Trending Topics:

Those who criticize Israel join campaign to ‘slaughter the Jews en masse’

on 53 Comments

This is what I always wanted, an open conversation inside the American Jewish community in which attitudes are exposed. And when those attitudes are exposed, folks get to say, That’s stupid! Or reactionary in this case. Here is a sort of catechism on the question, Is criticizing Israel anti-semitic? by Benjamin Kerstein at Pajamas Media. “Any and all criticism of Israel not only can be but must be antisemitic.” Understood? No comment necessary….

Whether one wants to admit it or not, we are living in an age in which a global campaign exists for the sole and specific reason of legitimizing the destruction of Israel and the expulsion or annihilation of its Jewish population. Iran’s own president is straightforward about wiping Israel off the map. Islamists call for it every five minutes somewhere in the world. Western academics and activists regularly hint at it with such euphemisms as the “one-state solution” (an Arab state, in case you were wondering), and their constant apologetics on behalf of anti-Jewish terrorism.  And as the recent atrocities in Toulouse have shown us, the Jews of the Diaspora are not and will not be spared the bloody consequences.

As a result of this campaign – which is antisemitic by any definition – any and all criticism of Israel not only can be but must be antisemitic. It is either subjectively antisemitic, in that it consciously and intentionally furthers the goals of the campaign; or it is objectively antisemitic, in that it unconsciously and unintentionally does the same thing. The distinction, if there ever was one, between the two, is now meaningless. Either way, the result is the same: Those who seek to slaughter the Jews en masse are brought a step closer to their goal.

It may be, of course, that some criticism of Israel will be deemed necessary in spite of the consequences, and the need for a public hearing will overwhelm the need to prevent a victory of sorts for antisemitism. If so, however, those doing the criticism ought to be honest enough to acknowledge the objective consequences of doing so.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is senior editor of and founded the site in 2005-06.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

53 Responses

  1. pabelmont on April 1, 2012, 9:25 am

    How many times must opponents of Greater Israel say it: (as to pre-1967 Israel, the generally agreed destiny for Israel, long-term, territorially): “It would have been enough”?

    The goal of BDS and all other anti-Israeli activity these days is not destruction of Israel (and has not been so since PLO recognized Israel in 1988) but provision of a just and lasting peace which must include a viable and fair-feeling Palestine, now generally recognized as the 22% residue of Mandatory Palestine after removal of 78% for pre-1967 Israel.

    When will supporters of Israel take “Yes” for an answer and stop changing the question to elicit a “No”? BTW, continuous changing of the question by Israel IS saying “No”.

  2. justicewillprevail on April 1, 2012, 9:38 am

    Yes, and those who delegitimise Palestine and Iran seek the slaughter of all Muslims en masse. What a dork.

  3. seafoid on April 1, 2012, 9:41 am

    ‘As a result of this campaign – which is antisemitic by any definition – any and all criticism of Israel not only can be but must be antisemitic”

    Here’s a good example of criticism of Israel from Israeli TV.

    Great to see the conversation starting

    Is this antisemitism? Or is it plain common sense ?

    • Pixel on April 1, 2012, 12:13 pm


      • Carowhat on April 2, 2012, 2:13 am

        And the astonishing thing is that there is not a public figure in America who could say these sorts of things on TV. There is not a station in America that would allow it and if somehow they accidentally did the public figure who said such things would by blacklisted forever and his kids and dog too.

  4. Gaius Baltar on April 1, 2012, 9:42 am

    Anyone who criticizes America hates America.

    Some criticize America for not sufficiently supporting Israel.

    Therefore, those who criticize America for not sufficiently supporting Israel hate America.

    See where Kerstein would take us?

    • justicewillprevail on April 1, 2012, 1:33 pm

      Anybody who criticises/hates America seeks the slaughter of Americans en masse. The stupidity of Kerstein’s hyperinflated rhetoric is stunning (not to mention the implication that the world is so dumb as to go along with it). But the worst aspect of it is people like him want to believe it. They crave such fundamentalist lunacy to be the case. It justifies, in their fevered hysteria, all of the brutal violence, inhuman practices and savage injustice they heap upon innocent people who happen to be born to the ‘wrong’ parents.

  5. Bumblebye on April 1, 2012, 9:43 am

    “Pajamas Media”!
    I shall imagine him shuffling around his room, waiting for the nurse to bring his medication.

  6. Krauss on April 1, 2012, 10:24 am

    Once upon the time the position this nutcase has was the de facto position of the entire Jewish mainstream establishment. A significant portion still has it, but they are less and less speaking in this manner.

    The fact that this kind of shrill rhetoric is increasingly moving to the fringes is in itself a sign of the times and how the debate is shifting.

    But I would add to what one commenter wrote on Annie’s post on Sullivan; namely that this isn’t a Jewish issue anymore in exclusive terms. When America(and by implication the West) is gearing for war against Iran basically only to appease Israel(despite the strong opposition of the Pentagon/Army) then it becomes an issue for everyone, including those outside the Jewish cocoon. And I guess that’s a good thing. And fact, I’m sure of the fact that it’s a good thing. I, too, enjoy how Goldberg is getting hammered by Sullivan and Gentiles like him. Because few people are as risibile as Goldberg, who is a make-pretend liberal and dirty the term.

    • seafoid on April 1, 2012, 5:27 pm

      Agreed. The Zionists got the best part of a century to sort out the Palestinian issue and they never even attempted it. Now the worm is turning and I look forward to their wallowing in the sludge of their own making. On the global scale they are a fringe group. A hypocrisy, not a democracy.

    • Shingo on April 2, 2012, 9:03 am

      Once upon the time the position this nutcase has was the de facto position of the entire Jewish mainstream establishment.

      Now it’s becoem the de facto position of the entire Israeli mainstream establishment.

  7. yourstruly on April 1, 2012, 10:29 am

    it’s as if the zionist entity israel was established so that the definition of an antisemite could be changed from someone who hates jews to someone who opposes the entity’s occupation of palestine and the ethnic cleansing of its native people, the palestinians. which turns judaism into something that’s no longer about human rights but about property ownership, and along the way don’t forget to discard the jewish tradition of always siding with the oppressed, never with the oppressor, while at the same time disregarding the fact that settler brutality towards palestinians ( in the name of all jews, the israeli government insists) is what accounts for any increase in real (the old fashioned hating the jew for being a jew rather than for what s/he is or does) antisemitism. and what the heck, if worse comes to worse, isn’t israel the sanctuary for world jewry if it’s ever threatened by another holocaust, and not to worry that putting all our eggs in one basket might set us up for a repeat of said unthinkable, because there’s always the macho masada fallback position with the settler entity having its ultimate trump card nukes?

    so who are the antisemites, those of us who struggle for a just and peaceful world or those of us who in saying israel right or wrong show no remorse or even concern for israel’s ongoing acts of violence and destruction, not only against palestinians and the people it falsely claims to speak for but ultimately against all living beings.

  8. jabaroot on April 1, 2012, 10:35 am

    Wow. How dumb is that?

  9. FreddyV on April 1, 2012, 10:38 am

    Ah well, look on the bright side, at least he didn’t bring up the Holocaust….

  10. dahoit on April 1, 2012, 11:22 am

    The global internet campaign to destroy Israel might be the most laughable statement in Ziohistory.Cyber speech threatens all,much more than nukes,tanks ,planes and missiles in the arsenal of Israel,and the MSM still spews their BS daily in their defense.
    Right now,the Zionist pen is still mightier than the internet pen,witness our total confusion in the body politic,with supposed peaceful people wholeheartedly backing warmongers of all stripes,and impugning the only guy running who can rescue US as a racist,and a troglydyte,when a careful reading of his positions reveal him as much more sober and constructive than all these other warmongering whores of Zionism,power and money,which of course are related.
    Add to it that real anti Semite haters would love Israel to be secure and peaceful as Aliyah would become much more attractive and more Jews would go there.
    Hitler thought so also.Funny dat.
    To paraphrase Platoon,the only thing that can kill Israel,is Israel,and they seem well on their way.

  11. seanmcbride on April 1, 2012, 11:23 am

    The message which many American pro-Israel activists regularly convey is that criticism of the American government is legitimate and obligatory (they often stridently engage in this kind of criticism themselves) but that criticism of the Israeli government is verboten. So Benjamin Kerstein is telling us that Americans should exercise their democratic obligation to disagree with and challenge their own government but shut up when it comes to the Israeli government — even when Israeli policies are severely damaging American interests and undermining American values.

    It is difficult to imagine a better method for turning Americans against Israel. How did Kerstein manage to get trapped in such a neurotic and self-destructive mental loop? What would bring him to his senses? Nothing. This is a lost cause.

    The Jewish establishment (and, yes, the Jewish community) needs to engage in some serious self-reflection: how did it manage to produce so many Benjamin Kersteins? What can it do to turn this situation around?

  12. Shmuel on April 1, 2012, 11:39 am

    This may be a reaction to a conversation happening elsewhere, but it is not a conversation in itself. Kerstein’s rant is the verbose equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and saying “I’m not listening. I’m not listening. I’m not listening”.

    • Pixel on April 1, 2012, 12:22 pm


      a lot of comments here today are making me laugh. i appreciate that because most of the time I feel ill even thinking about all of this.

    • Shingo on April 2, 2012, 9:05 am

      Kerstein’s rant is the verbose equivalent of sticking his fingers in his ears and saying “I’m not listening. I’m not listening. I’m not listening”.

      It’s also indicative of someone who has clearly realized he cannot get any mileage anymore from his pro Israeli talking points, so is betting everything on the roll of the dice.

  13. seanmcbride on April 1, 2012, 11:43 am

    It should be pointed out (thank God) that there are many smart comments on the Pajamas Media site (including many smart Jewish comments) which take Kerstein to the woodshed:

    Two examples:

    1. From JohnJ:

    “I must concur with the sentiments in the posts regarding how idiotic this article makes the pro-Israel side look. Those of us who *actually* support Israel don’t ask that people be blind to disagreements they might have with the Israeli government. It is no more anti-Semitic to disagree with the Israeli government’s actions than it is anti-American to disagree with the American government’s actions.

    Put it another way: if you ever even mouth criticism of President Obama, that, according to your logic, makes you anti-American. To me, that’s an obtuse and absurd stance to take. Only a fool would dare make such an argument.”

    2. From Patrick Canavan:

    “I’m a Jew. I love my Jewish family and friends. I celebrate the Yiddishkeit. I think that Israel has set itself on a course of slow self-destruction. I fear this bodes ill for all Jews in Israel and the diaspora. Am I an anti-Semite?”

    • Pixel on April 1, 2012, 12:36 pm

      I’m not sure it’s smart but it sure as heck is funny:

      16. David W. Nicholas

      … I have to say that this isn’t the stupidest thing I’ve seen on the Tatler, and it’s not even the stupidest thing I’ve seen on Pajamas…it’s one of the stupidest things I’ve seen on the web. …

    • Pixel on April 1, 2012, 12:43 pm

      comments section: 30. theod

      Blanket charges of anti-semitism are the last refuge of a scoundrel.
      — pace Samuel Johnson

    • piotr on April 1, 2012, 12:43 pm

      “Put it another way: if you ever even mouth criticism of President Obama, that, according to your logic, makes you anti-American. ”

      Subjectively, you may not be anti-American, but objectively you advance the goal of slaughtering American en masse. Actually, this is a good place to put some necessary distinction.

      Both Obama and Netanyahu get a lot of LEGITIMATE criticism. Say, the latest round of hostilities in Gaza should be sized as a chance to wipe out terrorists for good, and it was not (an editorial in JPost). Or that campaign to assassinate enemies of America with drones is too feeble and insufficient. Or that this is a disgrace that Iran was not attacked yet (directed at both politicians). But any criticism that would decrease vigor of our response to the enemies, of which they are many, decrease vigilance, impose some ridiculous and enfeebling policy restrictions (using so-called human rights) should be recognized as a grave form of anti{Semitism, Americanism}.

      Then we have puzzing questions which criticism is legitimate, given that some is. Would an improvement in health care system, bringing USA closer to universal health care like in Israel, contribute to the martial abilities of Americans? Perhaps the opposition to “Obama care” is indeed bringing our closer to the mass slaughter of Americans? At the very least, it should be an attractive position for Democrats.

  14. Cliff on April 1, 2012, 12:07 pm

    I made one comment in that thread. It was unmoderated.

    Within maybe 5 minutes of the post being published, my NEXT comment (in reply to someone) was ‘awaiting moderation’, rofl.

    And Zionists on MW complain about the moderation here!

    On MW, I get moderated and I’m an anti-Zionist.

    It just demonstrates the moral integrity that Phil has (even though I disagree still w/ Blankfort’s banning).

    On this polarizing issue, Phil is fair. On a typical nutcase website lik PajamasMedia, with moderation likely being handled by the crazy author himself – it’s censorship for any view that deviates from their crazy insulated rantings.

    I said to them, ‘speak this way on American television’. Tell everyone in America that criticizing Israel is antisemitic. Let normal people be bombarded with this narcissism and schizophrenia.

    It rattles people who do not judge others based on whether they are Jewish or not. Normal people who don’t make sophist arguments like: ” ‘the Arabs’ have X number of States and ‘the Jews’ have 1 little tiny State, so it’s ok to get rid of the Palestinians and send them packing to Mecca!”

  15. American on April 1, 2012, 12:33 pm

    What a nutcase.
    I notice from the comments there that a lot of readers thought so too.
    But I also noticed one paragraph in the article that I think gets to the heart of the Jewish and Israel issue:

    “The Middle East conflict, David Ben-Gurion said a long time ago, and he was right, is not about the Jews and the Arabs, it is about the Jews and the world, a world that is overwhelmingly not Jewish, and thus bears certain responsibilities toward its Jewish minority. If and when the world finally accepts these responsibilities, criticism of Israel will be possible “without being antisemitic.”

    This “Jews and the world”, with the ‘world bearing responsibility’ for the Jews.
    This is what has been ingrained into Jews….that the world, not just the nazis and their collaborators, somehow owes them.
    Well, the world has a lot of minorities, all of them have been discriminated against in the past in fact. Does the world owe in perpetuity the Muslim minority slaughtered in Bosnia or the Gypsies the German Nazis also killed or the Armenians slaughtered by the Turks? Do the Jews owe the world for the Christians they slaughtered in ancient days?
    I think more than anything else this idea that the world owes and is responsible for them forever is the poison in the Jewish community. It is their overwhelming attitude toward the world and what they base their demands for themselves and Israel on and allows them to evade responsibility for themselves and their own actions.
    It’s unreasonable, doubly unreasonable wrt Israel, and the world is tired of it.

  16. Taxi on April 1, 2012, 12:44 pm

    Strikes me that ashkanazi jews are obsessed with the word ‘slaughter’ – hot damn they use it soooo often! An objective criticism of israelis becomes a ‘slaughter of the jews’. Even a lame neutral comment on israel like: ‘I prefer Lebanese humus”, becomes a ‘slaughter of the jews’. ANYTHING that doesn’t ‘praise’ israel has indeed now become ‘a slaughter of the jews’.

    I call this collective psychosis: manifest narcissism. Which eventually leads either to the nuthouse, or the grave.

  17. DICKERSON3870 on April 1, 2012, 1:17 pm

    RE: “any and all criticism of Israel not only can be but must be antisemitic. It is either subjectively antisemitic…or it is objectively antisemitic… The distinction, if there ever was one, between the two, is now meaningless. Either way, the result is the same: Those who seek to slaughter the Jews en masse are brought a step closer to their goal.” ~ Benjamin Kerstein

    MY COMMENT: The really sad thing about using/abusing the the charge of anti-Semitism in this way is that it will ultimately (over time) make the concept of anti-Semitism meaningless. In the wake of the Holocaust anti-Semitism came to be universally reviled. But by making the patently absurd claim that “any and all criticism of Israel not only can be but must be antisemitic”, Kerstein virtually makes “anti-Semitism” meaningless, acceptable, or even (God forbid) laudable. Allegations of anti-Semitism will then be largely dismissed/ignored. The horror of it all!

    Why doesn’t Ralph blow the conch at the end of the assembly chapter 5? [In: ‘Lord of the Flies’]
    Answer: When Piggy suggested to him that he should blow the conch and call back the boys Ralph had clearly given the answer some thought and he replied, “If I blow the conch and they don’t come back; then we’ve had it. We shan’t keep the fire going. We’ll be like animals. We’ll never be rescued.” SOURCE –'t_Ralph_blow_the_conch_at_the_end_of_the_assembly_chapter_5

    But then, I suppose this is the inevitable consequence of the Zionist tactics illustrated by the following excerpts from “The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict”, published by Jews for Justice in the Middle East.

    EXCERPTS FROM “The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict”, Published by Jews for Justice in the Middle East:

    (excerpts)…“In 1938 a thirty-one nation conference was held in Evian, France, on resettlement of the victims of Nazism. The World Zionist Organization refused to participate, fearing that resettlement of Jews in other states would reduce the number available for Palestine.” ~ John Quigley, ‘Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice’
    “It was summed up in the meeting [of the Jewish Agency’s Executive on June 26, 1938] that the Zionist thing to do ‘is belittle the [Evian] Conference as far as possible and to cause it to decide nothing… ~ Israeli author Boas Evron, ‘Jewish State or Israeli Nation?’
    “[Ben-Gurion stated] ‘If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, but only half of them by transporting them to Palestine, I would choose the second — because we face not only the reckoning of those children, but the historical reckoning of the Jewish people.’ In the wake of the Kristallnacht pogroms, Ben-Gurion commented that ‘the human conscience’ might bring various countries to open their doors to Jewish refugees from Germany. He saw this as a threat and warned: ‘Zionism is in danger.’” ~ Israeli historian, Tom Segev, ‘The Seventh Million’
    Roosevelt’s advisor writes on why Jewish refugees were not offered sanctuary in the U.S. after WWII
    …“[Roosevelt] proposed a world budget for the easy migration of the 500,000 beaten people of Europe. Each nation should open its doors for some thousands of refugees…So he suggested that during my trips for him to England during the war I sound out in a general, unofficial manner the leaders of British public opinion, in and out of the government…The simple answer: Great Britain will match the United States, man for man, in admissions from Europe…It seemed all settled. With the rest of the world probably ready to give haven to 200,000, there was a sound reason for the President to press Congress to take in at least 150,000 immigrants after the war…
    “It would free us from the hypocrisy of closing our own doors while making sanctimonious demands on the Arabs…But it did not work out…The failure of the leading Jewish organizations to support with zeal this immigration programme may have caused the President not to push forward with it at that time…
    “I talked to many people active in Jewish organizations. I suggested the plan…I was amazed and even felt insulted when active Jewish leaders decried, sneered, and then attacked me as if I were a traitor…I think I know the reason for much of the opposition. There is a deep, genuine, often fanatical emotional vested interest in putting over the Palestinian movement [Zionism]. Men like Ben Hecht are little concerned about human blood if it is not their own.” ~ Jewish attorney and friend of President Roosevelt, Morris Ernst, ‘So Far, So Good’


    P.S. I read somewhere that Pajamas Media was established and funded by a Levi Strauss heir (“trust fund baby”). Remember that the next time you consider buying a pair of Levi’s. Personally, I will never again go anywhere near a pair of them!

    • DICKERSON3870 on April 1, 2012, 2:09 pm

      P.S. ALSO NOTE:

      . . . As late as 1943, while the Jews of Europe were being exterminated in their millions, the U.S. Congress proposed to set up a commission to ‘study’ the problem. Rabbi Stephen Wise, who was the principal American spokesperson for Zionism, came to Washington to testify against the rescue bill because it would divert attention from the colonization of Palestine.
      This is the same Rabbi Wise who, in 1938, in his capacity as leader of the American Jewish Congress, wrote a letter in which he opposed any change in U.S. immigration laws which would enable Jews to find refuge. He stated:
      “It may interest you to know that some weeks ago the representatives of all the leading Jewish organizations met in conference. … It was decided that no Jewish organization would, at this time, sponsor a bill which would in any way alter the immigration laws.”
      . . . ~ from “Our Shomer ‘Weltanschauung,”‘ Hashomer Hatzair, December 1936. Originally published in 1917, Brenner, Zionism, p. 22.

      ALSO SEE –

      P.S. And yet, Netanyahu had the unmitigated chutzpah to pull this during his recent speech at the AIPAC conference:

      (excerpt)…Mr Netanyahu evoked the horrors of the Holocaust, quoting a 1944 letter in which the US rejected a request by Jewish leaders to bomb the Nazi death camp at Auschwitz in Poland…

      SOURCE –
      ALSO SEE –

    • DICKERSON3870 on April 1, 2012, 2:31 pm

      P.P.S. AND NOTE:

      Sacrificing Europe’s Jews
      The correlative to the acts of collaboration with the Nazis throughout the 1930’s was that when attempts to change the immigration laws of the United States and Western Europe were contemplated in order to provide token refuge for persecuted Jews of Europe, it was the Zionists who actively organized to stop these efforts.
      Ben Gurion informed a meeting of Labor Zionists in Great Britain in 1938: “If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Israel, then I opt for the second alternative.” [84] This obsession with colonizing Palestine and overwhelming the Arabs led the Zionist movement to oppose any rescue of the Jews facing extermination, because the ability to deflect select manpower to Palestine would be impeded. From 1933 to 1935, the WZO turned down two-thirds of all the German Jews who applied for immigration certificates.
      Berel Katznelson, editor of the Labor Zionist Davar, described the “cruel criteria of Zionism”:

      German Jews were too old to bear children in Palestine, lacked trades for building a Zionist colony, didn’t speak Hebrew and weren’t Zionists. In place of these Jews facing extermination the WZO brought to Palestine 6,000 trained young Zionists from the United States, Britain and other safe countries. Worse than this, the WZO not merely failed to seek any alternative for the Jews facing the Holocaust, the Zionist leadership opposed belligerently all efforts to find refuge for fleeing Jews.

      Fighting Asylum
      The entire Zionist establishment made its position unmistakable in its response to a motion by 227 British members of Parliament calling on the government to provide asylum in British territories for persecuted Jews. The meager undertaking which was prepared was as follows:

      His Majesty’s Government issued some hundreds of Mauritius and other immigration permits in favor of threatened Jewish families.[86]

      But even this token measure was opposed by the Zionist leaders. At a Parliamentary meeting on January 27, 1943, when the next steps were being pursued by over one hundred members of Parliament, a spokesperson for the Zionists announced that they opposed this motion because it did not contain preparations for the colonization of Palestine. This was a consistent stance.
      Chaim Weizmann, the Zionist leader who had arranged the Balfour Declaration and was to become the first president of Israel, made this Zionist policy very explicit:

      The hopes of Europe’s six million Jews are centered on emigration. I was asked: “Can you bring six million Jews to Palestine?” I replied, “No.” … From the depths of the tragedy I want to save … young people [for Palestine]. The old ones will pass. They will bear their fate or they will not. They are dust, economic and moral dust in a cruel world … Only the branch of the young shall survive. They have to accept it. [87]

      Yitzhak Gruenbaum, the chairperson of the committee set up by the Zionists, nominally to investigate the condition of European Jews, said:

      When they come to us with two plans – the rescue of the masses of Jews in Europe or the redemption of the land – I vote, without a second thought, for the redemption of the land. The more said about the slaughter of our people, the greater the minimization of our efforts to strengthen and promote the Hebraisation of the land. If there would be a possibility today of buying packages of food with the money of the Karen Hayesod [United Jewish Appeal] to send it through Lisbon, would we do such a thing? No. And once again no! [88]

      ~ from ‘The Hidden History of Zionism’, by Ralph Schoenman

      SOURCE –

  18. Taxi on April 1, 2012, 2:42 pm

    Holy cow not even a jew is allowed to criticize israel!

    • seafoid on April 1, 2012, 5:36 pm

      They go too far and they will end up being seen for what they are – shameless opportunists. Most people around the world are moderate and expect fairness and Israel is unable to meet this most basic of conditions.

  19. DICKERSON3870 on April 1, 2012, 3:11 pm

    RE: “Those who criticize Israel join campaign to ‘slaughter the Jews en masse’ ” ~ Weiss

    SEE: How Israel Is Like an Alcoholic Mother, by Megan McArdle, The Atlantic, 3/22/12

    (excerpt). . . What is it Alex Portnoy overhears his mother say to her friends, apropos of the lengths she has to go to to get him to eat? “I have to stand over him with a knife!”
    To be a bit more serious for a moment, though, Chesterton famously quipped: “My country, right or wrong is a thing that no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying: My mother, drunk or sober.” Well, yes, but she is your mother, drunk or sober, right? Similarly, it is your country, whether your country is right or wrong. The question is what that entails. If your mother is a drunk, and begs for another drink, are you obliged to give it to her? Presumably not.
    But are you obliged to devote yourself to getting her to dry out? That, it seems to me is the real heart of the question. I think many of Beinart’s critics — like Jeffrey Goldberg — would say: that’s exactly how they think about Israel and the settlements. They are against them. . . They think they were and are a grave and historic mistake…
    . . . So they are doing what they can to convince their mother to check herself in and dry out. But she’s their mother. If it takes her a long time to convince, they’ll keep trying. If she slips a drink on the sly, they’ll try to hide the liquor better, but they’ll forgive her. [In other words, they will act as “enablers”. ~ J.L.D.] And, whatever she does, they certainly aren’t going to call the cops on her, and give the neighbors (who never liked her, even have tried to get her evicted) the satisfaction of seeing her humiliated by her own son in public. After all, she’s their mother. [Let’s call this “constructive engagement”! ~ J.L.D.]
    Well, talk to a few children of alcoholics, and you’ll discover that “my mother, drunk or sober” is not always a tenable proposition. Sometimes, for some people, the sense of obligation to one’s mother is trumped by a sense of obligation to oneself, and to protect oneself from her disease. And that, in a nutshell, is what Beinart is saying. She may be my mother, yes, but if she keeps carrying on, I don’t care what the neighbors say, and I don’t care if she never speaks to me again afterward: I’m going to call the cops on her. . .


    • DICKERSON3870 on April 1, 2012, 3:16 pm

      P.S. RE: “Those who criticize Israel join campaign to ‘slaughter the Jews en masse’ ” ~ Weiss

      ALSO SEE – Dear liberal American Jews: Please don’t betray Israel, by Dahlia Scheindlin, +972 Magazine, 2/14/12:

      (excerpts). . . After two weeks in America visiting family and friends, two observations struck me powerfully. First, the understanding that Israel is committing terrible deeds that are destroying itself and its neighbors, has penetrated among you…
      …On this trip, I was stunned to learn that now you don’t even really want to visit Israel because you can’t face what you’re increasingly coming to see as a brutal occupying entity flirting with fascist notions. . .
      …My second observation is that because of your fear – not of the goyim or the anti-Semites, but of yourselves! – you are keeping a low public profile. On this trip, I suddenly realized how naïve it was to imagine that J Street had sufficiently opened the door for anyone who cares critically for Israel to speak out. I underestimated how deep and terrible the intimidation has become and that one political lobby group is far from enough.
      I do understand: those of you who still call the Jewish community home, are afraid of the onslaught that you will receive from your (our) very own people.
      I hold no illusions about how vicious the attacks might be. We Jews, not the goyim, will call you the most painful names, will threaten in various ways to label you as beyond the pale of your people, should you voice your critique.
      You might be chastised in your professional community. You will be hit not only by shadowy bloggers but by the very cherished and established groups you have loyally, even automatically, supported over the years. The anger might come from your friends and it might even come from your family…
      . . . Here’s how that made me feel: abandoned, by the liberal Jews of America. You were swept away by Ruth Wisse’s thesis that liberals betrayed the Jewish cause by believing too much in rational universalism [e.g. universal human rights] and failing to acknowledge the unique, everlasting threat of anti-Semitism…


      • Keith on April 1, 2012, 5:16 pm

        “You were swept away by Ruth Wisse’s thesis that liberals betrayed the Jewish cause by believing too much in rational universalism and failing to acknowledge the unique, everlasting threat of anti-Semitism.”

        Fascinating thesis. For starters, the “unique, everlasting threat of anti-Semitism.” is a defining myth of classical Judaic religious ideology, totally incapable of withstanding any objective historical scrutiny. It is, however, a core belief in current Zionist ideology. So much so that any weakening of this belief among Zionist Jews would tend to weaken tribal solidarity as well. An existential threat to Jewish tribalism, hence, anti-Semitic by definition among the true believers! Yet another example of how the logic of group mythology/ideology tends to overwhelm independent rationality. I refer to this as the logic of irrationality.

      • Pixel on April 1, 2012, 8:02 pm

        “…the logic of irrationality.”

        like it.

      • DICKERSON3870 on April 3, 2012, 10:55 pm

        RE: “…the logic of irrationality.” ~ Keith

        FROM TED RALL, 07/22/10: . . . Umberto Eco’s 1995 essay “Eternal Fascism” describes the cult of action for its own sake under fascist regimes and movements: “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”. . .
        SOURCE –

  20. tommy on April 1, 2012, 3:41 pm

    No one who is interested in stopping the persecution of Palestinians cares about eliminating Jews. They want to eliminate Israeli totalitarian terror. If Jews think this desire threatens their existence, it is because they have aligned their religious identity to a terrible nationalism that is characterized with the worst of the Twentieth Century’s crimes.

    • dahoit on April 2, 2012, 11:11 am

      Well,wouldn’t the Vietnamese or Tutsis or whomever have a quibble with that statement of the greatest of the 20th centuries crimes?Subjective or objective is funny like that.(I’m not belittling the Jewish victims,just saying some might query that as they had their own hells to go through)

  21. radii on April 1, 2012, 3:51 pm

    the WOV™ (World’s Official Victims) not only demand exclusive rights to victimhood, but a monopoly on the use of the term “victim” – and now that the official propagandists are feeling the heat of decades worth of blowback they go nuclear: any criticism of israel is anti-semitism … the stink of sheer desperation is unmistakable

  22. Daniel Rich on April 1, 2012, 8:28 pm

    Oh. Well, a chazer bleibt a chazer, regardless of what bloodstained flag it’s waving. Didn’t Benjamin get the memo detailing the futility of flogging dead horses? Anti-semite is so last century and has lost all its value thanks to Mr. Benjamin’s [and his ilk] zealous use of that term. They even have managed to turn it into a badge of honor, because today it means an anti-semite is critical of the Israeli government. Well done, Benjamin. Ready to shoot yourself in the other foot? You really want to walk alone, don’t you?

  23. FreddyV on April 2, 2012, 5:27 am

    This is all so simple. There was a post here recently about 1SS vs 2SS vs the reality, being the current status quo.

    Israel doesn’t want a 1SS or a 2SS. It wants to keep digging under the foundations of both whilst throwing in as much confusion, obfuscation, obcurantism and conflation as possible to keep us poor idiots squabbling, and arguing.

    Them Zios are very clever…….

    • Taxi on April 2, 2012, 7:50 am

      “Them zios are very clever”.

      They sure ain’t smarter than me FreddyV.

      Big difference between ‘clever’ and ‘dishonest’.

      And yeah sure so “clever” they’re digging their own graves with their children’s hands.

      • FreddyV on April 2, 2012, 8:55 am

        I agree Taxi. They ain’t cleverer than me either, and they’re certainly far more dishonest.

        On another note, but with the same subject, I was debating a Zio on a Murdoch talkback forum the other day. He pointed me to a guy called Howard Grief, who’s apparently spent the last 25 years making an iron clad case for Israel based on The San Remo Declaration of 1920. Initially, I was quite interested in this, but after a little reading, I realised a few points:

        1: San Remo was in 1920. A lot happened between 1920 and 1947. Even more from 1920 to today.

        2: San Remo was based on the Balfour Declaration which was nothing more than a pledge, however San Remo also considered McMahon Hussein.

        3: The world’s thought patterns was based in colonialism and eugenics, which are both vile modes of thought and should be given as much a wide berth as Communism and Nazism.

        4: Israel did not abide to any of the declarations due to their treatment of the indigenous population, which they made no secret about doing from the outset.

        Simply put, once I started looking at Grief’s 25 year long study, I realised it’s nothing but bullshit designed to waste my time and misdirect my attention.

        We know the facts and the truth. Zionist thinking is as dead as disco and only of value to those who have a vested interest. It’s of no use to anyone who is honest and objective and once a person arrives at the truths in the matter, they’re bound by decency to stand against it.

        What I’m trying to say in a very round about way: Lets not waste our time by listening to this horseshit. Getting the message out is far more important.

      • Taxi on April 2, 2012, 9:13 am

        Good grief not that miserable lying scum Howard Grief! Yeah what a time-waster (and time-wasting should be declared a crime against ‘personal life-force’).

        No amount of convoluted twisting of facts by zio eggheads can ever hold up.

        All you gotta do to know the truth is talk, like I have on many occasions, to victims of the Nakba. There sits the precious truth and hidden history of the suffering Palestinians.

      • Shingo on April 2, 2012, 9:17 am

        San Remo also considered McMahon Hussein.

        Sorry, but the Balfour Declaration was a betrayal of McMahon-Hussein.

      • FreddyV on April 2, 2012, 10:49 am

        I fully intend to get out to Palestine and do that soon.

        I’ve generally found that Zio support comes from a small number of demographics. All get something out of it.

        1: Non religious Zio. They want a second home / have family in Israel / have connections there.

        2: Religious Zio. They believe it’s God’s will and draw from the brutalities of Torah books like Joshua to justify what goes on at present.

        3: Christian Zio. They believe the Jews are ‘chosen’ and will convert to Christianity and peach the gospel after 2/3rds of them are wiped out after Jesus returns (this IMO is the most dangerous and pervading group with their influence over American politics. I also think the theology is totally Antisemitic).

        4: Racists. They hate Muslims and treat the enemy of their enemy as their friend.

        I’m sure there’s more, but the point is, whenever I come across a Zionist, they always have a reason to support Israel which is in their interests.

      • FreddyV on April 2, 2012, 10:59 am

        Hey Shingo,

        Yes it was, but the then British Prime Minister Lloyd George did make mention of it. My comment was making a concession of that fact more than anything. Here’s the text from Wikipedia.

        During the meetings of the “Council of Four” in 1919, British Prime Minister Lloyd George stated that the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence was a treaty obligation. He also explained that the agreement with Hussein had been the basis for the Sykes-Picot Agreement. He told the French Foreign Minister that the proposed League Of Nations Mandate System could not be used as an excuse to break the terms of the Hussein Agreement. Under the terms of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the British and French had agreed to an independent Arab state, or confederation of states, and consultations with the sharif of Mecca. The French had also agreed that their military would not occupy Damascus, Homs, Homa and Allepo.[2] As early as July 1919 the parliament of Greater Syria had refused to acknowledge any right claimed by the French Government to any part of Syrian territory.

  24. Shingo on April 2, 2012, 9:19 am

    It is either subjectively antisemitic, in that it consciously and intentionally furthers the goals of the campaign; or it is objectively antisemitic, in that it unconsciously and unintentionally does the same thing. The distinction, if there ever was one, between the two, is now meaningless.

    The only thing that has becoem meaningless is the accusation of anti Semitism.

    • Charon on April 2, 2012, 6:48 pm

      Israel hijacked it and tried to make the term synonomous with anti-Israel. Which because of their double standards expectation means criticism of Israel. Israel and supporters of Israel are criticized because they are in the wrong.

      The irrationality of analyzing it on a macro level and drawing the same conclusion by ‘proxy’ is just insanity.

Leave a Reply