Commenter Profile

Total number of comments: 1414 (since 2010-02-17 01:44:49)

Keith

Radical dissident. Retired.

Website: http://saskck.blogspot.com

Showing comments 1200 - 1101
Page:

  • Sanders is in Jewish tradition that rejected exceptionalist nationalism of Zionism
    • SIBIRIAK- "No one was fired. Kahlenberg is dishonest."

      Well, that is a big part of the problem isn't it? When Zionists like Kahlenberg and Hophmi can lie and get away with it, they do. For them, truth is what works. A successful lie far better than an inconvenient truth. We are dealing with propagandists with zero intellectual integrity.

    • HOPHMI- "Here are the relevant quotes from Richard Kahlenberg’s article in CHE:"

      Sibiriak did a critique of Kahlenberg which puts much of what he says in perspective. I would like to mention that the Century Foundation where he works is one of many Beltway think tanks existing on establishment grants and utilizing current and ex-government employees. His colleague Morton Abramowitz stands out as yet another right-wing imperialist posing as a progressive. And before that, Kahlenberg worked at the Center for National Policy, another imperialist think tank where Madeleine Albright used to be president. Some "progressive" references. In other words, his puff piece is basically dishonest establishment propaganda. And no, I don't take his version over the version of Ira Glasser when he was with the New York Civil Liberties Union.

      HOPHMI- "So, in history, 1968 occurred before 1980. So you can’t retroactively define a person’s politics in the 1960’s based on a position that he took in the 80’s."

      This all started when I referred to Shanker as right-wing. I never specified when he adopted those views. You are the one trying to make a big deal out of certain events from the 1960s as somehow contradicting my labeling Shanker as right-wing. Apparently you feel that Shanker was a goody two shoes prior to his despicable career with the AFL-CIO, where he eagerly participated in imperial machinations that were terrorist. The AIFLD was notorious for this. I seriously doubt that this was some sudden conversion. And don't forget that he was a labor leader, not a civil rights activist. His marching with MLK had political undercurrents. And I have never doubted that organized Jewry (including Shanker) supported civil rights at that point in time when it was good for the Jews, later to do an about face when opposing affirmative action was now considered good for the Jews. Israel Shahak discusses this.

      "The apparent enthusiasm displayed by American rabbis or by the Jewish organisations in the USA during the 1950s and 1960s in support of the Blacks in the South, was motivated only by considerations of Jewish self-interest, just as was the communist support of the same Blacks. Its purpose in both cases was to try to capture the Black community politically, in the Jewish case to an unthinking support of Israeli policies in the Middle East." (p103, "Jewish History, Jewish Religion," Israel Shahak)

      Yes, yes, Hophmi, civil rights champion in the South, defender against reverse discrimination in the Bronx. And since you are so concerned with time lines, a quote from the Albert Shanker Institute concerning this American union president using his office to fundraise for and otherwise support Israel in 1967 and thereafter. A Zionist, an imperialist and a militarist. A true Hophmi type liberal.

      "The second organization that drew Shanker’s backing was the American Trade Union Council for Histadrut (ATUCH), which rallied support among U.S. trade unionists for Israel and its labor movement, the Histadrut. Shanker actively supported the ATUCH’s exchanges which brought Jews and Gentiles together for trips to Israel. (Shanker later organized similar trips for AFT leaders.) Following the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel was faced with a financial crisis and Histadrut faced bankruptcy. The ATUCH organized a $1 million fundraising campaign and Shanker supported it with contributions from the UFT, solicitations to other unions and to individual UFT members, and a request for an AFT contribution. He joined the ATUCH board of trustees in 1968 and had a strong relationship with its long-standing director, Gregory Bardacke." link to shankerinstitute.org

      A final quote to emphasize that Shanker was part of the SD/USA, neocon,Scoop Jackson, cabal of right-wing warmongers. Lastly, what do I have to do to get you to spell Shanker's name correctly? It is Albert Shanker, not (Ravi) Shankar.

      "Among the prominent newer figures of a rightward-leaning union power,none was quite as strident or influential as Albert Shanker, leader of New York's United Federation of Teachers (UFT) and soon to become president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT).

      ....

      Meany, recognizing a leader of his own caliber and style, passed over AFT President David Seldon in 1972 to add fellow hawk Shanker to the AFL-CIO executive council." (p190, 192, "Taking Care of Business: Samuel Gompers, George Meany, Lane Kirkland and the Tragedy of American Labor," Paul Buhle)

    • DAN - "For those curious the attached links from the Martin Luther King center might be of interest."

      The letter from King in support of the 1967 strike in no way relates to the anti-community control strikes of 1968. Since I assume you are aware of this, my obvious conclusion is that you are a Zionist propagandist attempting to misrepresent the reality of the situation. Any quotes from the King center supporting the 1968 strike? And are you suggesting that Albert Shanker wasn't a right-wing imperialist in bed with the neocons?

    • HOPHMI- "...blow it out of all proportion so that it somehow confirms his own crazy antisemitic views. Usually, though, it just makes him look like the moron that he is."

      Whenever you make yourself look foolish, you double down on the insults, your only real argument. Albert Shanker (not Shankar) has a long history of neocon friendly activity and CIA/State Department collusion, and was involved in the Reagan terror campaign in Central America. If that isn't right-wing, the words have no meaning. And I don't care what you say his relationship with MLK was, I don't trust what you say about anything. Got any quotes from reputable sources? Or are we talking Daniel Goldhagen, or perhaps the Albert Shanker Institute press release? Or maybe it is just Hophmi says this and Hophmi says that. Hell, you can't even copy and paste the correct spelling of Albert Shanker from my comments. As for his sudden conversion from Saint to Sinner, it appears to have happened more or less concurrently with the Social Democrats USA (Kirkpatrick,et al) switching from Trotskyists to neocons. Birds of a feather, kiddo. Right-wing. Extreme right-wing. Cold war militarists.

    • HOPHMI- "...was supported during the strike by Bayard Rustin and A. Philip Randolph, would describe him as “right-wing.”

      Good Lord, Hophmi, do you check anything? Bayard Rustin (deceased), former President of the A. Philip Randolph Institute was a fellow member of the Committee on the Present Danger, where he and Albert Shanker rubbed elbows with the likes of Jeanne Kirkpatrick. There are ties to the National Endowment for Democracy. Shanker was on the board of Freedom House, the National Endowment for Democracy and (gasp) " Social Democrats, USA (SD/USA), a neoconservative group that sees labor as the cutting edge for social and political change." This is the spawning ground for the neoconservatives, for gawd sakes! And you claim that he is not right-wing? He is social civil rights activist? You are nothing but a Zionist propagandist, empirical reality your enemy, a problem to be dealt with through deception and feigned outrage. link to sourcewatch.org

    • HOPHMI- "They were dismissed from their positions, in violation of the contract."

      Obviously, you have a reading problem. I referred you to two sources, both reliable. To refresh your memory, I will re-quote from Sibiriak regarding Ira Glasser of the New York Civil Liberties Union discussing this.

      "McCoy’s transfer of nineteen staff members to central headquarters was hotly disputed. While the UFT claimed that the local board had violated due process procedures, the New York Civil Liberties Union jumped to McCoy’s defense, underwriting a press release by the organization’s associate director, Ira Glasser. He wrote:

      At first— and this appears to be a fact that is not generally known— McCoy tried to reassign the nineteen within the experimental district. According to the Niemeyer Report, McCoy had the authority to do that based on oral information he had received. Yet when some teachers refused to be transferred, the Board of Education refused to back up McCoy’s authority. Apparently it was clearly within McCoy’s authority to transfer personnel within his district until he actually tried to exercise it.

      Glasser added that when McCoy had then asked to transfer the nineteen to another district, Superintendent Donovan denied the request. The local board was forced to send notices to the group of employees, referring them to Board of Education headquarters for reassignment. “This transfer was interpreted by the professional staff, the community at large, and the press as a dismissal,” said Glasser. He wrote in the local board’s defense:

      Dismissals must be accompanied by the requirements of due process, including written notice of charges, right to a hearing, right to confront witnesses, right to call witnesses, right to introduce evidence, right to receive transcript, right to appeal, etc. The bylaws mandate these requirements for regular teachers, and the UFT contract extends the requirements to substitute teachers. But neither the bylaws nor the contract mandate the requirements of due process for mere transfers. Article II, section 101.1 of the bylaws says: “Transfers of members of the teaching and supervising staff from one school to another shall be made by the superintendent of schools, who shall report immediately such transfer to the Board of Education for its consideration and action.”

      The purpose of these provisions, argued Glasser, was to allow the superintendent maximum flexibility to transfer teachers. They also illustrated that teachers’ job rights did not include the right to choose their own assignments. Many hundreds of such transfers took place each year without objection or even note. Despite this, the UFT demanded a due process hearing.

      Glasser noted that at the same time as these demands were being made, the UFT had sent representatives to Albany to lobby against community control. “It certainly seem[ ed] abundantly clear,” he concluded, “that the due process issue as used by the UFT was nothing but a smokescreen behind which the effort to discredit and destroy community control could go on.”

      The union never admitted that it had made special allowances for teachers to transfer out of the experimental district whenever they wished to do so. Under normal conditions, teachers are required to remain in a school in which they are placed for a minimum of five years before requesting a transfer." (Jane Anna Gordon , “Why They Couldn’t Wait: A Critique of the Black-Jewish Conflict Over Community Control in Ocean-Hill Brownsville, 1967-1971” pp. 97-100) link to mondoweiss.net

      And to refer to a right-wing union president as a civil rights activist is an insult. He may have marched with King in Selma, but he was on the opposite side of the line in New York. Shanker was part of the AFL-CIA nexus.

    • HOPHMI- "Many Jews became teachers because they faced less discrimination as teachers than they did in the private sector."

      Had trouble getting jobs as bus drivers, day laborers, and domestic help did they?

      HOPHMI- "Look, there’s really no debate about what happened...."

      Correct! If you actually read the links provided by Mooser and Sibiriak, it is quite clear that the notorious right -wing Albert Shanker was determined to sabotage community control even though that eventually cost the teachers union dearly.

      HOPHMI- "The firing violated their contracts."

      Firing? What firing? Did you not read Sibiriak's quote, or don't you care anything for facts?

      "At first— and this appears to be a fact that is not generally known— McCoy tried to reassign the nineteen within the experimental district. According to the Niemeyer Report, McCoy had the authority to do that based on oral information he had received. Yet when some teachers refused to be transferred, the Board of Education refused to back up McCoy’s authority. Apparently it was clearly within McCoy’s authority to transfer personnel within his district until he actually tried to exercise it."

      Hophmi, you are a liar for Zionism. Let us be honest about that.

      HOPHMI- "Shankar was a civil rights activist...."

      Have you no shame? Shanker was the Jewish head of a Jewish fiefdom, who did his utmost to advance the corporate agenda. He was a member of the Committee on the Present Danger, a cold war monstrosity that had close ties to the CIA and pursued a corporate/imperial agenda.

      HOPHMI- "First of all, community control was seen by many as reinstating de facto segregation...."

      Yes sir, boss! Those uppity Negroes were attempting to institute segregation just like MLK advised them to so as to protect their power and privilege from Jewish multiculturalists. How long will these Black supremacists keep the downtrodden Jews from upward mobility? And when will you flee to Israel to escape all of the Black racism and subjugation of Jews?

    • MOOSER- "Reassigned them. Spent the afternoon reading about the strike. Here’s an interesting view, from a NY teacher:"

      Thanks for taking the time to research this. The link was very informative. I don't have the time to get into it, but Albert Shanker was a real jerk. He was a member of the right-wing Committee on the Present Danger, a cold war monstrosity. Probably a CIA asset, etc.

    • HOPHMI- "The school board in Ocean Hill/Brownsville summarily dismissed teachers and administrators, almost all of whom were Jewish."

      Since almost all of the teachers and administrators were Jewish, it stands to reason that the dismissed teachers would mostly be Jewish. By the way, any ideas as to why almost all of the teachers and administrators in this overwhelmingly black district would be Jewish? Didn't the system used to be predominantly controlled by the Irish until the 1940s?

    • YONAH FREDMAN- "Keith- typical of the low grade arguments of this comments section."

      What is this, the pot calling the snowflake black?

      YONAH FREDMAN- "Not an argument in favor of affirmative action...."

      Feel free to read the court briefs of the Jewish lawyers advocating for affirmative action back in the day when the did that sort of thing. And, yes, I still support affirmative action until such time as past historical injustices are redressed fully and completely.

      YONAH FREDMAN- "Why grandma, what David duke like teeth you have!"

      This is your idea of a "high grade argument"? Considering the source, perhaps it is your best effort.

      YONAH FREDMAN- "Affirmative action normally takes the route of preferential hiring rather than prejudiced firing."

      I am unfamiliar with all of the details of this particular case, however, I do know that in the long struggle of labor, the courts were usually on the side of the company. Picket lines could get rough. When you cut through the BS, the law fundamentally codifies existing power relations. I do know that the NYC administration is now more diverse than it used to be in 1968.

      YONAH FREDMAN- "...a taunt against Jewish hypocrisy."

      If the shoe fits, wear it.

    • YONAH FREDMAN- "The blacks of nyc 68 were fighting for community control of their schools and the right to fire white jewish teachers were nationalists, black nationalists, anti white nationalists."

      Suppose that there was a school district in the deep South where the overwhelming majority of the student body were black, yet the overwhelming majority of the teachers and administrators were white. Now suppose that the school board and parents organization attempted to significantly increase the number of black teachers and administrators. Historically, the so-called Jewish civil rights organizations have always supported this as affirmative action which, coincidentally, weakened the power of the Southern non-Jewish elites. Good for the blacks, but more significantly from their perspective, good for the Jews. Alas, now the tables are turned. The overwhelming majority of teachers and administrators in these overwhelmingly black districts are not Southern whites, they are Jewish whites. What was once progressive and good is now reverse discrimination and bad because it is bad for the Jews. By and large, Jewish organizations support civil rights when it is good for the Jews, and oppose these actions when they are bad for the Jews. The Jews are and remain the tribalists, the blacks are fed up with being the untermenschen. And this has nothing to do with black nationalism, and everything to do with an overly rigid de facto caste system where organized Jews act as birthright mandarins, and now birthright Brahmins. And you, Yonah, are a tribalist to the core.

    • "The magnitude of this change is difficult to overstate."

      Indeed, at the time of the Six Day War who could have predicted the unprecedented rise in Jewish Zionist power and that the Holocaust would be a more potent symbol in 2016 than in 1956?

  • As NY primary approaches, Clinton and Sanders separate, somewhat, on Israel
    • HOPHMI- "More misogyny on Mondoweiss."

      Stand back, Hillary, Hophmi loves Israel more than you and wants to prove it! He's gonna show us what a REAL lawyer can do!

    • KATHLEEN- "Listened to Obama’s overview of the Nuclear security summit."

      Kathleen, you need to remove your liberal blinders. Obama is a hypocrite and a liar. The US has been in continual violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty's requirement that nuclear powers work to reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons. For an honest appraisal of Obama's efforts to "reduce and eliminate" nuclear weapons I quote and link John Pilger.

      "In 2009, President Obama stood before an adoring crowd in the centre of Prague, in the heart of Europe. He pledged himself to make “the world free from nuclear weapons”. People cheered and some cried. A torrent of platitudes flowed from the media. Obama was subsequently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

      It was all fake. He was lying.

      The Obama administration has built more nuclear weapons, more nuclear warheads, more nuclear delivery systems, more nuclear factories. Nuclear warhead spending alone rose higher under Obama than under any American president. The cost over thirty years is more than $1 trillion." (John Pilger) link to counterpunch.org

    • PHIL- "As NY primary approaches, Hillary Clinton ramps up the Israel pandering"

      It was reported that in showing her support for Israel, an overly enthusiastic Clinton got carried away and injured the donkey. Clinton later apologized saying that her love of the Jewish state simply got the best of her.

  • 'We don’t want to find ourselves in a position like apartheid South Africa': A report from Israel's first national conference against BDS
    • HOPHMI- "those opposed to BDS actually believe in free speech."

      Steven Salaita will be so pleased to hear that. So will the 12 French BDS activists convicted of a hate crime for wearing T-shirts and handing out fliers. For you, truth is what works. You are a diehard Zionist cadre totally lacking in intellectual integrity. Touting a Zionist commitment to free speech even as Zionists push for all of these new laws criminalizing free speech.

  • The occupation of the American mind, documented
    • "I hypothesize one contributing reason for the American atmosphere: for some American Jews, Jewish statehood is integral to their Jewish identity."

      Considering the fact that prior to World War II, most Jews were either non-Zionist or anti-Zionist, this Zionist created sense of "Jewishness" apart from and transcending the Judaic religion can only be considered a phenomenal success, the triumph of a veritable blitzkrieg of propaganda involving Holocaust movies, Holocaust education, Jewish studies, etc, all of which exploded after the 1967 Six Day War.

  • Young liberal Zionists, it's time to let go and move on
    • MOOSER- "Nor is any of that part of that “politically constructed paradigm.” They wouldn’t dare! This is prima facie bona fides kind of stuff. Especially the way there is one “Jewish” all that happened to."

      Zionism without Zion? An attempt to separate "Jewishness" from support for Israeli policies? Of late, I have been having moderation difficulties and feel constrained in my comments. You, I suspect, would have no such problem, you silver tongued devil, you! But, yes, I am aware of the inconsistencies. Take the best and leave the rest, says I.

    • ROBERT COHEN- "Zionism has integrated into modern Jewish identity. So much so that most Jews, young and old, don’t even realise we are living in a politically constructed paradigm. Zionism is just a normal, natural way to understand the world. Why would you oppose it unless “you have a problem with Jews”.

      And it’s not just Jewish identity. The practice of Judaism itself has undergone a successful merger with the modern State of Israel. We pray for the State of Israel in our Sabbath liturgy, along with its leaders and soldiers."

      What an extraordinarily cogent two short paragraphs! I am in complete agreement and suspect that Israel Shahak, if alive, would also agree. It was he who said "The persistent attitudes of classical Judaism toward non-Jews strongly influence it followers, Orthodox Jews and those who can be considered its continuators, zionists. Through the latter it also influences the policies of the State of Israel. Since 1967, as Israel became more and more 'Jewish', so its policies are influenced more by Jewish ideological considerations than by those of coldly conceived imperial interests. This ideological influence is not usually perceived by foreign experts, who tend to ignore or downplay the influence of Jewish religion on Israeli policies. This explains why many of their predictions are incorrect." (p99, "Jewish History, Jewish Religion," Israel Shahak)

    • "I’m under no illusion how difficult it is for liberal minded Jews, committed to their Jewish identity to see Israel in a different way." (Robert Cohen)

      What constitutes the "Jewish identity" of a secular Jew? How does that differ from the "Jewish identity" of a religious Jew?

  • Israelis don't exist
    • ECHINOCOCCUS- "They believe this in the absence of any objective criteria, which does not impose any obligation to respect any of it."

      No one is asking you to respect any of it, nor are those who self-identify as Jews likely to be concerned about your definition of who is a Jew.

      In evaluating the political economy, I rely upon empirical evidence. That Israel relies heavily upon the support of organized American Jewry should be rather evident. In attempting to understand this support for Israel, we need to analyze these organizations as they exist in the real world. As such, we recognize that it is the organization which defines the criteria for membership. Likewise, the internal solidarity of the membership depends upon the degree to which the membership identifies with the goals of the organization and with their sense of kinship with their fellow members.

      For example, The conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations is composed of those major organizations who identify as Jewish and whose membership identifies as Jews. In evaluating these powerful organizations and their activities, we need to deal with that reality. And since significant members of these organizations are secular Jews it is only logical to accept the fact that, for whatever reason, American Jews do not stick with a specifically religious definition of Jewishness. And since many of the member organizations exhibit considerable member solidarity, we can rest assured that the membership does, in fact, consider itself Jewish.

      Now, we can attempt to analyze the political economy of Zionism, of anti-Zionism, of post-Zionism, and of Jewish tribal solidarity in general, but we need to deal with the empirical reality of how things actually are, not how you think they should be based upon a feudal definition of who is a Jew. And while I also lament the demise of the religious definition of Jewishness, it is obvious to me that a new definition of Jewishness has evolved, and that is the reality we face, hence, I acknowledge that reality and attempt to deal with it.

    • ECHINOCOCCUS- "The only objectively determinable group that can be called “Jewish” is religious...."

      So you are going to tell all of the secular Jews who self-identify as Jews that they aren't Jews? Are you serious? Once upon a time, Jews were defined as those who followed the Judaic religion known as Classical Judaism. With the advent of modernity and the enlightenment, the religious definition was no longer the single valid criteria. Initially, anti-Semites and Zionists racialized the definition. Because of the Holocaust and the skillful Zionist exploitation of the Holocaust, many people born to Jewish parents have come to believe that they share a common heritage and fate with others born to Jewish parents. That they believe this to be true has consequences. To ignore the reality of group solidarity based upon a common ideology is not realistic. Also, it appears that an irrational and exaggerated concern with anti-Semitism is a significant factor in the ideology.

      My own simple definition is as follows: I define a "Jew" as someone who self-identifies as a Jew and is accepted as a Jew by other Jews.

    • MOOSER- "I’ll keep my Jewish birthright, that “people” mess o’ pottage doesn’t look like a good deal."

      "Jewish birthright"? Jews aren't a race, yet you were born a Jew? No choice in the matter? What exactly is the nature of the Jewishness that you were born with? A sense of kinship, perhaps? And, if so, why?

  • Testifying before the City University of New York's Task Force on Anti-Semitism
    • SARAH SCHULMAN- "...Zionists Organization of America (ZOA), once a mainstream Jewish Organization, it is now a small extremist right-wing group."

      This "small" group is a member of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. It's President is Morton Klein who is well known. Yes, it is right-wing and extremist, however, it is part of the combined might of organized Jewry which has become thoroughly Zionist and right-wing. AIPAC is another member of the Conference of Presidents. Far from being a fringe group, the ZOA is more-or-less reflective of what organized Jewry has become.

  • What if Bernie Sanders had delivered his speech at AIPAC!?
    • I suspect that Sanders didn't attend the AIPAC convention because he didn't want to be part of the ritual Goyim humiliation ritual. This year the level of debasement was so extreme that even the donkey was embarrassed.

    • EMORY RIDDLE- "Can we see some of those AIPAC proposals for ending the occupation?"

      They probably were pleas for the Arabs to end their occupation of parts of Eretz Ysrael so that the peace loving Jews could make the desert bloom.

  • Back to theatrics: Netanyahu's AIPAC speech, including videos about Palestinians, the IDF
    • YONAH FREDMAN- "Off topic- The terrorist attacks against Brussels has stirred many commentators to decry Obama's foreign policy as insufficient."

      The empire's current reign of terror against the entire Third World is a primary cause of the "blowback" terrorism in the West. Do you think that these murderous interventions and drone assassinations won't have consequences? A relevant quote and link.

      "The atrocities in Brussels — and they are horrific, criminal atrocities — are not occurring in a vacuum. They are not springing from some unfathomable abyss of motiveless malevolence. They are a response, in kind, to the atrocious violence being committed by Western powers on a regular basis in many countries around the world. And just as there is no justification for the acts of carnage in Brussels (and Paris and Turkey and elsewhere), there is likewise no justification for the much larger and more murderous acts of carnage being carried out by the most powerful and prosperous nations on earth, day after day, year after year.

      The Western powers know this. For many years, their own intelligence agencies — in study after study — have confirmed that the leading cause of violent “radicalization” among a small number of Muslims is the violent Western intervention in Muslim lands. These interventions are carried out for the purpose of securing the economic and political domination of Western interests over lands rich with energy resources, as well as their strategic surroundings. That they have not even the slightest connection to “liberating” people from religious or political persecution, or making the world “safer,” is glaringly transparent. They are about domination, pure and simple." (Chris Floyd) link to counterpunch.org

  • Zionism is finally in the news, as officials seek to conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism
    • HOPHMI- "Just like supporting terrorism is an effective tactic for BDS supporters, right?"

      Supporting terrorism? You mean like "mowing the lawn" in the Gaza concentration camp? Or Obama's drone assassinations? No, BDS doesn't support any of that.

    • HOPHMI- "There’s one main reason people equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism...."

      Yes, because they think it will be an effective tactic.

  • Why Shmuley Boteach was banished from Cory Booker's memoir
    • BEN KARP- "Despite many years of close association and mutual support, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach does not appear in Senator Cory Booker’s recent and highly autobiographical book...."

      Cory Booker's "many years of close association and mutual support" with Shmuley Boteach does not speak well for Cory Booker. One would hope that elemental considerations of morality played a part in Booker's decision to distance himself from the odious Boteach.

    • SHMULEY BOTEACH- “It’s nothing personal. But genocide is deadly serious.”

      This from the consummate hypocrite who praised genocidaire Paul Kagame.

      "Paul Kagame and his mentor and fellow warlord in neighboring Uganda, President Woseri Museveni, were given the green light by the West to kill and steal at will in Central Africa. They are the two main architects of the genocide in the eastern Congo, where some estimate six million people have died since Rwanda and Uganda invaded the region, in the mid-Nineties. The soldiers of these two U.S. henchmen are still there, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, looting precious minerals for sale to multinational corporations under cover of tribal warfare – wars created and nurtured by Kagame and Museveni, themselves, for the sake of power and profit and the favor of the United States and Europe. Kagame and Museveni have more blood on their hands than any combination of men in Africa – which makes them heroes to the West." (Glen Ford) link to blackagendareport.com

      " In recent years, Boteach has assumed the mantle of promoting Kagame in the Jewish community and to other Americans. He has urged the Rwandan government to continue to strengthen its alliance with Israel, the rabbi’s other foreign cause.

      The personal relationship Boteach forged with Kagame has intensified as Rwanda has become a leading African ally to Israel, despite the fact that Israeli dealers sent arms to the military when it was slaughtering Tutsis in the 1990s." (Alex Kane) link to mondoweiss.net

  • Why is AIPAC legitimating Donald Trump's bigotry?
    • JAMES NORTH- "Why is AIPAC legitimating Donald Trump's bigotry?"

      A better title might have been "Why is Donald Trump legitimating AIPAC?" Actions speak louder than words, kiddo. So far, Donald Trump's major crime has been that he is an egotistical capitalist fat-cat with a big mouth. Repugnant, no doubt. But Hillary? A proven war monger and mass murderer. In any event, Wall Street and the MIC effectively run the empire and disaster looms regardless of who wins. As for me, I am voting for Jill Stein. I simply refuse to go along with the BS.

  • Garland nomination is moment of humble reflection for US Jews
    • YONAH FREDMAN- "1. the majority does not have the same need to organize as a group as a minority might."

      Certainly, discriminated against and disadvantaged minorities should organize for self-protection. Does that description fit the Jews? When an elite group of capitalists organize based upon manufactured ethnicity in order to advance their group interests at the expense of the larger society, then you are talking about tribal sectarianism which is at odds with true multiculturalism. When a society breaks into various sub-groups each looking out for itself alone, that is called sectarianism and it is destructive. The "is it good for the Jews?" philosophy only works for the Jews as long as the rest of society behaves in a true multicultural fashion. In our multicultural society, non-Jews do not form some sort of monolithic organized group known as Gentiles. And if non-Jews suddenly found common cause in defensive solidarity against the Judaization of the imperial elite, what would you call that? As things now stand, I find the subservience of the imperial political elite to Israel, AIPAC, and Jewish oligarchs scary. Notions of "jealousy" hardly describe the feeling of waking up in some sort of Franz Kafka tale of woe.

      Currently, Israel is the symbolic center of the Zionist ideology which unites the various groups of Jews into power-seeking tribal solidarity. It has been extraordinarily effective in achieving its goals which include the psychological unification of the manufactured "Jewish people." This was made possible by the exploitation of the Holocaust by the Zionists. Whether or not the tribal cohesiveness of the Jews can be established outside of the support for Israel framework is debatable. The McGill University group Nit In Aundzer Nomen appears to be attempting to create a form of post-Zionist Jewish tribal solidarity, but who knows? But for now, support for Israel seems to me to be very strong among the Jewish elites. And what people like you need to realize is that you can be truly assimilated or you can be tribal, but you can't be both. A quote for you.

      "Therefore, the real test facing both Israeli and diaspora Jews is the test of their self-criticism which must include the critique of the Jewish past. The most important part of such a critique must be detailed and honest confrontation of the Jewish attitude to non-Jews." (p103, "Jewish History, Jewish Religion," (p103, "Jewish History, Jewish Religion," Israel Shahak)

    • YONAH FREDMAN- "They do not need actuarial tables to set them straight."

      Yes they do. Hophmi's reference to violent attacks against Jews needs to be evaluated in relation to the relative level of violence against other groups. If Jews are, in fact, safer than non-Jews, continued pissing and moaning about violence against Jews is fundamentally dishonest and indicative of an extreme Judeo-centric perspective. And if it turns out that Jews are safer in France than in Israel, what would that suggest to an open minded person? When empirical reality is your enemy, you are the problem!

    • HOPHMI- "Jews are doing “very well” in France, where they’re the victims of hundreds of violent attacks every year."

      Only hundreds in a nation of 66 million? I would have thought that it would be higher. Any data comparing the homicide rate for Jews versus non-Jews? Assaults on Jews versus non-Jews? And don't start with that bogus ADL hate crime crapola.

    • HOPHMI- "Right, because Jews are almost tolerable as individuals, but if, G-d forbid, they organize in any way…"

      I'll let the "almost tolerable" slide for the moment. Tell me, sport, how would you feel about a Council of Presidents of Major Gentile Organizations whose mission was to "advance the interests of the American Gentile community, sustain broad-based support for Gentile solidarity and address the critical concerns facing world Gentiles.”? Sound good to you?

    • PHIL- "No, we need to celebrate the freedom a democracy grants to minorities."

      Yes, the ruling elite are a minority of the population and they do have considerable freedom, however, I would hardly categorize the astonishing power-seeking success of organized American Jewry as some sort of victory for minorities in a democracy. Rather, it appears to me that what has transpired more resembles the Judaization of the imperial elite, hardly a victory for the non-Jewish minorities in the age of neoliberalism.

      PHIL- "Power is a fluid thing in society...."

      Yes, and that is why organized American Jewry devotes so many resources to acquiring and maintaining Jewish power. From the mission statement of the Conference of the Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations: "...the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations Fund advances the interests of the American Jewish community, sustains broad-based support for Israel and addresses the critical concerns facing world Jewry." link to conferenceofpresidents.org Tribal solidarity, pure and simple.

    • PHIL- "...Jews are the liberal establishment in Washington. If Garland is confirmed, four out of five justices named by Democrats will be Jewish."

      Any ideas as to why Jews would so disproportionately represented in the imperial elite? Meritocracy, perhaps? Has Israel and Zionism played any role in this?

      PHIL- "At his unveiling, Garland referenced his ancestors who fled anti-semitic persecution in Europe."

      Why is this relevant? Why would he do this? A member of the ruling elite claiming victimhood? How strange.

      PHIL- "...we don’t need so-called Jewish sovereignty in another country halfway around the world...."

      Ah, Jews no longer need the benefit of Judeo-Zionist "kinship" to break into the non-Jewish oligarchy, from now on normal class rigidity should suffice, hence, time to transition to a post-Zionist form of "Jewishness"?

      PS- A quote and link to provide some additional perspective on Judge Garland.

      "Obama has decided that, to fill Scalia’s vacant seat for radicals on the Supreme Court the country needs another former partner of a Wall Street law firm, turned prosecutor, and then appellate judge. Another judge obscures the highly political work of the contemporary Supreme Court beneath a veneer of technocratic competence. Just the opposite is required at this time." (Rob Hager) link to dandelionsalad.wordpress.com

  • As Trump heads to AIPAC, Netanyahu stands to benefit
    • CITIZEN- "Nothing will change, no matter who gets in the white house."

      I predict that things will get much worse very rapidly no matter who gets in the White House, probably starting before the next occupant takes residence.

  • 'New York Times' whitewashes poll showing Israeli support for expelling Palestinians
    • DANAA- "If anyone has seen some interesting commentary on this - from the US especially - I would like to read it."

      Have you ever read "Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years," by Israel Shahak? If not, you should. One of his points is that both Orthodox Judaism and Zionism are the modern versions of Classical Judaism which appears around 1000 AD until about 1800 AD when the enlightenment and Gentile Kings caused Judaism to splinter between Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and secular Jews. One characteristic of Classical Judaism was hostility to the surrounding Gentile host community. The Jews tended to serve the Gentile monarch and nobility in administering the Gentile peasants who were exploited. Classical Judaism's ideology reflected that perspective.

  • Palestinians grapple with knife attacks as violence enters fifth month
    • JON66- "You seem to be better versed in the subject, which forms of killing civilians,if any, do you find acceptable?"

      When it comes to killing civilians, who is the primary culprit? How many Arabs were slaughtered in Israel's invasion of Lebanon? How many civilians were slaughtered in Operation Cast Lead, Israel's mass murder of Palestinians? Cut the bullshit. You are a Zionist apologist for mass murder of non-Jews. White phosphorus is okay, kids with knives verboten.

    • JON66- "As a society we have agreed that some tactics are unacceptable no matter the goal or the underlying reason. Biological warfare being an example."

      Putting aside the question of who in society makes these decisions, perhaps you would care to explain why biological warfare is unacceptable, yet white phosphorus, napalm, bombies, flechettes, depleted uranium and nuclear weapons are apparently acceptable? I believe that Israel has all of these weapons and, except for nukes,uses all of them on civilians. Yet, your outrage is restricted to Palestinian children, driven to desperation by their occupiers and tormentors, who then strike back with a knife? It is difficult to find words to adequately describe your moral debasement, therefore, I leave the last word to Noam Chomsky.

      “There is, evidently, much satisfaction to be gained by careful inspection of those writhing under our boot, to see if they are behaving properly; when they are not, as is often the case, indignation is unconstrained.” (Noam Chomsky)

  • Trump's Jewish mirror
    • SIBIRIAK- "But that's exactly what needs to be explained: why there are so many non-Jewish Zionists in the top 1%, not to mention the top 10%, 20%, etc."

      Are there? The visible lack of anti-Zionist sentiments does not equate to a pro-Zionist attitude. For the less organized Gentile fat-cats, it is easy to go along in order to get along with their hyper-organized and committed Jewish Zionists elites. Particularly in view of the strong pro-Israel bias in the media. I have linked to an article about top billionaires for Israel. Of the twenty mentioned, only two appear to be non-Jews. And since Israel and the US are both hyper-militarized warfare states, there is a lot of shared interests, however, to categorize an accommodation to power when one's financial interests are not directly threatened as fulsome support for Zionism is a bit of a stretch.

      Top twenty billionaires for Israel- link to breakingisraelnews.com

  • Rubio's defeat means the downfall of neoconservatives
    • ECHINOCOCCUS- "Abstention, if massive, may be as good as a vote outside the dictatorship parties."

      So you think that the suffragette movement and the registering of Black voters in the South was counter productive? Being submissive is an act of rebellion? Lacking your manichean mindset, I have convinced myself that a revolt at the polls is a first step toward effective resistance against neoliberalism and neofeudalism.

    • JSINTON- "Allowing that we will have to choose between Mrs. Clinton and The Donald, I will have to think very long and hard about my choice."

      Why do you have to choose between Clinton and Trump when there will be other candidates on the ballot?

      JSINTON- "I might not vote at all."

      God forbid that you vote Third Party! Better to play it safe and vote for the people who are screwing you! Anything else would be a "wasted vote." There is a certain comfort in keeping your gaze within the cattle chutes.

      JSINTON- "...we had some pretty good years out of President Clinton for the country...."

      Is it possible to be this poorly informed? Why do I even bother replying?

  • Protesting Trump on Shabbat
    • EMORY RIDDLE- "This demonization of Trump is out of control."

      No, it is what elections have come to be. An orchestrated psychological terror campaign to scare the voters into voting against your opponent. That way, the ignorant electorate can justify voting for imperial business as usual, while simultaneously feeling pride in having prevented some immense evil from coming about. It is a marketing campaign aimed at the citizenry which has huge fears and very little comprehension of the nature of the current political economy.

  • What Bernie Sanders should say at AIPAC (and cause a political revolution)
    • HOPHMI- "...whom you apparently expect to turn the other cheek until they’re dead."

      Live in fear do you? Experienced a lot of persecution have you? You are just a whiny, spoiled Zionist, savoring your gilded victimhood and oozing anti-Gentile bias.

    • HOPHMI-
      Perceived anti-Semitism is the mother's milk of Zionism, however, your anti-Gentilism is above and beyond mere dutiful hasbara. Your contempt and loathing of non-Jews is extreme.

  • Pushed by alumni claiming anti-Semitism, Vassar officials oppose BDS and promote 'Israel-positive' programs
    • JONRICH111- "However, because Israel hijacks Judaism...."

      Hijacks? I believe that hijacking involves a forcible commandeering, hardly an accurate description of the relationship of organized American Jewry to Israel and Zionism. More like the seduction of the organized Jewish leadership into supporting a modern version of Jewish peoplehood as a means of achieving the benefits of kinship and group solidarity in an individualistic multicultural society. And no, individual Jews are not collectively responsible for Israeli crimes anymore than individual US citizens are responsible for the crimes of empire. However, it is almost inevitable that we will be tainted by the crimes of the leadership, particularly if we voted for them or otherwise actively support the system.

    • JONRICH111- "Christianity (which is religiously hegemonic)"

      Christianity religiously hegemonic? Please tell me you are joking.

    • HOPHMI- "The program at Vassar is indisciplinary, meaning that it more or less gathers courses in other departments that touch on Judaism, literature, sociology, history, etc, under one roof."

      Like I said, rather than study Talmud, secular Jews (reformed too) can immerse themselves in Jewish studies, hence, it functions as a kind of Talmud for secular Jews.

      HOPHMI- "It’s not at all intolerant of dissent, actually; there are a lot of anti-Zionists who teach in Jewish Studies departments."

      I never said that these Jewish studies programs were intolerant, I said that the Zionist Jews who are instrumental in promulgating these types of studies, which include studying the Holocaust, history of anti-Semitism, etc, are intolerant of dissent as is made abundantly clear by the WSJ op-ed and the Vassar reaction to it. The notion that "Anti-Israel sentiment mixed with age-old anti-Semitism has reached a fever pitch at Vassar College." is ludicrous. The reality is that Judeo-Zionists resort to raw intimidation whenever they perceive that there is any opposition to their power-seeking support of Israel and Zionism. And as for your assertion that "there are a lot of anti-Zionists who teach in Jewish Studies departments.", I find that hard to believe. Can you back that up?

    • HOPHMI- "You appear to know zero about this issue."

      When you are propagandizing, it is always difficult to know if you believe what you say. I am not referring to the low level of Judaic studies which have a long history. I am referring to the recent (post 1967 Six Day War) explosion of Jewish studies at the University level, and what that implies. Some quotes to make the point.

      "A gathering of 47 academics, including one Israeli, who represented nearly all American university faculty in the field at the time, gathered at Brandeis from September 7 to 10, 1969. It was here that the Association for Jewish Studies was founded."

      ....

      "In 1992, the AJS published “Jewish Studies Courses at American and Canadian Universities: A Catalogue,” which listed around 4000 courses (not including those taught at seminaries such as HUC-JIR or the Jewish Theological Seminary), 410 institutions of higher learning with Jewish studies courses, 104 endowed academic positions in the field, and 1300 members in the AJS, a far cry from the first conference’s 47 attendees." link to ajsnet.org

      "Since 1966 proliferation of Jewish studies throughout the North American continent has accelerated and shows no signs of abating, despite the general retrenchment currently taking place in American universities. Growth has continued not only in the number of institutions offering courses, but in the number and variety of subjects taught and in the size of Judaic faculties within universities, in the quality of the programs and in the number of students enrolled and majoring on both the undergraduate and graduate levels. Important new concentrations have developed in such state universities as Ohio State and the State University of New York, in prestigious private institutions such as Brown University, and in a number of Canadian universities. More recently, the major rabbinical seminaries have placed new emphasis on Ph.D. programs designed to train scholars to teach in secular universities."

      ....

      "At the same time, the growing self-consciousness and self-confidence of American Jewry in recent decades created a demand for Jewish studies and a desire to take advantage of the opportunities for learning. American Jewry's awareness of itself was nourished by the reaction to the Holocaust and the rise of the State of Israel. The trauma of the Six Day War in 1967 and the Yom Kippur War of 1973 provided added incentives for study of the Jewish past and present, which frequently accompanied a desire for renewal of identity and identification." link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

      "The last quarter century has witnessed a veritable explosion in the academic field of Jewish studies. During that time, Israel solidified its place as the global center in the field, while in the United States virtually every university and college of note has established its own program, center or chair." link to jewishjournal.com

    • PHIL- "Indeed, the WSJ authors said that Jewish Studies Program faculty at Vassar...."

      Jewish studies appears to function as a kind of Talmud for secular Jews. And its growing popularity attests to the growing power of Zionist Jews who appear to exert massive influence over the doctrinal system and have zero tolerance for anti-Zionist dissent which is labeled as anti-Semitism and dealt with harshly.

  • Feminist Palestinian legislator's letter from an Israeli jail on International Women's Day
    • "In the West Bank, leading feminist and imprisoned Marxist-Leninist politician Khalida Jarrar released a statement from jail to mark International Women’s Day."

      And how many US "feminist" groups have supported her? Or is the leadership of US feminist groups primarily concerned with breaking the glass ceiling so that they can share in the power and privileges of empire?

  • In bid for Adelson's millions, Rubio announces braintrust of pro-Israel old-timers
    • MOOSER- "If Abrams is not “assimilated” by America, then he has a damned good reason, even an excuse, to work against America’s interests. Don’t give it to him."

      Nonsense. Abrams could be fully assimilated if he wanted to but he doesn't want to be fully assimilated. He longs for the sense of Jewish peoplehood which Zionism has successfully resurrected. Sure, he moves about freely, dresses conventionally, speaks correctly, and wanders the corridors of power. But he does so as a Jew living in America, not as an American who is Jewish. He assiduously works to expand Jewish Zionist power and influence. He is an integrated tribalist who doesn't need an excuse to put Israel and Zionism first.

    • MOOSER- "I think “assimilation”...should be reserved for use in the political sense, that is, being a citizen, and enjoying the rights and protections of a citizen."

      I think that you are altering the meaning of the term by applying a political definition (equal rights, protections, etc) to a fundamentally sociological construct. Inherent in the definition is the notion of absorption. Has the group been accepted into the larger society, and does the group think of itself as part of the larger society. Assimilation is not a question of yes or no, there are varying degrees of assimilation. Blacks, for example, have the rights and protections of citizens, yet their acceptance within the larger society is only partial. And while Elliott Abrams could be fully assimilated if he wanted to, he doesn't want to, preferring to give his primary loyalty to a sub-group. Assimilation is a two-way street. Some folks just don't want to identify with the larger society. Using your definition, citizenship confers assimilation and sectarianism has no meaning among various groups of citizens. Not true. In a multicultural society the notion of the degree of assimilation of the various sub-groups is a rather important issue.

      MOOSER- "But to say American Jews are “non-assimilated”

      I didn't say that "American Jews are "non-assimilated," did I? I said that Elliott Abrams and those who share his beliefs (Jews are to stand apart from the nation in which they live.) are not fully assimilated. One simply cannot be absorbed into the larger society if one doesn't want to be. And that includes those who blend in with the prevailing culture. For some reason, I am not sure why, you find the notion that fundamentalist Zionists like Abrams are not fully assimilated to be personally threatening to you. Curious. Particularly in view of the fact that a core objective of Zionism was to preserve Jewish peoplehood and was never particularly concerned about individual Jews, particularly non-Zionist Jews.

    • Elliott Abrams quote: “Outside the land of Israel, there can be no doubt that Jews, faithful to the covenant between God and Abraham, are to stand apart from the nation in which they live. It is the very nature of being Jewish to be apart–except in Israel–from the rest of the population.”

      Is there anyone who truly believes that Elliott Abrams and others who share this belief of his are truly assimilated into American life? That Elliott Abrams represents the strong Jewish identity associated with multiculturalism in a pluralistic society? Are you assimilated if you can move freely throughout society, yet identify as a member of an exclusivist group, a people apart? Is one-sided sectarianism compatible with multiculturalism?

  • 2017 is a crucial year for the Palestine Question
    • HELENA- "...100 years of Western-supported Zionist settler-colonialism in Palestine...."

      A somewhat different form of settler-colonialism, however, insofar as a significant part of the settlers truly believe in the "redemption" of the sacred soil of Judaic mythology. This fundamentalist belief system stands in the way of rational pragmatism and of anything even approaching a just solution.

  • 'We wasted 40 years talking about nothing, doing nothing' -- Pappe demolishes peace process
    • TALKNIC- "Thus far there are no programs that do as you describe because what you’re describing simply doesn’t work"

      How about reducing the number of spaces in the indent? Currently, there are 14, how about 7?

    • TALKNIC- "An
      d
      en
      d
      up, etc"

      Only if the program kept indenting the follow-up comments. One would hope that it would be possible to locate a follow-up comment below the 'replied to' comment without continuing the indentation beyond where it terminates now.

    • DAN WALSH- "...how, exactly would Zionism’s gatekeepers have the subject discussed so as not to qualify for the charge of “antisemitism”?

      The time honored method is to hold the discussion behind closed doors where non-Jews are not privy to the discussion. The traditional definition of anti-Semitism is hatred of Jews because they are Jews. The operational definition of anti-Semitism is basically anything which interferes with organized Jewish (now overwhelmingly Zionist) power seeking. Once the label is attached, Jew hatred is inferred. Keeping the discussion within the kinship community causes no problems, however, washing dirty laundry in front of the Goyim is strictly taboo.

    • YONAH FREDMAN- "The fact is that Israel 2016 is dependent on US support and that support is based upon Congressional support and mainstream media support that can be attributed to rich Jewish donors. That donor base is not going to disappear any time soon."

      I agree. In capitalism, money is power. As such, as the wealth of these Jewish fat-cats has increased, support for Israel can be said to have increased even as support for Israel among the majority of Jews has decreased. Until the oligarchs change their mind about support for Israel, that support will continue. I have yet to see any indication of any anti-Zionist billionaires whatsoever, although billionaire support FOR Israel is well known.

  • Why I support a one state solution and still consider myself a Zionist
    • GAMAL- "What are these “Multicultural” laws or policies...."

      Multiculturalism is the sea in which Jewish tribalists swim.

  • 'When I have the opportunity to do it, I will': Likud lawmaker vows to demolish Al-Aqsa mosque
    • JON S- "Just one example :if you want to know what a fun place Auschwitz was…"

      That one example is enough to convince me.

    • JON S- “...I found it curious that of all those sources Kay24 chose the Anti-Semitic rense.com.”

      I have heard Zionist Jews refer to rense.com as anti-Semitic. Other than the anti-Semitic label being applied by numerous Zionist Jews, what exactly is your reason for labeling rense.com as anti-Semitic? This is a serious question. Please defend your use of the label.

  • 'In every important way Israel has failed'-- leading American Zionist says No mas
    • DAN- "I echo Sibiriak. I don’t understand what point you are trying to make."

      I suspect that Talknic is trying to make the point that Zionism was not a rescue project. The intent always was to preserve the exclusivist nature of Classical Judaism in nationalist form, the religious binding of the Jews transmogrified into the blood solidarity of the manufactured Jewish peoplehood. Had the Zionist devoted their resources to rescuing Jews as opposed to creating a Jewish state, it is highly likely that fewer Jews would have died. How many fewer is a matter of conjecture, however, Zionist opposition to Jewish immigration into the Western democracies rather than Palestine is well known. Had they worked on rescue rather than creating a Jewish state, more Jews would have been saved, Israel would likely not have been created as a Jewish state, and the Middle East and the world would be a better place. As for Herzl, it could be argued that he sacrificed his family on the alter of Jewish nationalism.

    • SIBIRIAK- ”You can’t be that stupid.”

      I am smart enough to recognize a highly skilled, Judeo-centric propagandist when I see one.

    • SIBIRIAK- "No, not strange."

      Well, you would say that wouldn't you?

      SIBIRIAK- "Rosross raised the issue of Jewish immigration. I replied with some information about Jewish immigration."

      Yes, as I said, you used rosross comment as an excuse to make a lengthy comment about immigration restrictions affecting Jews taken out of context to imply that these immigration restrictions were specifically targeting Jews. Your implication was obvious to others as well, hence, Mooser's comment.

      SIBIRIAK- "Again, you are projecting. Nowhere is that meme to be found in my comments or the Breitman quotes."

      No? "Benito Mussolini’s press spokesman, Virginio Gayda, said that FDR had called the conference only because he was of Jewish origin: its only message was “nobody wants the Jews.”

      SIBIRIAK- "But it’s certainly not promoting the anti-Gentile memes you are suggesting it does."

      I haven't read Breitman’s book and never suggested that it promoted anti-Gentile memes. I said that "You then quote at length from from Richard Breitman’s “FDR and the Jews,” which, based upon your quotes, focuses exclusively on restrictions of Jewish immigration." My comment was direct to you, your choice of words and your specific quotes from the book which seemed to me to reinforce the “all the world hates the Jews” meme." I stand by my comments and find your claims of merely responding to rosross disingenuous.

    • SIBIRIAK- "Yes, I’ve read her posts on this topic. I agree with them almost entirely."

      If so, it seems strange that you would begin your comment by saying that “Jewish immigration into most countries was severely restricted–even after Hitler’s genocidal intentions had become increasingly clear." This gives the impression that it was JEWISH immigration per se that was restricted. This is factually incorrect and sounds like the Zionist hasbara we continuously hear. You then quote at length from from Richard Breitman’s “FDR and the Jews," which, based upon your quotes, focuses exclusively on restrictions of Jewish immigration. All of this, taken out of context, gives the impression that it was primarily the Jews who faced immigration restrictions from the callous non-Jews in the West. The anti-Semitic Goyim simply stood by while the Jews were murdered. The "all the world hates the Jews" meme. Your comment is in stark contrast to the one by Tree which I quoted.

      SIBIRIAK- "In any case, I was just responding to rosross’ suggestion that there was no reason for Jews to try to emigrate to Palestine...."

      Really? Seems to me that you could have simply stated that there were immigration restrictions affecting all of those not of Northern and Western European origin which prevented most Eastern European Jews from immigrating to the West, hence, many Jews immigrated to Palestine in desperation. Instead, you used rosross as a pretext for a biased, Judeo-centric perspective.

    • SIBIRIAK- "Jewish immigration into most countries was severely restricted--even after Hitler's genocidal intentions had become increasingly clear."

      Commenter Tree has commented extensively on this in the past. I am once again going to quote her insofar as she comments much less frequently now.

      "In the 1920’s, well before Hitler came to power, and in fact while he was serving time in prison, the US passed laws restricting immigration based on country of origin, in an attempt to maintain the numerical prevalence of Western and Northern European stock over newer Southern and Eastern Europeans, and Asians. German immigration, although limited by quotas, was not banned, and in fact from the 1930’s to early 1940’s its estimated that 140,000 German Jews immigrated to the US, and the total German Jewish immigration to other countries was on the order of 450,000 or 70% of the total German Jewish population of 600,000.

      Jews were not restricted as Jews from immigrating to the US and they were the overwhelming majority of the immigrants arriving in the US from Germany during this time. Overall, from 1931-39, over 20% of all US immigrants were Jews, which was the highest Jewish percentage of any decade in US history. In 1939 alone, over 50% of ALL US immigrants were Jews.

      During this same period, approximately 40,000 to 50,000 German Jews arrived in Palestine. This was only 10% of the total German Jewish immigration. Not only that, but the Zionists in Palestine, who were in charge of determining who exactly was allowed in to Palestine under British quotas had a selection process that put greater weight on whether a particular Jew was a Zionist, in good health and capable of materially aiding the Zionist cause and economy over the need or vulnerability of that particular Jew. Thus, sometimes a Jew from the US or the Americas were given preference over a German or Eastern European Jew, and young adults were given preference over the elderly or young children.

      It should also be noted that during the time of the US immigration quotas, Ukrainians, who were dying in the millions from the forced starvation of the Holodomor, were almost completely cut off from any immigration to the US. Poles, who were as a nation suffering from the Soviet Union’s Great Terror were also nearly completely cut off from US immigration, as were other Eastern and Southern Europeans. The majority of the Europeans who were victimized by the massive curtailment of US immigration opportunities that occurred in the 1920’s and onward were religiously Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.

      It should also be noted that during this time any immigration to the US from Asian countries was COMPLETELY prohibited, and those Asians who had immigrated earlier were prohibited from becoming naturalized US citizens.

      I’m sick and tired of the lie that Jews were singled out for prohibition, and the lie that others were not as negatively impacted by the country restrictions as Eastern European Jews. The US restrictions doomed Ukrainian kulaks, Polish nationalists and others well before they doomed Eastern European Jews." (Tree) link to mondoweiss.net

  • Jews aren't special
    • JONATHAN OFIR- "How do you maintain your “specialness”, whilst not becoming exclusivist?"

      You don't. That is why a strong Jewish identity is a good indication of tribalism. Merely self identifying as Jewish quite another matter. Awesome post! I am about to go to bed before going out of town tomorrow and cannot give full scrutiny to this post, however, on a first pass there is almost nothing I disagree with, the one exception regarding proselytization which the author suggest is still very active in Judaism. I disagree. Initially it was, however, confronted with competion from Christianity and Islam, Judaism abandoned the masses and became the religion of exclusivist tribal nomads who became the town to the peasant country. Other than that, his post is very consistent with my evaluation of the situation.

      JONATHAN OFIR- "We need another culture altogether. One that is peaceful, and that means first and foremost not exclusive."

      "First and foremost not exclusive." Exactly. And this is what I have been saying again and again. Allow me to quote Israel Shahak one more time. "Therfore, the real test facing both Israeli and diaspora Jews is the test of their self-criticism which must include the critique of the Jewish past. The most important part of such a critique must be a detailed and honest confrontation of the Jewish attitude to non-Jews." (p103, "Jewish History, Jewish Religion, Israel Shahak)

  • Haim Saban warned Clinton that Tea Party is 'chickensh--' to the neocon 'Coffee Party'
    • PHIL- "Right now only the Forward and Alternet, Lobelog, and I are talking about these Jewish political forces, though they are clearly going to shape the election."

      Not only the election, but US policy towards Israel and the Middle East. Highlighting Israel's crimes and violations of international law are fine, but at the end of the day unless you can devise a way to effectively counter this type of raw power, nothing will fundamentally change.

  • Chomsky and his critics
    • ROGER LIPPMAN- ”When you return from your travels and you get around to reading what I actually referred to, I’m sure we will be interested to hear what you have to say about the facts.”

      Roger, let me be blunt. I know who and what you are. You are a cheerleader for imperial interventions which you try to excuse as humanitarian. Yugoslavia was the first and precedent setting in a serious of murderous and destructive interventions including Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and the Ukraine. Countries destroyed, people killed and lives ruined as Uncle Sam went on an ongoing rampage. Every country “helped” by you R2P propagandists is now a failed state disaster. In the case of Kosovo, a failed statelet disaster where the economy consists primarily of foreign aid, Camp Bondsteel, and organized crime. Ultimately, the carnage in the Yugoslavia conflict is a direct consequence of the imperial intervention which, among other things, provided the rationale for not eliminating NATO but, instead, expanding NATO as a US controlled and directed out of area mercenary strike force.
      As such, as a cheerleader and apologist for imperial war crimes, you have blood on your hands. So, I am not interested in what you or Richard Holbrooke or any of your phony State Department/Soros NGOs have to say. As for me, if you are really interested, you can go to my commenter profile and enter “Yugoslavia” in the search function. I stand with Noam Chomsky, Edward S. Herman, William Blum, Diana Johnstone, Michael Parenti, David Gibbs, and John Pilger in opposing imperial destabilizations and imperial mass murder.

    • ROGER LIPPMAN- ”Chomsky has made numerous statements that are at odds with the extensively documented facts, although when challenged he claims not to be denying those facts.”

      You comment says volumes about who you are and what Balkan Witness is. I am traveling and unable to more fully respond, however, I can say that Chomsky's version of events is entirely consistent with that of Edward S. Herman, John Pilger, Diana Johnstone, Michael Parenti and others on the principled left, and with my personal research. Your reference to “documented facts” I assume refers to the imperial version of events. At the time of the imperial dismemberment of Yugoslavia, I was astonished at the extent of the across the board nature of the propaganda, much of it coming from the Jewish Left as some sort of support for Clinton in repayment for his unprecedented capitulation to Jewish Zionist control of US Middle East foreign policy. It was proof to me that when a Democrat makes war there will be no effective political opposition.

    • DONALD- "Chomsky is imperfect like everyone."

      Exactly! And on balance, his criticisms of Israel and championing of Palestinian rights has been praiseworthy. Yet, irrational Chomsky animus seems to emanate from many unlikely sources. Kind of a cottage industry hoping for elite funding. Yet another strong comment from you!

    • DONALD- "But I mean he’s less relevant in the present because of the internet...."

      Good point. It wasn't that long ago that Chomsky and a handful of others constituted the very core of alternative information. Alternative sources are much more plentiful nowadays. How long that will last is another matter. And now we must exercise care regarding social media disinformation. Overall good comment.

  • Resisting anti-Semitism does not contradict resisting the Israeli state
    • Sibiriak, since the comment section on this thread has become a de facto Mondo-Sibiriak, I figured that before going out of town I would sneak in a (hopefully final) response to one of your article length comments which concerns me. Have you ever considered actually writing an article for Mondoweiss instead posting multiple article length comments? Just a thought.

      SIBIRIAK- "I'm not sure why you want to distance yourself from echinococcus. Your views and his are quite similar, and he is certainly one of the most logically rigorous--and entertaining-- posters at MW."

      I am pleased that you approve of Echinococcus' views, many of which are, in fact, similar to mine. However, there are significant differences in philosophical outlook and the use of language. I am not the manichean firebrand that he is. I think these differences were well illustrated in an exchange I had with both Echinococcus and Yoni Falic on the "Zionism is Blocking the Path to Peace" thread. I am going to quote first Yoni then Echinococcus then me and finally Norman Finkelstein. At least on the question of Chomsky and Cultural Zionism, I am relatively close to Finkelstein and at odds with Yoni and Echinococcus whom you seem to want to link me with. Perhaps you should ask them how simpatico they think I am to them versus how they relate to you?

      "Really there is only one conclusion. All forms of Zionism are evil and just represent an attempt to legitimize one of the most vile and disgusting forms of white racist genocidal colonialism...." (Yoni Falic) link to mondoweiss.net

      "You continue conflating outright Zionists (“Kulturzionists” who were imagining a “right” to be in Palestine where their ass had no business at all, or asking for “binational state” nonsense on other people’s land) with some confused and shaky figures like Chomsky, Einstein etc. who did speak in principle against the establishment of the Zionist state in its actual form without ever being adamantly against Zionism as a fake nationalism." (Echinococcus) link to mondoweiss.net

      "As for the cultural aspect of Zionism, that could have been easily achieved without political Zionism, without a Jewish state, with far fewer Jews in Palestine, and without the unholy alliance between the Jewish state and imperialism."

      "I might add that at least some of the strands of cultural Zionism seem somewhat similar to the attempt by Native Americans to salvage what remains of their culture from the Western homogenization juggernaut through the creation of museums, etc., something which I generally approve of." (Keith) link to mondoweiss.net

      "On the other hand, I am also not a fanatical anti-Zionist, if one conceives Zionism as wanting to preserve and develop Jewish-Hebrew culture (the strain with which Prof. Chomsky seems to identify). Each to his or her own, so long as it is tolerant of difference, and respectful of basic principles such as equality under the law." (Norman Finkelstein) link to mondoweiss.net

    • MOOSER- "But I’ll check back tomorrow, and hopefully then I can find out who I am, once and for all."

      Moose, you are in a class by yourself. I wouldn't even attempt to analyze who or what you are. Have you asked your wife?

    • Sibiriak, now that you have effectively hijacked this thread with your never ending misrepresentation of me and my opinions in a mountain of BS that it would take away from the purpose of Mondoweiss to fully respond to your dishonesty, I will at least respond to the concept of tribalism.

      SIBIRIAK- "...having an exclusive group identity, not overlapping identities that can combine with a universal perspective; loyalty to the tribal identity above all other identities; definition of the “good” as “what’s good for my tribe”

      The first part of your sentence is ludicrous. Everyone has overlapping identities, exclusive identities non-existent. Therefore, you claim that those with overlapping identities can have a universalist perspective, hence, anyone who suggests a kinship orientation must be implying an exclusive group identity. Rubbish. Tribalism or feelings of kinship occur on a continuum with varying degrees of strength. I have always maintained this and you have consistently misrepresented me on this as on so many other things. The second part of your sentence is virtually identical with Gilad Atzmon's definition of those who "put their Jewish-ness over and above all of their other traits." I don't go that far. My definition would be that the tribal group identification and group solidarity are in conflict with universalist values and actions, with the emphasis on actions. Furthermore, those individuals whose groups have benefited from historical advantage and power-seeking and who wish to maintain their privileges and power at the expense of the wider community demonstrate a tribal perspective, not a universalist one.

    • Sibiriak, I wasn't going to comment on this thread again, however, your latest lengthy misrepresentations of me and my positions compel me to do so. I am not going to respond point by point because there are simply too many points. I suppose that when you are slinging mud and BS that volume is your friend. Instead, I will focus on a couple of key points to further clarify my position.

      SIBIRIAK- "Well, obviously their statement is not “radical” enough to please folks like Atzmon, echinococcus, Yoni Falic, and yourself...."

      Interesting. I quote Finkelstein, Shahak and Slezkine and you conflate me with Atzmon, echinococcus and Yoni Falic. I might add that you totally ignored my quotes and the implications. Obviously it doesn't suit your agenda to link me with Finkelstein, Shahak, and Slezkine, three primary sources for my conclusions and opinions, when you wish to taint me as some sort of radical ideologue.

      SIBIRIAK- "...who insist on the explicit repudiation of strong Jewish identity as an anti-Zionist litmus test."

      I have asked you to explain to me what exactly constitutes American "Jewishness." Feel free to relate how a "strong Jewish identity" differs from a form of Jewish tribalism. My original comment simply noted that their statement indicated to me a Jewish tribal orientation, not that they were not anti-Zionist. A term I have begun using is tribal anti-Zionist to denote those Jews who associate their tribal tendencies with opposition to Israeli policies as opposed to Judeo-Zionists who support Israel. I concluded my original comment by saying "Bottom line: congratulations on opposing at least the worst aspects of Zionism." Where did I call for an "explicit repudiation of strong Jewish identity"?

      SIBIRIAK- "As I’ve stated, I have no personal interest in Jewish religion or Jewish identity."

      That is why you made so many lengthy comments misrepresenting my opinions? Because this topic holds little interest for you? Who do you think you are kidding?

      SIBIRIAK- "My only interest is in how the issue affects the I/P conflict and the Palestinian cause."

      My, but aren't you noble! Selfless to a fault! Do you know how tired I am of tribalist Jews claiming that their actions are motivated simply by devotion to the Palestinian cause? Of course, this phony nobility does provide you with a handy excuse for totally avoiding the issue of the distribution of power in our political economy. And avoiding the issue of "kinship" and how that relates to the struggle for power and the influence over US Middle East policy and support for Israel.

      SIBIRIAK- "I think it’s a political mistake to put the main emphasis on Jewish identity rather than on Zionist Israel’s horrific crimes, and violations of international law."

      It is intellectually dishonest to conflate Jewish Zionism with Jewish identity. Do you want to ignore American Jewish support for Israel? Not analyse why organized American Jewry staunchly supports Israel and Zionism? Don't try to figure out why Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson spend huge sums of money in support of Israel? Don't even think about thinking about how a resurrected Jewish tribalism plays into all of this? Instead, focus on Israel's crimes and see how long it will be before Haim and Sheldon come around. Israel exists and is what it is primarily because of American Jewish support. A key to change is to understand why American Jews support Israel and Zionism. Of course, if that shines a light on Jewish "kinship", some folks are going to get their feathers ruffled.

    • SIBIRIAK- "You imply that emphasizing Jewish identity by itself proves that one is “tribal”."

      Not at all. Tribalism involves a strong ethnic identification. It is on a continuum determined by the degree of importance one attaches to ones ethnicity. If your Jewish identity is very important to you then you are inherently tribal. Jews versus non-Jews. I don't consider Phil tribal. The Nit In Aundzer Nomen group,on the other hand, comes across as extremely tribal based upon what they say indicating a strong focus on their Jewish identity. The group includes Chabad "which wants its members to “apply the timeless Jewish principle of Ahavat [the love of] Israel” What is Ahavat Israel? It is a Jew's love for his fellow Jews. Not for his fellow humans, not for his fellow countrymen, not for his fellow citizens, but for his fellow Jews. Period. Full stop. And this is what you dishonestly misrepresent as multiculturalism in a pluralistic society? And before you try to twist my interpretation, read the Chabad link I provided where they make their views quite clear.
      link to chabad.org

      And what about the teachings of Chabad's revered Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson?

      “This is what needs to be said about the body: the body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of [members] of all nations of the world … The difference in the inner quality between Jews and non-Jews is “so great that the bodies should be considered as completely different species.”

      “An even greater difference exists in regard to the soul. Two contrary types of soul exist, a non-Jewish soul comes from three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul stems from holiness.” link to counterpunch.org

      SIBIRIAK- "They are embracing an anti-Zionist, non-hierarchical, non-patriarchal Jewish identity."

      No, this is you dishonestly projecting onto the group something which isn't really there but which you think makes your case. Let other Mondoweissers read the entire post and decide for themselves whether this is some radical anti-Zionist manifesto or an attempt to distance this group of Jewish tribalists from the Israeli occupation. Show me even one sentence where they unequivocally oppose Israel as a Jewish state. And why show the NION Pledge if not to misrepresent? This is Nit In Aundzer Nomen not NION.

      Enough of your never ending apologia. I have stated my position clearly and you have either ignored my main points or misrepresented my views. You are an apologist for Jewish tribalism which you seek to camouflage as a legitimate expression of multiculturalism, perfectly acceptable in a pluralistic society. At least Yuri Slezkine was honest about Jewish tribalism, the very basis of Zionism, now firmly rooted in anti-Gentilism. And when I say Jewish tribalism I don't infer that all Jews are tribal, but that it predominates among organized Jews who are overwhelmingly Zionists. Based upon our exchange, I can only conclude that you are a closet tribalist, perhaps not consciously, who defends Jewish kinship nepotism and privilege without due regard to the larger social consequences. Perhaps you should come out that closet door and stand in the light? This will be my last comment on this thread. I leave you with a Israel Shahak quote regarding American Jews.

      "Those who can be called 'organized Jews', and who spend most of their time outside work hours mostly in the company of other Jews, can be presumed to uphold Jewish exclusivism and to preserve the attitudes of classical Judaism to non-Jews."

    • SIBIRIAK- "Not all Zionist Jews are both “tribal and anti-Gentile”."

      Of course they are. There is a continuum of intensity, however, support for the Jewish state is a core component of Jewish tribalism and anti-Gentilism is the motivating rational for support for the Jewish state. If what I say is wrong, what is the motivation of Zionists for their support of Israel and Zionism? And I don't want any cultural Zionist crap, Cultural Zionism was stomped into the ground by political Zionism over 60 years ago.

      SIBIRIAK- "A liberal U.S. Zionism developed for some six decades before 1967."

      Cultural Zionism may have been liberal but it was defeated by political Zionism and is a moot point.

      SIBIRIAK- "Take a look at Slezkine again."

      Slezkine's value lies in his analysis of Jews as service nomads in pre-modern society and how that relates to both anti-Semitism and Jewish dominance of certain areas of the political economy. As for his support for "liberal" Zionism, a quote followed by a comment.

      "Or rather, they all share Tevye's most important belief: "Anyone can be a goy, but a Jew must be born one." All Jews are Jews "by blood"; the rest is a matter of "absorbtion" (to use an Israeli term). Sooner or later, the Soviet Jewish emigres to Israel and the United States will "recover their Jewishness" in its entirety." (p359, "The Jewish Century, Yuri Slezkine)

      Does that sound liberal to you? Jews are Jews by blood? If that doesn't denote a tribal perspective, what does? He also claims that "Tribalism is a universal condition...." (p363). Slezkine embraces Jewish tribalism which he seek to normalize, you deny its existence!

      SIBIRIAK- "The major ideological shift post-1967 was largely driven by Jewish elites and establishment Jewish organizations in a highly-calculated political move to shore up support for Israel."

      Well, duh. Jeez, you mean that the elites call the shots and the cadres respond accordingly? Do you think that you are telling me something I don't know? You mean that all of those Holocaust movies, museums, education, etc didn't spring up due to popular demand? Tell that to Hophmi, not me. This is exactly what I have been saying all along. And don't you think that this massive effort has had an effect on Jewish perceptions of anti-Semitism? And is this perception consistent with the anti-Gentilism of Classical Judaism?

      SIBIRIAK- "Yes, Jewishness without choosenness. What’s wrong with that? (“Israel” referring to Jewish people, not the state.)"

      Israel referring to the Jewish people, not the state? What crap. I prefer to rely on the literal meaning of her words, not your fanciful (and bogus) interpretation of her words. As for Jewishness without chosenness, perhaps you would be so kind as to elaborate on your definition of "Jewishness." And if you fall back on Jewish "culture," elaborate on what besides Judaic ritual comprises the "culture" of an American Jew.

      This comment is already too long. Our entire exchange is too long. You don't believe in Jewish tribalism/kinship, support for Israel and Zionism a mystery. Jewish success simply meritocracy, so stop complaining already. Any thoughts at all on why Jewish fat-cats support Israel and Zionism? What is in it for them? That is it for me.

    • SIBIRIAK- "Why? Would “Christian feminist”, “Muslim feminist”, “Irish Feminist”, “Palestinian feminist” or “[insert group identifier] feminist” bother you just as much?"

      Probably, but it depends upon the circumstances for which there was a felt need to identify as a member of an ethnic/religious group. Perhaps you have examples of "Christian feminists" that I could evaluate? Is it your experience that the feminist movement is blatantly sectarian?

      SIBIRIAK- "Why do you insist that any Jewish identity must involve “tribal solidarity"?"

      I don't insist that any Jewish identity must involve tribal solidarity, that is you, once again, blatantly misrepresenting me. I have said numerous times that Judeo-Zionism is an attempt to recreate the tribal solidarity of Classical Judaism in order to take advantage of the power-seeking value of kinship. Yuri Slezkine discusses the historical aspects in "The Jewish Century." You claim to have read "Jewish History, Jewish Religion," by Israel Shahak, but seem to have retained little of it. Perhaps you should read it again (along with the Jewish Century). This time, take notes. You seem to be implying that there is no such thing as Jewish tribalism, simply a delightful, pluralistic multiculturalism. Is this what motivates AIPAC? Is this what motivates The Conference of Presidents of the Major Jewish Organizations? Is this why Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson joined forces, to promote pluralism and/or their class interests? Can you think of any examples of Jewish tribalism? There are no Jews working together in the single minded pursuit of Jewish interests? I have attempted to analyze American Jewish support for Zionism and Israel and these are my conclusions. Since you disagree, what are your thoughts on why American organized Jewry supports Israel and Zionism?

      SIBIRIAK- "Perhaps to put forth the idea of a Jewish identity that is NOT tribal, NOT patriarchal, NOT Zionist?"

      Indeed, what better way to show that you are not tribal than to emphasize your Jewish identity? And what better way to show that you are not a Zionist than to reject "... the idea of chosenness without at the same time denying the distinctiveness of Israel….” The "distinctiveness" of Israel? Gosh, what does that mean? Any ideas, Sibiriak? Can it possibly refer to the Jewishness of the Jewish state? I think so. Good old pluralistic Israel where folks are free to give meaning to their Jewish identity. Beautiful. Support for the Jewish state as a sign of anti-Zionism. I will give you the "NOT patriarchal." The goal of most of the American feminist leadership is to break the glass ceiling so that women can partake of the spoils of empire on equal footing with the men. That is why Third World women have contempt for these New York feminists of empire.

      SIBIRIAK- "I personally have no interest in Jewish identity...."

      Perhaps more than you realize.

    • SIBIRIAK- "It is a mistake, imo, to essentialize Judaism/ Jewish identity, to claim that Judaism/ Jewish identity must be “tribal” or that the essence of this inescapable Jewish “tribalism” is anti-Gentilism."

      This is a gross misrepresentation not only of this comment of mine, but of all that I have said in the past. I have never said, nor do I believe, that all Jews are tribal or anti-Gentile. I have always maintained that Zionist Jews and Judeo-Zionism are both tribal and anti-Gentile. Zionism has evolved from almost pure blood and soil nationalism of secular Jews into a combination of blood and soil nationalism with the worst of Classical Judaism. As I have quoted Finkelstein in the past, one of the core beliefs of Zionism after the Six Day War is the notion of eternal and irrational Gentile anti-Semitism. This belief is anti-Gentile to the core (how can you deny it?) and provides the basis for all manner of mischief, including the preposterous notion that Jews need an Israeli safe haven 'just in case.'

      SIBIRIAK- "What makes you think they haven’t? And what makes you think they are “tribal”–unless “tribal” defines any sort of human sub- culture/community/identity?"

      Did you read the same article I did? Tepid support for the right to criticize Israel appears to be a flimsy excuse for this lengthy reinforcement of Jewish myth-history regarding Jewish suffering, essential Jewish goodness, Jewish upbringing and unity, and the never ending fight against anti-Semitism. I provided a few quotes. The primary emphasis of this post appears to me to be reinforcing a strong Jewish identity (Jewish solidarity) while supporting BDS. Another quote, then a comment.

      "The representation of Jewish interests on campus is incredibly important, particularly at a university that once used quotas to limit Jewish enrolment."

      Let us begin with the quotas, keeping in mind that Canadian Jews are about 1% of the population. Their link indicates that quotas were imposed in the late 1920s and were removed at the end of WWII. Less than 20 years of quotas that ended 70 years ago. Why is this even mentioned? What is the emphasis, the implications? The rather obvious answer is contained in the sentence itself. Their primary concern is "Jewish interests on campus."

      As for 'Jewish feminist' Judith Plaskow, she criticizes the occupation on mostly practical grounds and says that the religious concept of chosenness creates hierarchy. Instead, she wants to "...engage the traditional Jewish understanding of difference by rejecting the idea of chosenness without at the same time denying the distinctiveness of Israel...." Israel yes, chosenness no. The very notion of a "Jewish" feminist gives me problems. Why the emphasis on "Jewish" if not to indicate tribal solidarity and a non-universalist perspective? Jewish understanding, Jewish morals, Jewish upbringing, Jewish trips to Israel, Jewish feminism, Jewish interests on campus, Jewish, Jewish, Jewish. No tribalism here folks! Just your laudable pluralism!

      SIBIRIAK- "If Nit In Aundzer Nomen wants to reclaim/reinvent their Jewish identity as a pluralist, non-hierarchal, feminist, anti-Zionist form of Jewish spiritual community, I say: power to them!"

      I am sure you do. The essence of Zionism without Israel. Birthright Mandarins without the guilt. Kinship nepotism described as pluralism. I am beginning to wonder about you. By the way, Nit In Aundzer Nomen criticizes the occupation but does not rebut the need for Israel sans occupation. Their comment that the claimed need for future refuge tends to "obscure and essentialize Judaism" hardly supports your assertion about irrational anti-Semitism being rejected. In fact, their comment that "Recognizing these aspects of our identities, we also believe that fighting against ongoing instances of anti-Semitism is important; anti-Semitism is real, both here and abroad.", would suggest that you are misrepresenting their thoughts in your lengthy apologia.

    • "The representation of Jewish interests on campus is incredibly important, particularly at a university that once used quotas to limit Jewish enrolment."

      Quotas, I should point out, that left the Jews still somewhat overrepresented compared to their numbers in the general population, but not to the extent that they once were. This was true in the US Ivy Leagues as well. Affirmative action for Gentiles, can't get much more anti-Semitic than that! And why would this be necessary? Are Jews simply naturally smart and Gentiles stupid? Or are there environmental factors at work? What are they? Do they reflect the higher than average prosperity of these Jews? How is this consistent with the "...centuries of persecution and exile that constitute our people’s history."? Do any of these Jewish students care about why Jewish enrollment used to be so high? Why quotas were enacted? Or is it enough to claim anti-Semitism for anything which interferes with Jewish objectives? Do quotas equate to Jew-hatred? Is it simply a force of nature that results in Jewish domination of the intelligentsia and the doctrinal system? Is it inherently anti-Semitic for a Gentile to even question any of this?

      "...we also believe that fighting against ongoing instances of anti-Semitism is important; anti-Semitism is real, both here and abroad."

      Oh, I am sure that you all do. The question is whether you tribal anti-Zionist/liberal Zionists have ever contemplated the possibility of Jewish anti-Gentilism? Can any of you even conceive of such a thing? Or is the suggestion itself anti-Semitic because "Fighting for justice is integral to Jewish identity....," and anyone who questions such an obvious truth is clearly a Jew-hater?

      Bottom line: congratulations on opposing at least the worst aspects of Zionism. You have begun to reject at least some of the Judeo-Zionist mythology and to look in the mirror. Keep looking. A quote for you.

      "Therefore, the real test facing both Israeli and diaspora Jews is the test of their self-criticism which must include the critique of the Jewish past. The most important part of such a critique must be detailed and honest confrontation of the Jewish attitude to non-Jews." (p103, "Jewish History, Jewish Religion," Israel Shahak)

  • Hillary Clinton once dreamed of 'revenge' on Kissinger for Vietnam 'carnage'. Then she got over it
    • PHIL- "Over the White House years and the Senate years that followed, Hillary Clinton overcame her own idealism."

      Triumph of the will? Phil, I am continually amazed by your ability to read minds! How else could you be so confident of the "idealism" of this ambitious woman? Are you referring to the time she volunteered to campaign for Barry Goldwater? Yes, those were the days!

  • Israel detains Washington Post bureau chief in Jerusalem accusing him of ‘incitement’ --updated
    • SHMUEL- "The war on BDS is part of the greater war for sympathy, perception and alignment."

      Bingo! In current military/social control thinking, the information/perception battle space is considered a critically important component of soft power which interacts synergistically with hard power to provide full spectrum dominance.

  • Clinton has frequently differed with Obama-- on foreign policy
    • KATHLEEN- "Mooser …So what would be the objection to saying it up front."

      Well, for starters, when a nuclear superpower states that all options are on the table, that is a direct threat to use nuclear weapons if the US doesn't get its way. Nuclear blackmail. Anyone who makes this type of threat should be disqualified. Furthermore, continuing to have nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert will eventually result in nuclear annihilation and should be eliminated immediately as a first step towards nuclear disarmament, something the US agreed to do in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but has failed to implement in violation of that treaty. It says volumes about our society that this form of nuclear blackmail has become so normalized as to be defended. Shame on you! Seriously.

  • Nobody cares that Bernie Sanders is Jewish
    • SIBIRIAK- "What then about the good ol’ days when when a tight-knit, racist, often genocidal, WASP “tribe” ruled the political roost and had their exclusive network of social clubs, private schools etc—were they “assimilated”?

      You are referring to those white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants who dominated the East Coast elites as if these elites were reflective of all or most white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. I believe that as a group, if you look at all white Anglo-Saxon Protestants you will find them dispersed throughout society, some dirt-poor coal miners, and yes, as a whole white Anglo-Saxon Protestants became fully assimilated into society. There were no notions of white Anglo-Saxon peoplehood or eternal victimhood or those who were not white Anglo-Saxons were some sort of irrational murderous enemy requiring social separation. That the 1% does not place much emphasis on the welfare of the 99% is a given, however, to call this a form of tribalism is to intentionally muddy the waters. I am limiting my discussion of tribalism to ethnic groupings because that is where tribalism occurs, the result of a manufactured solidarity based upon a perceived common ethnicity. Jews consider themselves Jews based upon their birth facts and their birthright.

      I am emphasizing this idea of a lack of Jewish Zionist assimilation into the larger society precisely because a major goal of Zionism is to preclude assimilation of Jews into the larger society. The primary purpose of Zionism is to restore a sense of Jewish peoplehood and tribal solidarity which suffered as a consequence of enlightenment Gentile monarchs reducing the coercive power of the Rabbis, and of establishing laws to enable Jews to assimilate into the larger society as their feudal role of service to the Gentile nobility in pre-modern society became obsolete. One consequence was that Jews, once defined by Classical Judaism, now splintered into secular Jews, Reform Jews, Conservative Jews, and Orthodox Jews. This splintering tended to reduce the power of the Jewish elites who achieved considerable economic success as a consequence of dominating certain specialized economic roles due to tribal solidarity. Bankers, traders, craftsmen and businessmen in general were helped by international Jewish solidarity mediated by Jewish law. Zionism is an attempt to recreate this solidarity on a quasi-religious nationalist basis. Reinvigorated kinship. I have come to believe that understanding this dynamic is a key to understanding Jewish Zionism and Israel. And since Mondoweiss concerns the Middle East, Israel and Zionism, I think that this is a highly relevant topic to discuss. I doubt that discussing class differences between the 1% and the 99% is all that relevant to this website. Also, conflating transnational corporate and financial activity with tribalism is flat out silly. Corporate personhood is bad enough, but corporate peoplehood? Corporate victimhood?

    • SIBIRIAK- "Then, “assimilation” meant losing a strong Jewish identity and blending in with a singular dominant national culture/religion. Today, in America, you can have a strong ethnic/cultural/religious identity and still be “assimilated”, because ethno/cultural/religious diversity is the norm in a multicultural society."

      You seem to be equating multicultural with multi-tribal where sectarianism is the norm and there is literally no body politic to speak of, nothing to assimilate into. Assimilation consisting primarily in blending in so as to be unobtrusive. I think you are seriously overestimating the consequences of multiculturism on the political economy and underestimating the reality of shared mythology upon culturally diverse groups. Rather than a hotbed of sectarian conflict, the US seems to me to be profoundly conformist, the individual citizens atomized and taking their cues from a propagandistic media, including the entertainment media which is a primary creator of contemporary social mythology.

      The essence of assimilation is the acceptance of the incoming group as part of the whole society and the corresponding acceptance by the incoming group of the whole society as their fellows. A group which maintains and encourages a strong tribal identity, where the tribe is "us" and the society as a whole is "them" is not truly assimilated. The disappearance of obvious visual tribal identifiers merely acts to camouflage the psychological separation from the whole by the members of the tribal group. The essence of Zionism is a form of manufactured ingroup solidarity maintained through anti-Gentile myth-history and propaganda resulting in a profound anti-Gentile antipathy among Jewish Zionists. The very notion that all or most non-Jews can be lumped together as some sort of large social entity is itself absurd. Yet, it is an integral part of the anti-Gentile mythology of classical Judaism which modern Zionism has resurrected to re-establish an updated form of Jewish peoplehood. This ingroup solidarity is what Yuri Slezkine refers to as a form of nepotism.

      It has only been recently that I have reevaluated my position that discussions of anti-Semitism on Mondoweiss were pointless and a waste of time, real Jew-hatred negligible and not an issue worth pursuing. It finally dawned on me that the myth of eternal and irrational Gentile anti-Semitism was a core component of Zionism such that Zionism likely could not exist without this belief among Jewish Zionists. As a consequence, Jews with strong Zionist beliefs tend to view their non-Jewish fellow citizens as a potentially dangerous enemy to be controlled. This anti-Gentile mythology tends to work against assimilationist tendencies in Zionist Jews. And if Zionist Jews tend to think of themselves as a persecuted people apart, an alien presence in a sea of hostility, their fate more closely aligned with a foreign entity than with their current residence, how can they be truly assimilated? Israel Shahak believed that Zionism was a throwback to Classical Judaism. He was focussing on Israel, however, I think his observation can be applied to the US. Also, I think that "The Jewish Century" by Yuri Slezkine (recommended by Phil) is highly relevant to this topic.

    • SIBIRIAK- "As I just wrote to Keith: “assimilation” in a multicultural society means you can function smoothly and normally in most social contexts, you don’t isolate yourself completely, you can speak an official national language, you are are not widely viewed as abnormal or alien, etc.–but it doesn’t mean you have to abandon your ethno/cultural/religious etc. identity. (A full definition would need much more exposition, but that’s the gist of it.)"

      I am responding to this comment before your comment to me has passed moderation, hence, based upon this comment only. While I fully agree that one does not have to abandon one's ethno/cultural/religious identity to be assimilated, I strongly disagree that functioning "smoothly and normally in most social contexts" indicates assimilation. True assimilation requires at least a minimal degree of respect for the humanity and integrity of those outside the ethnic grouping. Dennis Ross, Elliot Abrams, Victoria Nuland, and Robert Kagan are Jewish tribalists to the core and are in no way assimilated. What they have in common is that they take advantage of their Jewish integration and acceptance into the American mainstream to pursue a Jewish tribalist agenda. You consider this assimilation? Seriously? You consider Hophmi assimilated? seriously? There is a profound difference between assimilated individuals and a covert cabal. Do I exaggerate? Then, what the hell is Zionism all about?

      In pre-modern times, Jews were physically, linguistically and sartorially separate from the surrounding Gentile community (which they loathed, except for the nobility). Nowadays, Jewish separatism is psychologically induced through Zionist propaganda. It is the (more-or-less successful) attempt to recreate pre-modern Jewish economic roles and privilege in modern times.

    • MOOSER- "It doesn’t really matter if you want to assimilate, if the group doesn’t want to assimilate you."

      Right on, Bro'!

      MOOSER- "And it really doesn’t matter if you don’t want to be assimilated, if the group decides to assimilate you."

      Wrong-o, kiddo! Assimilation, like love, is a two-way street. One of the primary goals of Zionism is to prevent assimilation, to maintain the Jewish PEOPLEHOOD, that is, the pseudo ethnic kinship of a people apart. While you may be assimilated, and other Jews who so desire can be assimilated, Zionist Jews seek to maintain a Jewish tribal identity. So while modern Gentiles have more-or-less abandoned their pre-modern, socio-economic based bias against Jews, Zionist Jews have resurrected pre-modern Jewish socio-economic bias against Gentiles! As a consequence, Gentile hating/fearing Zionist Jews are integrated but not assimilated. How could any Jew who truly believes that his Gentile neighbors harbor eternal, irrational and murderous anti-Semitic hatred ever even want to be assimilated?

    • HOPHMI- "They’re the ones who don’t mention that they’re Jewish."

      The rather obvious implication is that you do not consider yourself assimilated, nor do you want to be? Don't care to spend too much time around the irrational, Jew-hating murderous Goyim? But, like the missionaries of empires past, you are willing to perform outreach to the benighted natives to teach them about sin (The Holocaust) and atonement (support for Israel). What a guy!

    • SIBIRIAK- "So, hell yeah! Those guys are fully assimilated."

      Since a primary goal of Zionism is to prevent assimilation, then you believe that Zionism has been a colossal failure? That the overwhelming support for Israel among Zionist Jews is compatible with complete assimilation? That the astounding success of power-seeking Zionist Jews is simply the result of individual meritocracy, Jewish kinship favoritism a negligible factor? That Jewish opinion of Gentiles is, on average, roughly equivalent to Gentile opinion of Jews?

  • In yet another effort to revive dream of Jewish sovereignty, 'NYT' cites Thai restaurants in Tel Aviv
    • MOOSER- "“Hophmi”, the very first objections to Zionism were Jewish."

      That is absolutely correct. Additionally, Zionism obtained its initial funding from anti-Semites and Zionist fat-cats such as the Rothchilds. The great majority of Jews at the time had no interest in Zionism. As for "The Six Million" who perished in the Holocaust, the overwhelming majority were non-Zionists or anti-Zionists, refugees preferring Britain or the US over Israel. After the war, Jewish refugees from the camps were more-or-less shanghaied into going to Israel by Zionist agents in the camps. It was only the skillful exploitation of the Holocaust which eventually resulted in organized Jewry embracing Israel and Zionism. And now you have shameless Zionists like Hophmi hoping to influence the future by misrepresenting the past.

  • Oscar swag bag includes ten-day VIP trip to Israel worth $55,000 (Updated)
    • TOKYOBK- "Sure, those who can sniff Jews like a pig on rare truffles know this to be true, but that “we” can find controlling Jews anywhere and everywhere."

      Talk about anti-Gentile tropes! Anti-Gentilism is the essence of Zionism and of Judeo-Zionist tribalism. Look in the mirror, Ben. As for Jewish control of Hollywood, two quotes and links for you.

      "The Jews are so dominant, I had to scour the trades to come up with six Gentiles in high positions at entertainment companies. When I called them to talk about their incredible advancement, five of them refused to talk to me, apparently out of fear of insulting Jews. The sixth, AMC President Charlie Collier, turned out to be Jewish." (Joel Stein) link to articles.latimes.com

      "On the other hand, objecting to the myth that Jews control Hollywood raises serious questions of definition. If anybody can genuinely be said to control Tinseltown, it’s probably the 25 people who run the 12 main film studios—that is, the chairman (in one case, two co-chairmen) and president of each. Of those 25, 21 are Jewish, or 84%. That’s simple math. You could define “control” differently—throw in the top agents and producers, leading directors, most bankable stars and so on—and the proportion of Jews would drop, but it probably wouldn’t get down anywhere near the 50% mark. There’s a reason why Nate & Al’s stays in business." (JJ Goldberg) link to forward.com

    • AMIGO- "It will be interesting to see how many , if any of the recipients refuse the trip to Israel portion of the prize."

      Probably the same percent as the number of US Congressmen who sit on their hands when Netanyahu gives a speech to Congress. In view of the Jewish-Zionist domination of Hollywood, such behavior could destroy a promising career.

  • Sanders should declare a foreign policy of working with Iran in a 'post-hegemonic' world -- Pampinella
    • PHIL- "Foreign Affairs today has an important piece by Stephen Pampinella, titled “Bernies’ World,” urging Bernie Sanders to articulate a foreign policy in which the U.S. would get over its imperial status and “share power with rising hegemons in a system that treats all states as equals.”

      "Foreign Affairs" is published by the Council on Foreign Relations. The fact that this viewpoint even appeared in "Foreign Affairs" is significant.

  • Pro-Israel group wants to send army colonel to your campus to explain battle for west's 'way of life'
    • "It’s about a war that we are fighting as the front outpost of the west. It’s a war of a way of life."

      Jeez, and all this time the Zionists have told us that Jews went to Israel to ESCAPE the Western anti-Semitic way of life. Now they are defending it? Nostalgia, perhaps? Or have all of those Holocaust movies and Holocaust education, etc, succeeded in Zionizing the West? What would Herzl say? Something doesn't seem quite right.

  • Bernie Sanders' spirituality is resonating with young religious 'None's
    • ROHA- "I wanted to know what concept it referred to."

      Having given my definition along with another definition, what can I say? If you lack an awareness of self and a sense of the connectedness with others and with nature, than perhaps you lack any sense of spirituality. Have you never experienced a sense of wonder?

      ROHA- "Why do you think it is so limited?"

      From all I have read, spirituality is limited to a well developed sense of self which, in turn, requires a more advanced intellectual capability. A close analog would be language which, in the fuller sense of the term, is most definitely limited to humans, limited communication among other animals notwithstanding. I might add that an awareness of our own mortality also appears to be limited to humans. Chimps may be borderline, however, show me even one Chimp who can punctuate worth a crap.

      ROHA- "I don’t know what “wonder” means in that context."

      Never felt a sense of wonder that you are you and can read and write and understand intellectual concepts and experience love and joy and plan ahead and remember good times? Sorry, I can't help.

Showing comments 1200 - 1101
Page: