans rather than duplicating the vindictive/punitive methods used by the Allies after World War I which many scholars believe provided the circumstances that allowed Hitler and the Nazis to come to power. Judging from the results of the US policy of rehabilitation, in both Germany and Japan, DT's view seems to have stood the test of time.

    • Jupiter said:
      "Now then. Please state any objections you have to “One World in Charity.” If you do not state any, it will be reasonable, having asked you multiple times for your opinion, to think that you have no objection to that set of sermons composed by Archbishop Muench."

      Jupiter, let us review how you introduced "One World in Charity" to this thread. You did so with one short sentence: "He may well have predicted her favoritism for German Nazis after war, a feeling shared by Archbishop Muench in “One World in Charity.” Who is the "he" in your sentence, Freud?

      You have not provided any quotes or cites to this work yet you expect me to pass judgment on it. Worse yet, you apparently believe it is reasonable to condemn me for whatever sins you attribute to Arch Bishop Muench merely because I have expressed no opinior nor even responded to your hyperbolic repeated questions about someone I know nothing about. I suggest, judging from your scurrilous tactics, it might be appropriate for you to change your pen name from Jupiter to Joseph McCarthy.

      Now, if you think the good archbishop Muench and his "One World in Charity" work are an important topic for Mondoweiss, I suggest to write on piece about him and submit it. We can all then learn much about the fellow and why you view him with such disfavor. We can also then discuss our views of your argument with you. In the meantime, I'm not about to do my own research project on an individual who as far as I can tell from you brief comments had nothing to do with Dorothy Thompson other than your belief that she shared his views, whatever these were.

    • Jupiter said, "She simply was never a prophetess [sic]". Since DT did predict, in 1930, that a war in Europe would be started by Germany, by the end of the decade, she seemed to have accurately judged the situation in Europe and accurately predicted the likely outcome, whether or not she was technically a "prophetess".

      As to her failure to engage or predict events in the Pacific concerning Japan, her reporting experience was in Europe, and she spoke fluent German, not Japanese, so perhaps she didn't feel qualified to offer her opinion.

      Please explain why you believe Imperial Japan was the US' "most important focus" as opposed to defending our allies in Europe against Nazi Germany. Certainly nobody in the US government (perhaps with the exception of Douglas McArthur, felt that.

      I would be grateful if you would stick to the subject of the thread, Dorothy Thompson, rather than using it as a forum for pontificating on your favorite historical theories, not to mention ancient religious figures such as Martin Luther.

    • Please explain why DT's support of 1940 presidential candidate Wendell Wilkie something to be derisivwe of? Please also tell us why belonging to the America First organization is worthy of your derision, particularly in view of the fact that its membership included many notable Americans who fought bravely during the war, such as Gerald Ford, JFK (who donated $100 and sent them a nice letter), and others.

      Please explain why your gratuitous and absurd comparison of DT to Martin Luther is in any way useful to this discussion, and is not, instead, merely offered to show the depth and profundity of your own literary background.

      Please also explain why the page cites you provide from Hertog's "Dangerous Ambition" are totally unrelated to the quotes you attribute those pages to.

      Please explain and provide evidence and cites for you statement, "..Ms. Thompson’s [was] a spokesperson for a slave state like Saudi Arabia."

      You profess disbelief that DT suffered retaliation because of her criticism of Israel's actions, and that it affected her career. Yet, her biographer, Peter Kurth, provides plenty of evidence of that. Is his evidence false, and, if so, why do you believe it is false?

    • Jupiter said: "But after the war, and especially with the founding of Israel, she turned rancorous."
      Since DT had been an ardent public supporter of Zionism up until the end of the war, please have the decency to provide some of the reasons for her rancor against the nascent Jewish state, like ethnic cleansing, terrorism, etc. If you disagree with her criticisms of actions by the Jewish state, please tell us why her criticisms were wrong.

      Please provide evidence/cites in support of your allegation that AFME "was partly funded by the Saudis". Peter Kurth, her biographer said (p. 428) AFME "took no Arab subsidy and had no Arab members on its board."

      You say, "Thompson insisted that criticism of Israel was, in her own words, “not anti-Semitic."". Are you saying that criticism of Israel is antisemitic? Please explain why, if you do believe that.

      Please provide cites in supportf of your claim that DT supported slavery or justified slavery in Saudi Arabia. Neither the Kurth or Hertog book mention this, and between the two, there is only one tangential reference to Saudi Arabia.

    • Jupiter said: "He may well have predicted her favoritism for German Nazis after war."

      Where did she say she favored German Nazis after the war? Please give us your source for that outrageous claim. She argued against Morganthau's desire to return Germany to a pastoral land, but so did a lot of others.

      "In fact, it has been said that she thought the Allies were basically putting them in gas chambers." Please provide a cite for this. Who said it and when?

    • Hophmi,
      Thanks for the two google books cites. Both are valuable for a fuller picture of Thompson. Nice bit of research even though I may not entirely agree with your or the authors' interpretations.

    • High praise indeed. Thank you so much. Much of it is just cobbled together comments from her biography, but what a biography she had!

    • Yonah, you and JeffB (or maybe it's JonS, or maybe both?) have been promoted by me to the level of Zionist Central Troll because:
      1. You typically ignore the substance or main point of an article or posting and instead nitpick some lesser detail, usually without any source attribution.
      2. This (as intended) forces the author to respond at length to the nitpick.
      3. You then either nitpick the response or ignore it in favor of some other nitpick or diversion.
      4. In the event the author's response is too overwhelming for you to answer without looking like a fool, you take the coward's way out and disappear from that thread.
      5. Usually, your responses in a thread will contain some allegation of antisemitism aimed towards the subject of the article or sometimes toward the author himself.

      Quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of you and your cohort's bullshit game or tactic. Hence, I refuse and WILL NO LONGER FEED THE ZIONIST TROLLS.

      Congratulations on your promotion. After all your hard work, you deserve it.

    • Philip,
      Thompson's switch away from Zionism and the Israel project began at the beginning of 1945. She was still in her prime then, and arguably was still in 1948 when Claire Booth Luce and others thought she could be a viable presidential candidate. Her demise started in 1947 and then grew rapidly in 1949-50 when she became very vocal about the plight of the Palestinians and the excesses of Israel.

      Losing key outlets and influence was a gradual process which was brought on by her refusal to kow tow. Who knows when her prime would have been if she hadn't tangled with Zionism and its Israel project. In 1948, she was 55 years old. Hardly past her prime.

    • A bit of a generality applied to 5 examples.

    • Another classless insult to the US from "that shitty little country". Like Dorothy Thompson, Carter did much for Zionism and Israel (like the Camp David accord!). Too bad there's no one in our leadership willing to call them out and put the screws to them. Disgusting, really.

    • Actually, I first heard about Dorothy from Alison Weir in her segment at last year's Lobby conference in DC. I then bought her book (see info in thread below). I recently heard about the upcoming documentary, "Silencing Dorothy Thompson" and then bought her biography. I was floored when President Obama quoted her in his toast to the press.

      So kudos for the revelation of DT should go to Alison.

    • She knew everybody at her high point which spanned a period of almost 2 decades (1933 to 1950?). Considering she ran in the top tier of society, I'd be surprised if she didn't know them.

      My favorite vignette: Her first marriage was a failure and a public humiliation at the end. She was devastated so went to see Dr. Freud who told her to change her lipstick color, buy a new wardrobe, and move on, which she did. Sigmund apparently didn't see Dorothy as a prospect for long term analysis.

    • I bet it was the first episode of "Dangerous Catch".

    • Hophmi,
      Did you even bother to read DT's very long analytic article on dual loyalty (published in Commentary, no less) that I linked to?

      "In a long and thoughtful 1950 article published in the Jewish magazine Commentary, Thompson warned American Jews of the dangers of dual loyalty and of “the terrorism of criticism”.
      '…there is another tendency equally dangerous as it affects non-Jews, and that is to equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. This really amounts to making anti-Semites, by appointment, of everybody who either does not believe in Zionism or criticizes any phase of Zionist and Israeli policy.'"

      Here's the link again: link to commentarymagazine.com

      Read it please and then perhaps you will understand how inane, shallow, and grossly unfair your analogy of her and Hitler was.

      Dorothy Thompson was an important historical figure who advocated tirelessly against Hitler and the Nazis, against antisemitism, and for the Jews of Europe and for Zionism. When she saw first hand the reality of Zionism in Palestine, she changed her mind and warned against it. Her transformation from Zionist to anti-Zionist does not make her an antisemite any more than the same transformation by Einstein and Arendt and others made them self-hating Jews.

      I had hoped my article would generate a serious discussion about a little-known yet important historical figure and major player in Zionism's history. Taking cheap shots by nit-picking stray comments from her decades-long publishing and speaking history to knit a tapestry of antisemitism should be beneath you.

    • Same lobby. I think it's traceable back to Brandeis and his contemporaries who did all the initial organization. Those guys were good.

    • I agree Obama is a major disappointment. His toast to our pathetic, toadying press corps was cringe-worthy at best. I also doubt he and his crack staff have even a remote clue who Dorothy Thompson was. I think they likely got the quote through a random google search.

    • You're most welcome, Mr. Mooser. As to your second paragraph, ya lost me. I even googled it and still don't have a clue.

    • Keith,
      Dorothy was as east coast as you can get. She was a leading player in New York's suffrage movement. Her advice was welcomed by major leaders and presidential candidates. But once she was tarred as an antisemite, and wouldn't back down, she became a pariah, socially and politically.

  • Understanding the Jewish National Home
    • What I found fascinating about the Malcolm memo was that it provided the key to why American Jews (specifically the Zionists who were a very small minority at that point) were critical in getting the US involved in the war. American Jews in general weren't particularly interested in either getting the US involved, or in supporting Zionist aims. The key (per Malcolm and Landsman) was when Palestine was offered as a quid pro quo for efforts to convince Wilson to come into the war, using Brandeis' and Frankfurter's influence.

      So, it was a small minority of US Zionist Jews that made that happen. There were other reasons, but Brandeis' influence was certainly critical.

    • Hostage, neither of your links goes to the Malcolm memo. My link provided a free copy, however dubious the website (which also links to a speech by an ex-Jew which amounted to little more than antisemitic screed).

    • Hostage, neither of your links goes to the Malcolm memo. My link provided a free copy, however dubious the website (which also links to a speech by an ex-Jew which amounts to little more than antisemitic screed).

    • I edited my response a couple of times but the edited version was lost in the ether. The title to the Naomi Cohen book is in the original link, as is the title to the Bruce Allen Murphy book. Another good source is historian James Galvin's The Israel-Palestine Conflict, link to amazon.co.uk

      A fascinating memo from a key British player, James A. Malcolm, can be found at, link to mailstar.net The site seems a bit dubious but the document copy from the British Museum appears authentic.

    • yonah fredman April 19, 2015, 5:33 pm
      "irishmoses- Please name a historical work (or two or three) that attribute Wilson’s decision to enter WWI on Brandeis’s influence."
      And,
      "...I have meager knowledge of that time frame and almost anyone who shows just a modicum of knowledge probably knows more than me about the causes of that war. Still I will not credit theories of causation based upon mere assertion. Which is what this turns out to be."

      Yonah, Brandeis' friendship and influence on Wilson is no great mystery. Plus, I did preface my remarks with, "In my view..."

      Still, you're right, my assertion was absent any reference to authority. It was not, however, a "mere" assertion. Unlike some on MW, I am not in the habit of pulling outrageous charges (typically of antisemitism) out of my rear end. I hope the following helps assuage your concerns:

      A good discussion of Brandeis' influence can be found in Alison Weir's book, Against our Better Judgment, link to amazon.com on pages 17-21. While Weir is certainly not a neutral voice, her book is very well documented (over 60 percent of the book is end notes and end matter). You'll find a variety of quotes from original sources like Nahum Sokolow, David Ben-Gurion, Samuel Landman, and by historian Naomi Cohen link to amazon.ca. Historian Bruce Allen Murphy's link to amazon.com, also discusses Brandeis' influence on Wilson and his involvement in the creation and promotion of the Balfour Declaration at great length.

      I appreciate your patience and I apologize for my late reply.

Showing comments 765 - 701
Page: