Trending Topics:

‘NYT’ reporter treats boycott as immoral and anti-Semitic, reminiscent of Nazis

Israel/Palestine
on 56 Comments
Rudoren meets with American Jewish Committee group

Rudoren meets with American Jewish Committee group in January

New York Times Jerusalem correspondent Jodi Rudoren’s piece on the boycott movement is titled, “West Bank Boycott: A Political Act or Prejudice?” and her answer is prejudice, revealing herself (again) as culturally bound– operating within the Israeli Jewish experience.

Rudoren begins by citing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s view that a boycott is “immoral” and she seems to agree, for she promptly brings in the Nazis:

for many Israelis, the boycott that comes to mind is the Nazi-led one of Jewish-owned businesses that spread in the 1930s from Germany across Europe and beyond. Avoiding a coffee shop because you don’t like the way the boss treats his employees is voting with your wallet; doing so because the boss is Jewish — or black or female or gay — is discrimination.

But no one is boycotting Jews as Jews. They are boycotting Jews because of the way they treat people under occupation, in the boycott of settlement products, the supposed focus of this story.

Though it is surely the case that some boycotters oppose Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, does that make them anti-Semitic? I should think that would make them anti-Zionist. Rudoren equates anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. Many believe, she says,

that the movement is motivated by anti-Semitism, that the ultimate target is not Israeli policy, but Israel’s right to exist.

Yes, she quotes Omar Barghouti, saying BDS is not singling out any religious or ethnic group, but our West Jerusalem minder promptly steps in– “Many Israeli leaders do not buy this,” and quotes a torrent of rightwingers, government spokesman Mark Regev (“It’s of dubious morality…”), Dani Dayan, Netanyahu, and Malcolm Hoenlein.

FYI, Hoenlein is not an Israeli at all, but an American Jewish leader.

“Seventy years ago, you went after, ‘Kill the Jews’ — here you say, ‘Kill the Jewish state,”’ said Malcolm Hoenlein… “The politically correct way to be anti-Semitic is not to say, ‘I hate the Jews,’ but to say, ‘I hate Israel.”’

I can think of at least two Jewish groups that are for boycott of settlement products, Peace Now and Jewish Voice for Peace. Do they hate Jews? No they hate the colonies. And Peace Now and Peter Beinart (who also supports settlement-boycott) are Zionists. Why didn’t Rudoren quote them when she was calling Americans to talk about Israeli opinion?

What’s more, Peace Now is a constituent of the Conference of Presidents, of which Hoenlein is the executive director. Why does Peace Now remain in the Conference when Hoenlein is calling it a collection of anti-Semites?

It is surely good news that the fat is in the fire on boycott, that people are discussing it at last in the mainstream. But Nazis? This is a form of hysteria. To her credit, Rudoren did a pretty good job about going into the territories to write up Palestinian employment in settlements the other day; but when is she going to talk about the actual conditions of life inside the occupation, which even Haaretz says is a form of slavery, because Palestinians lack control over their lives and bodies? When will the Times undertake to explain how it has come to pass that a couple dozen other peoples have gained the right of self-determination in the 67 years since the U.N. voted to give the Palestinians a state, but they still don’t have that right? That is why I am for boycott, and so many other Americans are, too. To do what I can to lift the heel of the oppressor.

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

56 Responses

  1. Krauss
    Krauss
    February 12, 2014, 10:28 am

    So it’s official:

    The New York Times, which seemed to have a left-wing drift on this issue in 2009-2012, has reverted back to its (default) hard-right Likudnik position in 2013 and especially 2014.

    Everyone thought Rudoren couldn’t possibly have been worse and more biased than Bronner – who was exposed as working for an Israeli PR firm to improve their hasbara on his spare time – but I guess they were wrong.

    • Krauss
      Krauss
      February 12, 2014, 10:41 am

      The interesting question, as always, is the sociological one: why now?

      My guess is that the Times’ Jewish liberal concensus on this issue(the Gray Lady isn’t as Jewish as she once was, except on Israel/Palestine, which she is absolutely every bit as Jewish as ever) has shifted for the following reasons:

      1. They no longer believe it is possible to turn the Israeli right-wing permanent majority, just like it’s no longer possible to turn California’s left-wing permanent majority. The reasons are similar: demographics.

      2. In 2009-2012 there was this naive belief to “change the system by working with it but never undermining it”. This is the essence of liberal Zionism. It’s like liberal Jewish kids from New Jersey making aliyah to join the IDF and “change it from within”. It never works.

      3. The final nail in the coffin must have been how Yair Lapid essentially became a Likdunik. It was always obvious to all of us – after all, he started his campaign in Ariel. So why should anyone be shocked when he calls Bennett his “brother”, the same man who brags about killing Arabs, endorses an anti-interracial dating organization and refuses to cede even an inch of the Apartheid project. This was also what Ben-Ami of J Street and Goldberg (J.J. Goldberg of the Forward) thought. It was a mass delusion. Clearly the NYT bought into this mass “liberal” Zionist self-delusion.

      4. Fourthly, the BDS campaign has grown a lot. There have been attempts to blame it on Europe(per Friedman and others) but I think Rudoren understands that it is much deeper rooted than that.

      5. Finally, I think she also understands that the 2SS is dead. Israel is on the verge of passing a bill which would require a national referendum on any deal, even one as hopelessly pro-Israel biased as the Kerry framework. If the bills is passed into law, the Israeli public’s hard-line views will never allow it accept any deal except one which essentially lets Israel keep more or less everything while calling it a “2SS”. Anything less than that will never pass the Israeli electorate and this bill is now past its third reading. It will cement the status quo.

      Conclusion: Bring all these points together and you understand the sheer desperation at this point.

      Trying the Godwin rule-inspired Nazi smear attack isn’t going to work. It has been tried before and it has failed. It will fail again.

      What this article reveals, instead, is the deep attatchment to a racially supremacist ideology which is deeply rooted even within the “liberal” confines of establishment Jewry.
      Re-read the Times’ news articles on Jim Crow from the 50s and 60s – which often read as editorials condemning it – and compare it with this smear campaign on behalf of Jewish Apartheid.

      It’s a reflection of the deep-seated racism within the Jewish community, the Holocaust trauma that has frankly never been resolved.
      And this is why I am skeptical it ever will, from the inside.

      It’s really a sad commentary on the state of the Jewish community and the shocking amount of racism and deep attachment to a racially supremacist ideology, than anything else.

      • annie
        annie
        February 12, 2014, 11:49 am

        why now? My guess is that the Times’ Jewish liberal concensus on this issue…

        my guess is that “Netanyahu convenes ministers to discuss growing Israel economic boycott threats” and everybody got the message.

        this is a synchronized hasbara assault/pushback http://mondoweiss.net/2014/02/goldberg-stoke-fears.html

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 12, 2014, 5:33 pm

        I think you are onto something Annie.

        Another tactic they are rolling out is to brand supporters of BDS as terrorists.

        Lame and in imaginative.

  2. Les
    Les
    February 12, 2014, 10:33 am

    The NY Times bosses choose to promote Israel’s ethnic cleansing and occupation of the Palestinians. It pays its employees to be part of that problem.

  3. joemowrey
    joemowrey
    February 12, 2014, 10:39 am

    After this latest disgusting piece of pro-Zionist garbage Rudoren has spewed out, can we finally quit using lines like “To her credit…” to describe anything she writes? Please! Endorsing, even in a minor way, a person who is so clearly a paid propagandist for Zionism is a self-defeating strategy. She should be condemned on every level and at every turn as the unprincipled shill she is. When we legitimize her we legitimize blatant racism.

    • Krauss
      Krauss
      February 12, 2014, 10:52 am

      We should thank her.

      She has proved beyond any shadow of a doubt how deeply embedded the New York Times is within the right-wing Israeli context, thereby stripping its moral authority(whatever left of it it had) among liberal crowds.

      She has also hlped to prove that “liberal” Zionists are simply Likudniks with a liberal fig leaf as cover.
      Deep down they are all the same.
      We already knew this, of course, but it’s good to use her article to prove it to other people.

      You cannot reason with these kinds of people, who believe these kinds of things.
      It’s like trying to negotiate with the George Wallace types. It’s a waste of time. And Rudoren has done more than most to prove this beyond any point of reconsideration.

      • pabelmont
        pabelmont
        February 12, 2014, 11:26 am

        NYT believes i n the BIG LIE. (Remember the Big Lie? I always heard that phrase used about Nazis in the 1940s.) And when you consistently tell a big lie over a long period of time it becomes “truth” for many readers. So, no, NYT/Rudoren have not lost anything (from their very, very numerous readers).

        And if all this confirms anti-zionists in their off-beat views, well, so what? Who cares what A-Zs think?

      • American
        American
        February 12, 2014, 11:46 am

        The problem with their ‘big lie’ is people look around them and dont see Jews being persecuted, being discriminated against, having their homes bulldozed, their shops burned down, being deported—–
        So they can hype and plant articles about Jew hatred and rampant anti semitism all they want—-its not what people are seeing with their own eyes….they are seeing the opposite, favortism toward Jewish interest and the Jewish state in their own and other countries.

        ‘You can fool some of the people all the time and all of the people some of the time, but you cant fool all the people all the time”…..the Zio/Isr propaganda machine is in the last phrase of that now.

      • February 12, 2014, 2:31 pm

        hey american- don’t give your fellow american so much intellectual credit. as vincent bugliosi so appropriately said in “the prosecution of george w bush for murder”, and has said to me privately many times, most americans are stupid. and i wholeheartedly agree!
        you say people look around and don’t see jews houses being bulldozed.
        i bet most americans really don’t have the slightest idea of what really is going on in palestine.
        look where most of them get their news from. what do you think, mondoweiss?
        most are like pavlov dogs in this big brainwashing experiment being told what to think by their zio thought-masters in the mainstream big media.
        most are fools and you can’t make them think otherwise. the ziomasters have certainly done a masterful job.

      • Ecru
        Ecru
        February 12, 2014, 2:52 pm

        @ American

        “…they can hype and plant articles about Jew hatred and rampant anti semitism all they want—-its not what people are seeing with their own eyes….”

        But is it aimed at non-Jews or Jews, that’s the question.

        It’s true non-Jews see, as you say, the opposite but the Jewish community, primed to see anti-semitism EVERYWHERE by decades of Zionist propaganda do seem to fall for it hook line and sinker. Partly I think because, subconsciously perhaps, they want to. It makes the community “special.” It’s also the mirror that justifies the bigotry of some Jews against all non-Jews – Zionist xenophobia. Just take a look at the comments section on HuffPo over a recent article about French Jews “fleeing” what they claim is increased anti-semitism (a charge I no longer take seriously). Full of anti-European bigotry where French laws, France and the French people (and the rest of Europe for that matter) are derided because the laws they have enacted, designed to punish and prevent just such prejudice, are not 100% successfull. Just like all laws. It’s the same old “you did nothing to prevent the Holocaust while you were fighting for your existence during WWII and the camps and train lines were out of the range of your aircraft that would have got shot down anyway while you lacked air superiority, and it’s totally unforgivable you were all really on the side of the Nazis because you all hate Jews, go on admit it everyone knows it’s true” silliness we’ve all heard before. And as I said I think there’s a chunk of the Jewish community that wants to actually see this type of thing everywhere, whether it’s there or not, it feeds into their own ideas of non-Jews, of Jews and saddest of all, their own self-image.

      • ritzl
        ritzl
        February 12, 2014, 6:06 pm

        @thetruthhurts- Maybe Americans ARE “stupid,” but my sense in talking to people here locally is that they are not naive. There is a recognition both of past [real] anti-semitic wrongs and that philo-semitist favoritism is going too far. There is an organic awareness of both. This excludes Christian zios, of course.

        So, to me, I think the “stupid” top-down characterization is a reflection of/on the moral roadblock/conflict of a lack of perceived, acceptable avenues of expression and not on gross ignorance. There is a growing, but real, latent discontent with people’s kids being sent to perpetual war (a big thing here in a military town in the conservative South, but I shouldn’t overstate that), among other things. That latency is waiting for clear choices to be coupled with acceptable avenues of expression, imho. Dots connected.

        They don’t need MW to do inform them. Their info is viscerally generated, imo. What they do need, is for , public figures, MW, EI, and others to identify the issues and acceptable expression. When that happens, the switch flips. That hasn’t happened yet, but it is happening.

        I certainly agree that the MSM hasbarists have done a masterful job, but that veil is being ripped off.

        FWIW.

      • Shingo
        Shingo
        February 12, 2014, 4:32 pm

        She has also hlped to prove that “liberal” Zionists are simply Likudniks with a liberal fig leaf as cover.

        Which suggests Lapid didn’t switch to Likud, he simply came out of the closset.

    • John Douglas
      John Douglas
      February 12, 2014, 2:49 pm

      I agree that Rudoren did a reasonable job covering the issue of Palestinian labor in the occupied territories. While I read Rudoren’s piece, the word “slavery” stuck in my brain and wouldn’t leave. First use water rights, settler terrorism, home and village demolition, etc., to destroy Palestine’s economy then offer Palestinians work in illegally constructed Israeli factories. To intentionally create a situation where a person has only one work option, the option that benefits you, what has that worker become?

  4. Shmuel
    Shmuel
    February 12, 2014, 10:43 am

    Avoiding a coffee shop because you don’t like the way the boss treats his employees is voting with your wallet; doing so because the boss is Jewish — or black or female or gay — is discrimination.

    And what if the boss who mistreats her employees is “Jewish — or black or female or gay”. Get out of jail free? Isn’t that discrimination too?

    government spokesman Mark Regev (“It’s of dubious morality…”)

    No comment.

    • tree
      tree
      February 12, 2014, 11:44 am

      government spokesman Mark Regev (“It’s of dubious morality…”)

      No comment.

      LOL!

      Government spokesman Mark Regev is a synonym for dubious morality.

      There, I said it for you.

    • philweiss
      philweiss
      February 12, 2014, 11:50 am

      Thank you Shmuel. I wish I’d grokked that. PEP signaling

      • bintbiba
        bintbiba
        February 12, 2014, 12:54 pm

        :-)

  5. American
    American
    February 12, 2014, 10:56 am

    Boycott the hypocrites…..good enough for Jews against Germany…..good enough for us against Israel.

    On Friday, March 24, 1933, the headline “Judea Declares War on Germany” was splashed across the front page of the British newspaper Daily Express.
    The subheads read: “Jews Of All The World Unite In Action”; “Boycott of German Goods”; “Mass Demonstrations in Many Districts”; and “Dramatic Action.”
    The transcript of the article can be read here: http://www.h-ref.de/feindbilder/juedische-kriegserklaerungen/daily-express-original.php

    • wondering jew
      wondering jew
      February 12, 2014, 10:08 pm

      American- The Daily Express and its headline is “controversial”. Let us say that it is most reliable as a piece of history rather than as a report of history. You seem to be using it as if it is pure reportage, which it is not.

      • edwards
        edwards
        February 13, 2014, 1:10 am

        On page 100 of “Ambassador Dodd’s Diary”, written in 1940 about his service as ambassador to Berlin from 1933 to 1939, Dodd describes a visit from Federal Judge Julian Mack, who asks if Dodd thinks the boycott in the United States should be eased up. Dodd says yes – if he thinks Hitler is “easing down” on his warrantless arrests and tortures of Jews. But only do it tentatively, until one can be positive the Germans have abandoned their extreme ruthlessness.

        So the boycott was real, it did play a significant role in Germany’s financial difficulties, and the evidence goes beyond one newspaper headline. In the index under Boycott of Germany there are 9 page references.

        The Dodd book is fascinating, by the way. He was a professional historian who studied in Germany and witnessed the destruction of people and institutions he greatly admired, trying as best he could to ameliorate the situation without debasing the principles of his (and my) country.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        February 13, 2014, 3:18 am

        edwards- There was a boycott against Germany, as well there should have been. The headline from the Daily Express is an artifact of history that might stir the reader to find some real reporting about a real event, which was not available in the Daily Express headline nor in the Daily Express article.

      • Woody Tanaka
        Woody Tanaka
        February 13, 2014, 6:32 am

        “There was a boycott against Germany, as well there should have been.”

        Just as their should be a boycott of israel and companies and people that support it today, until it grants full liberation to the Palestinians.

      • American
        American
        February 13, 2014, 9:09 am

        yonah fredman says:
        February 12, 2014 at 10:08 pm
        American- The Daily Express and its headline is “controversial”.
        >>>>>

        Whats controversial about it? It was a fact….the boycott was called for by Zio Orgs . You’re not addressing the point, which is their hypocrisy in condemning BDS as a tool for change.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        February 13, 2014, 8:07 pm

        American- “Judea declares war on Germany” is controversial, because there was not at that time any political entity, state or otherwise, that called itself Judea. This is a headline of provocation. The newspaper was a strong appeaser, later in the 30’s and this headline fits in with the possible antisemitic inferences of appeasement.

        Further, American- the boycott was not called by Zio orgs. as you assert, unless all Jews are labeled as Zios, which would justify labeling all anti zios as anti Jews. None of the organizations listed in the following text from wikipedia were Zios in March 1933 and calling them Zio orgs shows your bias.

        Quote:
        Following Adolf Hitler’s appointment as German Chancellor in January 1933, an organized campaign of violence was undertaken by Hitler’s Nazi Party against the Jews of Germany. Jewish stores were picketed and shoppers at these stores were harassed. Protests by the Centralverein deutscher Staatsbürger jüdischen Glaubens (the Jewish communal organization) against these systematic tactics were ignored, with Hermann Göring stating that “I shall employ the police, and without mercy, wherever German people are hurt, but I refuse to turn the police into a guard for Jewish stores”.[1]

        After seeing no improvement in the situation in the weeks following the first protests, representatives of the American Jewish Committee, American Jewish Congress and B’nai B’rith met in New York City and established a joint committee to monitor the plight of German Jewry. At that point they were in agreement that any current public protests might well further harm the Jews of Germany.[1]

        The unrelenting Nazi abuse of Jews in Germany in the subsequent weeks led the American Jewish Congress to reconsider its opposition to public protests. In a contentious four-hour meeting held at the Hotel Astor in New York City on March 20, 1933, 1,500 representatives of various Jewish organizations met to consider a proposal by the AJCongress to hold a protest meeting at Madison Square Garden on March 27, 1933, as an additional 1,000 people attempting to enter the meeting were held back by police. New York Supreme Court Justice Joseph M. Proskauer and James N. Rosenberg spoke out against a proposed boycott of German goods that had been introduced by J. George Freedman of the Jewish War Veterans. Proskauer expressed his concerns against “causing more trouble for the Jews in Germany by unintelligent action”, protesting against plans for mass meetings and reading a letter from Judge Irving Lehman that warned that “the meeting may add to the terrible dangers of the Jews in Germany”. Honorary president Rabbi Stephen Samuel Wise delivered a rejoinder to Proskauer and Rosenberg, criticizing their failure to attend previous AJCongress meetings and insisting that “no attention would be paid to the edict” if mass protests had been rejected by the group. Wise noted that “The time for prudence and caution is past. We must speak up like men. How can we ask our Christian friends to lift their voices in protest against the wrongs suffered by Jews if we keep silent? … What is happening in Germany today may happen tomorrow in any other land on earth unless its is challenged and rebuked. It is not the German Jews who are being attacked. It is the Jews.” The group voted to go ahead with the meeting at Madison Square Garden.[1][2]

        End quote.

        I did not address the issue of boycotts. That was not my point.

        Your use of an artifact of antiJewish history as your reportage and then your equation of Jewish organizations with Zios demonstrate your bias.

      • Cliff
        Cliff
        February 13, 2014, 9:06 pm

        Wondering Jew said:

        Your use of an artifact of antiJewish history as your reportage and then your equation of Jewish organizations with Zios demonstrate your bias.

        Who cares about his bias. He doesn’t support a Jewish ethnocracy centered around maintaining a demographic majority (at the cost of democracy, civil rights, peace, basic human decency).

        I don’t see American supporting that anywhere in the world either.

        But once again, Wondering Jew, you focus on the odd comment on MW instead of the content of the articles or the conflict in general.

        You need to focus on antisemitism. That is all you have in life. All your comments on this website are pathetic and express your cowardice in dealing with the issue sincerely without any bullshit or change of subject.

      • American
        American
        February 14, 2014, 11:47 am

        @yonah

        I was trying not to implicate all ‘The Jews for this stupid move by using Zio instead.
        However if you like I will blame all the stupid ‘Jewish Orgs, the AJCongress, ect for this throwing of more fuel on the flames of the Jewish situtation in Germany.
        Yea I love you too for your anti gentileism, anti anyone not jewish, anti the opinions of anyone not jewish, 24/7 nazis and anti semite hunting, 24/7 digging up dead anti semites, 24/7 suspicions of everyone…bais.

        Now why dont you move on to your regular Anti Semite of the Day feature……what famous (and probably dead) person will it be today?

      • Chu
        Chu
        February 14, 2014, 1:33 pm

        “You need to focus on antisemitism. That is all you have in life. All your comments on this website are pathetic and express your cowardice in dealing with the issue sincerely without any bullshit or change of subject.”

        So true, Yonah. You fail to address the content of the original comment and only nitpick the details. A smoke screen is often serves you well, when you have no substantial counter argument.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        February 15, 2014, 11:06 pm

        What is relevant here in the responses to me is American’s:
        However if you like I will blame all the stupid ‘Jewish Orgs, the AJCongress, ect for this throwing of more fuel on the flames of the Jewish situtation in Germany.

        Throwing more fuel on the flames of the Jewish situation in Germany.

        Whoever agrees with this formulation, please stand up.

  6. eljay
    eljay
    February 12, 2014, 10:58 am

    >> Avoiding a coffee shop because you don’t like the way the boss treats his employees is voting with your wallet; doing so because the boss is Jewish … is discrimination.

    That’s nice, but as far as Israel is concerned, what Rudoren is effectively saying is: As long as a coffee shop openly promotes itself as a “Jewish Coffee Shop” (“the coffee shop of the Jewish people”), its owner and its employees can be as evil and criminal as they like and you MUST patronize the shop or be branded an anti-Semite.

  7. Krauss
    Krauss
    February 12, 2014, 11:08 am

    Though it is surely the case that some boycotters oppose Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, does that make them anti-Semitic? I should think that would make them anti-Zionist.

    Once again, Phil finds himself bending over backwards to appease “liberal” Zionist opinion by even taking this kind of argument seriously.
    There have been numerous instances like this just these past few weeks.

    The issue here is how “Jewish state” is defined. Ethnically homogenous states like Finland or Japan has had the same population(more or less) for thousands of years. Israel has not.

    Secondly, there are people who oppose a ethno-nationalist state no matter where it is, but even if we overlook those people, the manner in which the ethnic majority is achieved and in what context matters greatly.

    This is why any attempts for some on the hard-right in America to defend America as a “white Christian nation” will fail: because we all know who lived here originally.

    So why is Phil trying to bend over backwards to appease this kind of opinion by adopting a conciliatory tone – indeed, even an understanding one when debating this issue?

    Would he adopt the same kind of understanding, kids glove-tone when debating a raging white supremacist who railed against anyone who dared try to challenge his/her attempt at an ethno-nationalist vision of white America?

    It’s embarrassing to read, Phil.
    Remember your sweet-as-sugar interview with that bigoted settler millionare you did in a Jerusalem hotel a few years back, before the 2012 election? You had the same tendency then to bending over backwards to appease his racist views with a demurred, withdrawn and ultimately understanding tone. You coddled him, which you eventually came to admit. It’s the same thing here. The tone you adopt in the face of vile racial supremacism is simply astonishing.

  8. Sumud
    Sumud
    February 12, 2014, 11:23 am

    I understand there is a sentimental attachment to a once great paper like the NYT but look what a filthy rag it has become.

    *** All The Pro-Apartheid News That’s Fit To Print ***

    Don’t read it. Cancel your subscription. Write to the editor and tell them why. Don’t forget NYT is finally just another business, as vulnerable to consumer backlash as any other.

    Tell your friends. Lampoon it. Mock it.

    There’s plenty of other credible news sources. Go outside the US for news. Example:

    This program went to air on ABC Australia a few nights ago, about Israel’s systematic abuse of children in the West Bank:

    Four Corners: Stone Cold Justice

    A few minor points to quibble over but fairly honest. Check out the comprehensive ‘Background Information’ at page bottom.

    ABC Oz tend to geoblock but apparently this program hasn’t been, so can be viewed outside Australia.

    Look at the revolting things Rudoren and the NYT have chosen to ignore. They’re trash. Let it be known.

    • Abierno
      Abierno
      February 12, 2014, 2:14 pm

      The Four Corners Video should be featured on this web site and preserved in
      the archives, since it can be expected to soon be blocked. It’s showing in Australia
      has occasioned not only significant commentary but also significant backlash to
      the current Likud Australian political regime. The severely abusive treatment of children is a well known pathological marker for serious psychiatric disorder.
      In this case, inculcated by political and educational programs which deligitamitize
      even the most fundamental humanity of Palestinians, including their elderly
      and children. That this deligitamization includs Muslims and Arabs, wherever
      (think US policies toward Arab/Muslim), has had/has/will have profound implications for Israeli foreign policy (as well as US foreign policy, for example
      the thousands civilian death in Iraq, the ten thousands civilian wounded, dispossesed; the foreign sponsored jihadi carnage in Syria). When one reprises
      the Dahiya Doctrine (to inflict as much suffering as possible on the other) perhaps
      this has always been a signature feature of Zionism.

      • Sumud
        Sumud
        February 13, 2014, 1:48 am

        There are at least 3 or 4 copies up on YouTube already Abierno so hopefully that will keep it available to everyone – and if YT pull it there are other video sites to upload to…

        If anyone is looking, search for “four corners stone cold justice”.

  9. American
    American
    February 12, 2014, 11:30 am

    ‘“Seventy years ago, you went after, ‘Kill the Jews’ — here you say, ‘Kill the Jewish state,”’ said Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. “That somehow is kosher. The politically correct way to be anti-Semitic is not to say, ‘I hate the Jews,’ but to say, ‘I hate Israel.”’

    Perfectly kosher to hate defenders and enablers of apartheid and occupation and fear mongers like Hoenlein. If he has a Jewish persecution complex thats his problem, not ours.

    • eljay
      eljay
      February 12, 2014, 12:15 pm

      >> ‘“Seventy years ago, you went after, ‘Kill the Jews’ — here you say, ‘Kill the Jewish state,”’ said Malcolm Hoenlein … “That somehow is kosher. … ”

      Zio-supremacists see only two possible outcomes:
      – Jewish supremacism, which is “life”; and
      – justice, morality and equality, which is “death”.

      Pretty f*cking dismal.

      Anyway, it is kosher to advocate against supremacism and, in the case of the supremacist “Jewish State”, on-going aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction, torture and murder.

      Israel as a “Jewish State” is, fundamentally, supremacist. It should be reformed. Same goes for any and every other supremacist state.

  10. Balfour
    Balfour
    February 12, 2014, 11:56 am

    At least it’s all documented for future historian’s research. I have a hunch that the Times coverage of all things Israeli and Palestinian during our era will be wincingly embarrassing for future generations to read, much like our reading contemporary American accounts defending segregation and white tradition written 60 years ago, or politicians defending Afrikaner rule during the 1980’s.

  11. Denis
    Denis
    February 12, 2014, 12:01 pm

    @Phil: They are boycotting Jews because of the way they treat people under occupation when they boycott settlement products, the supposed focus of this story.

    Um . . . maybe I’m confused. I’m having a problem with the first “they.” I am not boycotting Jews at all. Period. I am boycotting zionists.

    I am certainly not boycotting Jews “because of the way they treat people” because that “they” refers back to “Jews” and Jews as a group are not – so far as I can tell – treating people badly. If Jews are included in the people I am boycotting, even as a majority, their being Jews is irrelevant. Zionists is relevant – Jews, Christians, Hindi – I’m boycotting them all if they are zionists. Even Cub Scout zionists I am boycotting. There is no point in distinguishing the demographics of zionists; to do so is, in fact, misleading and it gives Uncle Abe Foxman an opening.

    You almost have to do a Venn diagram to sort this out. Sorry, I don’t know how to include figures in comments. I’ll try a verbal Venn.

    The big circle, Circle #1, is labeled “People boycotted”, but it could be labeled “They.”

    Circle #2, is labeled “Jews.” It lies mostly outside of Circle #1 with a portion inside. The portion lying inside Circle #1 is – by definition — Jews behaving badly. (“Badly” being locally defined in reference to treatment of Palestinians.)

    And then there is Circle #3, which is labeled “zionists.” This circle lies wholly within Circle #1 and mostly within Circle #2, but with a bit sticking out of Circle #2 to represent the goy-zios.

    The part of Circle #2 inside Circle #1 that is not occupied by Circle #3 represents non-zionist Jews who are acting badly. These are Jews who just want to mess with the Palestinians because they are Arabs, or Muslims, or for financial reasons, or whatever. My guess is that there are more of them than anybody really talks about, including Scarlett.

    All of Circle #1 that is not occupied by Circle #2 is non-Jews who are acting badly – which includes 300 million goyim Americans who are funding this cluster f&*k with their tax money.

    Circle #4 is that relatively small but noisy circle that is isolated from all the rest. It is labeled “People trying to set this mess right.” You will not find Rudoren, Abramson, Sulzberger, or the Gray Lady inside Circle #4. They are all inside Circle #1.

    So, why aren’t we boycotting them?

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      February 12, 2014, 10:02 pm

      “The portion lying inside Circle #1 is – by definition — Jews behaving badly. (“Badly” being locally defined in reference to treatment of Palestinians.) ”

      Under any normal definition of “behaving badly”, this portion is an empty set. Jews never behave badly, and you know what you are if you ever say they do.

  12. Justpassingby
    Justpassingby
    February 12, 2014, 12:49 pm

    Disgusting!

    http://mondoweiss.net/images/2012/02/jodi-rudoren.jpg

    The only racists are the ones that support apartheid against palestinians, i.e. Rudoren.

  13. marc b.
    marc b.
    February 12, 2014, 1:56 pm

    will the despicable ruderon cover this?

    Forty-two years late, another Israeli war crime emerges from the shadows. In this case, dozens, and more probably hundreds, of Israeli soldiers kept a decades-long vow of secrecy. One of them is Shlomo Gazit, today a respected (in Israel, at least) academic at Tel Aviv University. In January 1972, Ariel Sharon decided that 3,000 Bedouin were in the way of a massive military exercise he wanted to conduct in the southern Negev and northern Sinai. So he summarily expelled two tribes in the el-Arish area of the Sinai from their homes, during a deep winter spell. At least 40 people died, mostly babies, children and the elderly. A young army researcher, Clinton Bailey, heard from other Bedouin of the expulsion and went to meet the families. He photographed 28 small graves at their new makeshift location. He then brought the expulsion to the attention of the head of the army, David Elazar. Although Elazar ordered the tribes to be returned to their land, it was too late for the dozens who had died. No action was taken against Sharon or anyone else. In fact, Sharon’s military and later political career prospered on such “exploits”. Bailey and everyone else covered up the crime for four decades, fearful of the damage it would do to Israel’s reputation. The silence has been broken now because Bailey divulged the incident to journalist David Landau, who was preparing a new biography of Ariel Sharon.

    from Jonathon Cook.

  14. James Canning
    James Canning
    February 12, 2014, 2:15 pm

    Rudoren clearly is incapable of comprending the the sanctions etc are a good thing for Israel.

    • Justpassingby
      Justpassingby
      February 12, 2014, 2:31 pm

      You seems incabable to comprehend that Rudoren support Israel.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        February 12, 2014, 7:17 pm

        Some suppoerters of Israel think sanctions against Israel are necessary, and in Israel’s own true best interests.

  15. eGuard
    eGuard
    February 12, 2014, 4:15 pm

    Philip Weiss: But no one is boycotting Jews as Jews. They are boycotting Jews because of ….

    They are boycotting ‘Jews’? I guess that this could be phrased better.

  16. DICKERSON3870
    DICKERSON3870
    February 12, 2014, 6:13 pm

    RE: “Rudoren equates anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. Many believe, she says, ‘that the movement is motivated by anti-Semitism, that the ultimate target is not Israeli policy, but Israel’s right to exist’.” ~ Weiss

    FROM WIKIPEDIA [Defence mechanisms]:

    [EXCERPTS] . . . In Freudian psychoanalytic theory, defense mechanisms are psychological strategies brought into play by the unconscious mind[4] to manipulate, deny, or distort reality in order to defend against feelings of anxiety and unacceptable impulses to maintain one’s self schema.[5]
    These processes that manipulate, deny, or distort reality may include the following: repression, or the burying of a painful feeling or thought from one’s awareness even though it may resurface in a symbolic form;[3] identification, incorporating an object or thought into oneself;[6] and rationalization, the justification of one’s behavior and motivations by substituting “good” acceptable reasons for the motivations.[3][7] Generally, repression is considered the basis for other defense mechanisms.[3]
    Healthy persons normally use different defences throughout life. An ego defence mechanism becomes pathological only when its persistent use leads to maladaptive behaviour such that the physical or mental health of the individual is adversely affected. The purpose of ego defence mechanisms is to protect the mind/self/ego from anxiety and/or social sanctions and/or to provide a refuge from a situation with which one cannot currently cope.[8] . . .
    . . . The list of defence mechanisms is huge and there is no theoretical consensus on the number of defence mechanisms. . .

    Vaillant’s categorization of defence mechanisms

    Level 1: Pathological
    The mechanisms on this level, when predominating, almost always are severely pathological. These six defences, in conjunction, permit one to effectively rearrange external experiences to eliminate the need to cope with reality. . .
    • Delusional Projection: Delusions about external reality, usually of a persecutory nature. . . [i.e., perceiving legitimate criticism of Israel’s actions as “Anti-Semitism” ~ J.L.D.]
    • Denial: Refusal to accept external reality because it is too threatening; arguing against an anxiety-provoking stimulus by stating it doesn’t exist; resolution of emotional conflict and reduction of anxiety by refusing to perceive or consciously acknowledge the more unpleasant aspects of external reality.
    • Distortion: A gross reshaping of external reality to meet internal needs. . .

    Level 2: Immature
    These mechanisms are often present in adults. These mechanisms lessen distress and anxiety provoked by threatening people or by uncomfortable reality. . .
    • Fantasy: Tendency to retreat into fantasy in order to resolve inner and outer conflicts. [i.e., the belief that the interests of the U.S. and Israel are identical is a nice example of fantasy ~ J.L.D.]
    • Wishful thinking: Making decisions according to what might be pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality, or reality. . .
    • Projection: A primitive form of paranoia. Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the undesirable impulses or desires without becoming consciously aware of them; attributing one’s own unacknowledged unacceptable or unwanted thoughts and emotions to another; includes severe prejudice and jealousy, hypervigilance to external danger, and “injustice collecting”, all with the aim of shifting one’s unacceptable thoughts, feelings and impulses onto someone else, such that those same thoughts, feelings, beliefs and motivations are perceived as being possessed by the other. . .

    SOURCE – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_mechanisms

    • DICKERSON3870
      DICKERSON3870
      February 12, 2014, 7:07 pm

      P.S. RE: Delusional Projection: Delusions about external reality, usually of a persecutory nature. . . [i.e., perceiving legitimate criticism of Israel’s actions as “Anti-Semitism” ~ J.L.D.] ~ from above

      ALSO SEE – “Israelis afflictions: instilled memory and paranoia vera” ~ By Uri Avnery, gush-shalom.org, 7/10/11
      Uri Avnery considers the psychological disorders underlying Israel’s response to criticism and peaceful protest, most recently manifested in its over-reaction to the humanitarian flotilla to Gaza, and the Israeli public’s generally docile acceptance of what their government and media tell them.

      [EXCERPTS] I saw on TV the results of a scientific investigation by Israeli researchers into “instilled memory”. Their experiments show that people who have seen something with their own eyes, but are told by everybody else that they have seen something else, start to suppress their own memory and “remember” that they saw what the others had allegedly seen. Neurological research then showed that this is can actually be seen happening in the brain: the imagined memory replaces the real. Social pressure has done its work: the instilled memory has become real memory.
      I believe that this is even truer for an entire nation, which is, of course, composed of individuals. I have seen this many times. . .
      . . . There is a mental disorder called “paranoia vera”. Patients adopt a crazy assumption – e.g. “everybody hates me” – and then build an elaborate structure around it. Every bit of information which seems to support it is eagerly absorbed, every item that contradicts it is suppressed. Everything is interpreted so as to reinforce the initial assumption. The pattern is strictly logical – indeed, the more complete and the more logical the structure, the more serious is the disease.
      Among the accompanying symptoms are belligerent behavior, recurrent suspicions, disconnection from the real world, conspiracy theories and narcissism.
      It seems that whole nations can fall victim to this illness. Ours certainly appears to have.
      The whole world is against us. Everybody is out to destroy us. Every move is a threat to our very existence. Everyone critical of Israeli policy is an anti-Semite or self-hating Jew. . .

      SOURCE – http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1310296614/

  17. seafoid
    seafoid
    February 13, 2014, 2:09 am

    I think the retreat of Zionism into ethnic insanity shows how weak the modern project turned out to be. You can give a man a new name and a new language, you can move him halfway around the world, you can brainwash him for 14 years in school but he’ll never escape the past.

  18. seafoid
    seafoid
    February 13, 2014, 2:14 am

    Dragging antisemitism and the suffering of jews in the 40s into it is not going to fly. The issue is justice now. Rudoren should ask to be transferred to the Latin America desk. She is wasting her time shilling for the bots.

  19. just
    just
    February 13, 2014, 5:02 am

    Nifty new article by Jodi:

    “JERUSALEM — The latest skirmish between Israel and the Palestinian Authority does not concern settlements or refugees, but stationery.

    Israel rejected the applications of dozens of medical patients in the Gaza Strip seeking to travel for treatment in Israel or the West Bank this week because the paper they were printed on bore the logo “State of Palestine” rather than “Palestinian Authority.”

    Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, ordered that the state logo be used on all official correspondence shortly after he won the status of nonmember observer state for Palestine at the United Nations on Nov. 29, 2012, over vehement Israeli objections. But Guy Inbar, a spokesman for the Israeli agency that coordinates movement and other activities with the Palestinian Authority, said that it had always refused to accept such documents, and that the Palestinians had generally complied and used the old letterhead.

    Now, even as Secretary of State John Kerry is nearing the final stages of brokering a framework for continuing fragile peace talks that started last summer, each side is accusing the other of turning a piece of paper into a political provocation.

    “We know that they have two kinds of documents,” Mr. Inbar said. “Sometimes they send us, by mistake or in order to challenge us, the State of Palestine signature.”

    Omar al-Nasser, a spokesman for the Palestinian Health Ministry, countered, “This is pressure for political reasons.”

    Caught in the middle was a 13-year-old boy, Salah Abu Assi, who has been traveling to Jerusalem for chemotherapy at Hadassah Medical Center as often as four times a month for three years. Salah’s father, Hammad Abu Assi, a pharmacist in Gaza City, said that the boy has a tumor behind his eye. A Palestinian Authority liaison informed family members on Tuesday night that they would not be allowed to leave Gaza through the Israeli-controlled Erez crossing to make their Wednesday appointment, Mr. Abu Assi said.”

    more:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/13/world/middleeast/even-a-stationery-logo-pits-palestinians-against-israel.html?ref=world&_r=0

  20. Donald
    Donald
    February 13, 2014, 7:46 am

    There’s a herd of elephants in the room that I am surprised no one has mentioned–the blockade and or sanctions on Gaza, Iran, and back in the 90’s, Iraq. These sanctions are/were vastly more severe than anything contemplated against Israel–they immiserated the target societies and almost certainly cause or caused the deaths of innocent civilians. (In the case of Iraq, probably hundreds of thousands.) They were meant to cause civilian suffering as a means of pressuring or even toppling the governments in the respective locations. And it is simply taken for granted in mainstream Western circles that this level of suffering can be inflicted on Muslim societies if the governments are deemed “bad” in some way. The NYT has sided with Obama in not wanting even tougher sanctions placed on Iran while there’s a chance negotiations will settle the nuclear dispute. But the idea of sanctions, extremely harsh sanctions, being placed on an entire country which help destroy the economy is something they support. Sanction supporters claim that sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table–those who wish for harsher sanctions claim that the Iranians aren’t sincere and need to be punished even more harshly.

    But much less stringent boycott measures against Israel, some of them little more than symbolic slaps, elicit articles and commentary claiming that the motivation might be anti-semitic. I think there’s some projection going on here, on top of the usual pearl clutching whenever somebody criticizes Israel. They have contempt for the lives of innocent people in Iran, Gaza and Iraq, and at some level they know it, so they assume that anyone else who supports boycotts of even the most mild variety must feel as they do. And they can’t stand the idea of even one percent as much pressure being placed on people they identify with. If truly draconian sanctions were placed on Israel there would be editorials and front page articles screaming “genocide”.

    I’m waiting for the NYT article on whether there is racism behind some of the policy choices that their editorial page supports.

    • LeaNder
      LeaNder
      February 13, 2014, 10:44 am

      Donald, none of these state sanctions or wider economical pressures (I assume), are listed under Wikipedia’s boycotts. But just as Judoren realizes they come to mind easily in the larger context. Western double standards? At least in anyone’s mind that does not want to reduce „the Arabs“ or Persians for that matter to terrorists.

      If you look at the list of boycotts you obviously won’t find them either, since if the West pressures the East, that is political business as usual. But there are some state actitivities listed if you check. The first enty in any case is interesting. 617, Meccan boycott of the Hashemites.

      Last year (11 April, 2013), “telaviv1” started almost singlehandedly a specific article on Wikipedia: Antisemitic boycotts. Never assume „the hasbara“ are not prepared. The Nazis and the „national right“ before them made sure that it will be considered differently. Only the Nazis are on the other list. But strictly that article was started only a year earlier.

      For whatever reason this comes to mind:

      ‘Liberals Have Abandoned The State Of Israel’: An Interview with Professor Stephen Norwood By: Elliot Resnick Published: February 12th

      The Jewish Press: Why is there so much anti-Semitic or anti-Israel sentiment on the far left?

      Norwood: There’s a long tradition of it going back to the middle of the 19th century. The far left has tended to deny the legitimacy of Jews’ claims to be a people. Oddly, a lot of the far-left outlook closely resembles traditional Christian theological anti-Semitism in the sense that Jews are perceived as an archaic group rigidly adhering to an outmoded sterile religion, speaking languages that are obsolete. There’s also the issue of accusing the Jews of being excessively materialistic and exploitative of non-Jews. You see a lot of that in far-left propaganda – that the Jews are overwhelmingly concentrated in the petty bourgeoisie, which in itself is an archaic class form, and thrives on tricking people and squeezing money out of them through illicit methods of trade.

      If you look at the Christian Bible, you see a very similar type of outlook. And this Christian theological anti-Semitism is so deeply embedded in Western culture that the far left has really never escaped its influence.

      Concerning the last paragraph above, I would offer that left thought may well be a secularization of specific realms of religious thought, and I wouldn’t want to reduce that to the Christian belief but more generally to thought central in the Monotheist tradition, but probably also beyond.

      This line of academic argument or the concentration on antisemitism on the left has caught my attention a lot in the post 911 universe. That said, there are no doubt some moral dilemmas … His early partner in a publication, Eunice Pollock has published a book about Campus antisemitism in 2011.

      But maybe I should take a closer look at this one. I assume it has a pretty neoconservative outlook.

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      February 13, 2014, 8:56 pm

      There’s a herd of elephants in the room that I am surprised no one has mentioned–the blockade and or sanctions on Gaza, Iran, and back in the 90′s, Iraq

      It’s not that this isn’t apparent to everyone Donald. Ruderon is not trying to argue that boycotts are bad per se, only bad when they apply to Israel. The sleazy argument that Ruderon is publicising is that Israel is a specific case because of historical events and therefore any talk of boycott against Israel has to be anti semitic because Israel happens to be predominantly Jewish.

      And they can’t stand the idea of even one percent as much pressure being placed on people they identify with. If truly draconian sanctions were placed on Israel there would be editorials and front page articles screaming “genocide”.

      Absolutely. Chomsky summed this up very well when he explained how the narrative is spun by the government and media, which assumes the West has absolute morality. That while the US (and allies) might make mistakes, they are never in the wrong. Morality is always on their side.

      If you look at Israel, Kerry is still sticking to the script that Israel is not doing anything wrong, the problem is that that the rest of the world might think so.

      I think it’s pretty obvious that what Rudoren, Netenyahu, Goldberg and Cohen believe deep down is that Jews should have indefinite and limitless immunity from punitive measures – that the gentiles owe them for thousands of years of persecution and a huge debt that can never be settled. Of course, they are not stupid enough to say so publicly, so they have gone with the next best thing – maligning anyone who advocates boycott as harbouring malevolent ulterior motives.

      I’m waiting for the NYT article on whether there is racism behind some of the policy choices that their editorial page supports.

      I just wish Rudoren’s article had a comments section so that one of us could pose Shmuel’s variation of the cafe scenario to Rudoren and see how she answers it.

  21. Whizdom
    Whizdom
    February 13, 2014, 8:05 am

    From AP and reprinted in YNET.

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4487794,00.html

    “Although no formal movement exists, a de facto distancing from the settlement enterprise is increasingly evident, especially in people refraining from buying settlement products ranging from wines to organic produce and cosmetics made from the Dead Sea.

    “As an Israeli, I oppose a regime in the West Bank that I find illegitimate and I don’t want any part of it so I make an effort not to buy those products,” said Yaron Racah, a 38-year-old high-tech worker from the Tel Aviv area. “If I can’t help stop it, at least I can do no more harm by taking an active part in something I don’t believe in.”

  22. Talkback
    Talkback
    February 13, 2014, 8:18 am

    Ruroren is just the usual Zionist hypocrit.

    She would never criticize the Jewish boycott of Germany. And she would never whitewash Germany’s expulsion and denationalization of citizens for national reasons.

  23. OlegR
    OlegR
    February 13, 2014, 9:12 am

    /which even Haaretz says is a form of slavery/
    Facepalm.

Leave a Reply