Trending Topics:

‘NYT Book Review’ owes readers an apology for printing blatant racism about Palestinians

on 57 Comments
New York Times headquarters. (Photo: Wikipedia)

New York Times headquarters. (Photo: Wikipedia)

Two weeks back, the New York Times Book Review ran a favorable review by Joseph Dorman of John Judis’s book Genesis, about Truman and the creation of Israel. Yesterday the Times Book Review ran one letter about the review objecting to its positive treatment of Judis’s book. Here is the letter’s second paragraph:

To the Editor….

The “conflict” between Arabs and Jews is not the result of the “Zionist lobby” preventing the United States from enforcing “peace.” Left unsaid is the extent to which such a “peace” may imperil the survival of Israel, although that is a likely goal of “Zionist lobby” detractors. The “conflict” exists because, by word and deed, Palestinian Arabs have avowed as their goal the killing of all Jews. The Jews have decided they will not be killed. It will not be resolved until Palestinians stop teaching their children to hate.


The New York Times would not permit any other group of people on earth to be blood-libeled like this– even in a letter to the editor.

Mr. Schimmerling is entitled to his view of John Judis’s (excellent) book.  He is not entitled to lie that “Palestinian Arabs have avowed as their goal the killing of all Jews.”

The Times must apologize to all its readers, especially to those who are “Palestinian Arabs,” and the newspaper should also reprimand the editor who allowed this libel to get into print.

James North

James North is a Mondoweiss Editor-at-Large, and has reported from Africa, Latin America, and Asia for four decades. He lives in New York City.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

57 Responses

  1. John Smithson on March 24, 2014, 10:10 am

    Freudian Projection much?

    • Krauss on March 24, 2014, 11:04 am

      Hi, troll!

    • Tobias on March 24, 2014, 6:18 pm

      … of Walter Schimmerling? Sure.

      • Sumud on March 24, 2014, 11:20 pm

        Tobias ~ I think this is what John Smithson meant.

      • Tobias on March 25, 2014, 11:18 am

        Aha. I see thanks.

  2. bilal a on March 24, 2014, 10:33 am

    The Blood libel allegation followed other crimes for which the Islamic medieval nations were co-complicit:

    “Perhaps the widespread fear that Jews were scheming to abduct children, subjecting them to cruel rituals, even antedates the appearance of stereotypical ritual murder which seems to have originated in the 12th century. As for myself, I believe that serious consideration should be given to the possibility that this fear was largely related to the slave trade, particularly in the 9th and 10th centuries, when the Jewish role in the slave trade appears to have been preponderant.

    During this period, Jewish merchants, from the cities in the valley of the Rhône, Verdun, Lione, Arles and Narbonne, in addition to Aquisgrana, the capital of the empire in the times of Louis the Pious [Louis I]; and in Germany from the centres of the valley of the Rhine, from Worms, Magonza and Magdeburg; in Bavaria and Bohemia, from Regensburg and Prague—were active in the principal markets in which slaves (women, men, eunuchs) were offered for sale, by Jews, sometimes after abducting them from their houses. From Christian Europe the human merchandise was exported to the Islamic lands of Spain, in which there was a lively market. The castration of these slaves, particularly children, raised their prices, and was no doubt a lucrative and profitable practice.”
    Pasque di sangue: Ebrei d’Europa e omicidi rituali (Blood Passovers: European Jews and Ritual Murder) (Bologna, Italy: Il Mulino, 2007), [by Israeli medievalist] Ariel Toaff

    • Walid on March 24, 2014, 1:16 pm

      Toaff backtracked on some of his assertions, that apparently were not his own but those of others he was reporting on, when TSHF about a few years ago at the book’s release. Within a few weeks, Toaff pulled his book off the market.

      • ThorsteinVeblen2012 on March 24, 2014, 6:13 pm

        Whether Toaff backtracked on some of his assertions. There is still the fact that there was a trade in Europeans to Byzantium and Baghdad including eunuchs which is cited in other sources for example:

        Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire Judith Herrin

        Herrin doesn’t state that Jews were the merchants involved but cites the cities where the trade took place corresponds to centers of Jewish settlements (i.e. Verdun).

        Other sources, even Wikipedia cite Jews as being involved in the medieval slave trade.

        What specific assertions are you disputing or saying Toaff backtracked?

      • Walid on March 27, 2014, 4:09 pm

        “What specific assertions are you disputing or saying Toaff backtracked?”

        Sorry, Thorstein, I just saw your question. He began by elaborating that his assertions had not come about from his own research but were taken from the reported findings of others, such as the trials and he went on to say that the apparent conclusions of his work were not necessarily what he personally felt about the issue. The final backtracking was his pulling all unsold copies of his book from the market within weeks of its publishing.

        Getting back to the Jews and the slave trade, at the time there weren’t many other people or religions that weren’t involved so I don’t see what the big fuss was about the Jews’ involvement.

    • Stephen Shenfield on March 24, 2014, 8:53 pm

      The blood libel may have its origin not so much in the slave trade as in the trade in children’s blood, which was believed to have curative and rejuvenating qualities. This was a belief that crossed the religious divide — both customers and traders might be of any religion. It might be compared with the contemporary trade in human organs (except that it was based on pure superstition). I learned of this from Toaff. (I don’t feel qualified to judge his work, but the fact that he was pressured to withdraw his book says nothing about its validity one way or the other.)

      I found another interesting suggestion about a possible origin of the blood libel in a book about circumcision. The author (a Jewish author, I recall) suggested that it might originate in the horror felt by Gentile maidservants witnessing circumcisions in the homes of their Jewish employers. Indeed, circumcision was even more perilous in medieval times than it is today and often led to the child’s death, whether from bleeding or infection.

      • Antidote on March 25, 2014, 5:38 am

        re blood libel origins: antoher contributing factor may have been the fact that medieval Christians were illiterate, and instructed about the contents of the Bible either in Latin (which they generally didn’t understand) or in pictures and icons. One of the most prominent motifs of Christian art pertaining to the OT is the Akedah, or Binding of Isaac. The narrative is lost, and all you ever see is Abraham wielding a knife, about to slaughter/sacrifice his son. Hardly surprising then that the bloodthirsty, child-murdering Jew became entrenched in the mind of the average medieval Christian.

      • RoHa on March 25, 2014, 11:24 am

        Medieval Christian peasants and labourers were usually illiterate, and no-one tried to instruct them in Latin. Tradesmen and merchants were more likely to have basic literacy, but very little Latin. Religious instruction (as distinct from Church services) was done in the local vernacular. But the image of Abraham failing (yet again) in his basic duty as a father might have played the role you suggest.

      • Antidote on March 25, 2014, 1:39 pm

        “Religious instruction (as distinct from Church services) was done in the local vernacular.”

        I had Church services in mind (Latin). Religious instruction in the local vernacular had very little to do with scripture. Both literacy and Bible translations were the result of the Protestant reformation. Luther and his fellow reformers were shocked to find that most local priests were neither interested in nor capable of (lack of Latin skills) reading the Vulgate.

      • ThorsteinVeblen2012 on March 25, 2014, 12:27 pm

        By illiterate you mean that Christians were primitive, irrational and therefore wrong and readily dismissed. It is not the accused but the accuser who is to blame.

        Conversely people who are literate and follow an ancient myth of creation are always moral, never subject to the excesses of religious zealotry as we can clearly infer from the current state of relations between the most moral army in the world and the illiterate, irrational Palestinians.

        Except the Palestinian literacy rate is about equal to Israel.

        Would Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu or an IDF soldier who patrols the West Bank by virtue of their literacy have been humane people had they lived in medieval times or would they have pushed the envelop of behavior to indulge in their own power and lust even if it crossed the moral boundaries of behavior?

        Jews during the medieval period held a special and powerful position relative to the illiterate Christian serfs. They answered to the sovereign who granted special laws exempting them from local courts. Is it possible that some indulged in behavior that reflected on the entire Jewish community?

    • ziusudra on March 25, 2014, 6:02 am

      Greetings bilal a,
      …slave trade….
      Slave trade like capitalism is committed against ones own.
      To blame only a certain ethnicity is improper.
      The 200 year slave trade of Euros, even as far as Iceland by
      the Moroccan Berbers or the Venetian/Turkish market of
      Euros were horrendous in the mid. & renascence ages.
      Euro/UK/US trade topped everything.

      • Citizen on March 25, 2014, 6:00 pm

        @ Antidote
        It’s always insightful to read any generalities about the ye old days with the more macro generality that most people back then were illiterate. This always means you have to look at the agenda of the tiny literate back then to see which way the masses bent, and why. Today, just look to who controls the mainstream media, and what is their agenda. Big deal when the USSR folded and the oligarchs gained power, big deal now in US where the oligarchs are in power.

  3. Kay24 on March 24, 2014, 10:40 am

    Obviously Mr. Schimmerling displays his hatred for Palestinians, and has taken an opportunity to spew the Israeli narrative, in a rather unprofessional way. Apologists may claim that Palestinian Arabs have avowed as their goal the killing of all Jews, but right now casualty numbers show it is the Israeli side that is inflicting the most casualties, every time,and as of this day, 18 Palestinians have been killed this year,
    some by their detested fences, including a mentally ill woman.
    Makes you wonder what Mr. Schimmerling is talking about, and if he realizes actions speak louder than words.

  4. Balfour on March 24, 2014, 10:46 am

    “The New York Times would not permit any other group of people on earth to be blood-libeled like this– even in a letter to the editor.”

    Let’s look at this from the positive side: what other group is also allowed to form a U.S. political lobby group and not have it register as representing a foreign agent? What other group’s leaders views themselves as judge, jury and executioner when it comes to protecting the interests of a foreign State? What other group uses personal ad homenim attacks to casually smear people whose opinions they disagree with? What other group is so powerful that they can force Congress to seriously debate the benefits of the USA attacking Iran? What other group is capable of silencing the U.S. main stream corporate media from seriously debating the tactics of a foreign regime that wants to privilege one group at the expense of another? What other group threatens financial sanctions and legal prosecutions to U.S. Colleges and their students who dare attempt to openly debate the occupation policies of a foreign State? The list just goes on and on.

  5. hophmi on March 24, 2014, 10:54 am

    LOL. Irony much? Let me know when you’re willing to condemn the blatant racism printed here about Israelis.

    • Taxi on March 24, 2014, 11:16 am

      Give us an example of “racism printed here about Israelis”, or, stfu.

      • Antidote on March 25, 2014, 4:48 pm

        “Give us an example of “racism printed here about Israelis”, or, stfu.”

        Taxi April 30, 2013 at 4:37 am
        “As a lover of dogs, I really resent you equating cute canines with israelis.”

        Lots more where this came from. Would you like me to cut and paste it all?

      • Taxi on March 25, 2014, 10:17 pm

        LOL Antidote – only a hater of dogs would resent my statement – and, ehm… israelis are NOT A RACE!!!!!!!

        Either produce your “cut and paste” or stfu.

      • Antidote on March 26, 2014, 11:18 am

        “only a hater of dogs would resent my statement”

        Plain rubbish. Actually, I just got myself a perfectly cute dog, and I adore her (even though her mother is rather ugly, and God knows what she’s going to look like as a adult). But granted: I can think of one particularly notorious dog lover who would NOT resent your statement. Alas, he’s just as notorious for a murderous and irrational hatred of Jews (despite plenty of denials on his part that there was anything irrational about such sentiments: all rational reactions to the actual destructive behavior of Jews as the enemy of Germany in particular, and of humanity in general)

        “either produce your ‘cut and paste’ or stfu”

        you’ll have to be patient. With some 6000 comments full of garbage, I have my hands full. What’s the maximum length of comments on MW, before I take the trouble?

        “and, ehm… israelis are NOT A RACE!!!!!!!”

        True. Neither are Palestinians. Do “Arab Israelis” count in your definition of Israelis, Taxi? Also not to be compared to “cute canines”?

      • Taxi on March 26, 2014, 12:04 pm

        Palestinian isrealis are not israelis by choice – israelism was forced upon them by the terrorist state of israel.

        And while you’re searching through the archives looking for hot antisemetic ‘evidence’, Sherlock, why don’t you go ahead and count how many Nakba deniers have visited this site, nay, CONTINUE to visit this site and spew their supremist “rubbish”.

      • Bing Bong on March 26, 2014, 1:25 am

        Great post Antidote. :-) And wasn’t Mondoweiss full of anti-semitic Holocaust denial before the rules about posting comments were tightened?

      • puppies on March 26, 2014, 9:26 am

        ing ong – That’s an absurd rule. Officially this site aims at supporting Palestinian liberation, so enforcement of totally unrelated propaganda orthodoxy remains alien to its purpose, but I suppose its owner has all rights to decide to turn it into a tribune for Zionists.

    • Cliff on March 24, 2014, 11:33 am

      Israelis aren’t a race, hoppy.

      Neither are Jews for that matter.

      And no such comments about either groups have been made.

      It’s you – an unhinged Zionist Jew who hates non-Jews – who calls Palestinians, Nazis and genocidal.

      It’s you who regularly makes mountains out of molehills with regards to Palestinian terror, while whitewashing or justifying Israeli and/or Jewish terror.

      You belong on Stormfront with the other White Nationalists – because that is what Jewish nationalism is.

      Just another form of White Supremacy.

      • Citizen on March 24, 2014, 1:38 pm

        @ Cliff
        AND A form of white racism that non-Jewish white racism rejects, unless they are Christian Zionists.

      • Citizen on March 25, 2014, 6:08 pm

        @ Cliff
        Pretty funny how David Duke et all reject the Jews as examples of white/Western civilization but the Zionists say they are the point man for Western civilization. LOL

        So, is Israel the protector of Western civilization, or the opponent it if? Only follow the money trail to see what POV has been purchased.

    • Balfour on March 24, 2014, 12:51 pm

      ” Let me know when you’re willing to condemn the blatant racism printed here about Israelis.”

      Do “Arab Israelis” count in your definition of Israelis, Hophmi?

      • MHughes976 on March 24, 2014, 1:12 pm

        Opposition to Israelis would be opposition to a national, not a racial, group. I don’t see any disparagement of all Israelis in blanket terms, particularly not of those Israeli Jews who resist the bad things going on around them at considerable cost and risk. I do see radical disagreement with Israeli policies and with Zionism, Israel’s basic ideology. That’s what it’s all about. I don’t see racism in the sense of prejudice or unfairness, such as would be apparent if disagreement with Zionism were combined with approval of another ideology of similar structure. Well, it’s hard to be certain that nothing of that kind has ever been even remotely glimpsed but I’m sure that there is no prominence on Mondoweiss of support for the idea that the full right to a share in sovereignty anywhere should be confined to those of a certain religion or ancestry and that this principle should be enforced with great violence.

    • Woody Tanaka on March 24, 2014, 1:08 pm

      “Let me know when you’re willing to condemn the blatant racism printed here about Israelis.”

      Then you concede that Mr. Schimmerling’s statement is blatant racism? A lie? A complete and utter falsehood? A libel, even?

    • Ellen on March 24, 2014, 9:46 pm

      Israelis are a “race” now, hop?

      • seafoid on March 24, 2014, 10:01 pm

        A race against time

        Hoph must be a similar age to Tokyo. That disturbed Weltanschauung.

  6. Krauss on March 24, 2014, 11:05 am

    The obvious defence here is something like: “we do not endorse but we merely reflect the positions in the debate”.

    The problem with this position is that there are some really ugly positions in some debates, especially in ethnic conflicts, where the NYRB would never print some racist opinions of non-whites if the person holding it was non-Jewish white, but a Jewish white person can hold them and gets his or her opinion printed.

    • lysias on March 24, 2014, 5:58 pm

      Don’t blame the New York Review of Books for the publication of this letter. This letter was published by the New York Times Book Review, a very different publication. Unlike the New York Review of Books, the New York Times Book Review is part of the New York Times.

      By the way, I’m not sure it’s sufficient to say that the opinions in the letter are those of the writer of the letter, not those of anybody on the New York Times. I know from my experiences writing letters to the New York Times that the newspaper is very selective in which letters it chooses to publish. I imagine the same is true of the New York Times Book Review

      By the way, Walter Schimmerling appears to be a scientist who works for NASA. This letter would appear to deal with matters outside his field of expertise.

  7. American on March 24, 2014, 11:34 am

    The Walter Schimmerling’s of the world are the world’s enemies and not debatable.

    ‘’The worst enemy is one who’s doctrines are founded in hate and are thus beyond debate.’’
    ..the Witch of Cologne

    What unites the Zionist…

    ”Nothing brings people together more than mutual hatred.’
    …Harry Rollins

  8. Les on March 24, 2014, 11:52 am

    Is it anti-Semitic when the Times’ owners refuse to mention fellow Jews who oppose Israel’s effort to eliminate Palestinians?

  9. pabelmont on March 24, 2014, 12:06 pm

    Wouldn’t it be a welcome novelty if NYT and other papers clearly labelled such cruft (“Palestinian Arabs have avowed as their goal the killing of all Jews”) as OPINION rather than allowing it to stand as an assertion of FACT. why, they could even do the same in their “news” reports!

    Oh frabjous day, caloo calay!

    • piotr on March 25, 2014, 4:56 am

      It was a letter, thus obviously a “reader opinion”.

      OTOH, it was the only letter on the topic, which makes me wonder why it was selected. Perhaps because the author is a retired scientist and a poet? And his name is sooo nice?

    • LeaNder on March 25, 2014, 6:38 am

      (“Palestinian Arabs have avowed as their goal the killing of all Jews”)

      Yesterday i started reading Nigel Ashton’s biography of of King Hussein, and already on page 4, there it was: he never believed the Arab propaganda to resolve the Palestinian problem by driving the Arabs into the sea.

      Which makes me wonder if anyone ever looked into the genesis and history of this meme.

      More interesting for Americans, apparently the Kings private correspondence shows that Ronald Reagan was the main force behind Iran-Contra. Of course everyone suspected that, but was there ever definitive proof considering the larger attempts to cover it up? But I have not gotten that far. …

      • unverified__e4ga8k54 on March 27, 2014, 1:00 pm

        The first person to talk about pushing Jews into the sea was David Ben Gurion. He was supposedly citing threats that had been made by Arabs, but no record exists of such a threat before it came out of Ben Gurion’s own mouth. In other words Ben Gurion was a big fat liar and who cynically concocted the story in order to drive Jews into a frenzy of existential terror so that they could be easily manipulated.

      • Walid on March 27, 2014, 3:54 pm

        “The first person to talk about pushing Jews into the sea was David Ben Gurion. ”

        Most probably correct and for the vile reason you described, unverified, as everything about this person was vile. But it has to be said that some Arabs picked up on it and it did become a common term that went out of style only after the humiliating beating of 1967. It’s regrettable that Jews still use it at the drop of a hat even though they are fully aware that this could never happen especially in light of their running out of Arab spooks. Of today’s 21 member states in the AL, there are more states amiable to Israel than there are ones hostile to it. Actually, there are only 2 states out of the 21 that are still actively hostile to it but to listen to Israelis, you’d never believe it.

      • LeaNder on March 27, 2014, 4:00 pm

        thanks, unverified, (hmm? English living in Belgium, Bruxelles accidentally?) no doubt it must ultimately be Ben Gurion.

        I vaguely, remember scotched eggs, by the way from my times in Britain, but I did not develop a specific dislike. Strictly British sausages are far worse, if you ask me. ;) Welcome, I noticed you elsewhere. Hostage, by the way after a while managed to resolve his issue with a similar unverified string in his commenter profile. But in his case it was the other way round. His aka worked only the profile showed a similar profile string to yours now.

        But back to Ben Gurion. Would there be a reliable biography that is not simply a hagiography? Don’t bother to answer, since now I return to several hundred more pages on Hussein bin Talal from Nigel Ashton’s, final chapters to Avi Shlaim’s much longer book. Interesting to look at the larger context.

      • Walid on March 27, 2014, 3:06 pm

        LeaNder, you said ” he never believed the Arab propaganda to resolve the Palestinian problem by driving the Arabs into the sea.”

        Small typo, you meant to say “jews into the sea” rather than “Arabs into the sea”. The phrase would have been more correct as ” he never believed in the Arab propaganda to resolve the Palestinian problem by driving the Jews into the sea since the Hashemites have had an amicable history with the Zionists dating back to 1919 that would have given the Zios all of Palestine. Later there were the pre-1948 talks of sharing in the spoils of an about to be fractured Palestine and the alleged forewarning preceding the 73 war. On the day of the signing of the peace agreement, the king announced on CNN that he had been secretly meeting with his great friend Rabin at Rabin’s ranch or in London for 10 years. Rabin at the time appeared embarrassed at the revelation. Another perspective about the story of 1973:

      • LeaNder on March 27, 2014, 4:39 pm

        Walid, when I am reading and only checking on news here, I strictly should refrain from writing comments here or responding to anyone. Apparently this needs more focus than I am able to at that point in time. In any case, this was again one of my famous mental shortcuts my friends know. They have a phrase for it.

        Here a slightly longer citation, my insertion via square bracket:

        Israel was a fact on the map of the region as far as Hussein was concerned [reign: 1953-1999]; he never believed the Arab propaganda about driving the Arabs into the sea. But he was too well aware of Israel’s military strength, and he consistently sought to establish a relationship which would ward off potentially damaging Israeli reprisal raids against Jordan. Over the years, Hussein’s perception of the character of the Israeli threat changed.

        Strictly, Walid, what I would like to better understand is how “Arab” justified fears, as it appears now, above called ‘propaganda’ could turn into hasbara basics. And to understand this better I need more knowledge about the larger Arab context than I have.

        Remember, I once told you that Avi Shlaims book on Jordan are on my reading list. Lately I decided to slip in Nigel’s book first. Hoping it will establish a basis for Shlaim’s. Whom I like a lot.

        Whom should I read on Lebanon?

  10. seafoid on March 24, 2014, 12:09 pm

    “Palestinian Arabs have avowed as their goal the killing of all Jews.”

    Via dabka.

    Mr Schimmerling needs a sit down and a shisha tufaah

  11. ckg on March 24, 2014, 3:17 pm

    Mr. Schimmerling is echoing Sheldon Adelson, who was quoted in the NYT as saying, “How do you recognize a partner for peace when all they want to do is kill you and your people?” Next week, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, John Kasich, and Scott Walker will be courting Mr. Adelson.

  12. James Canning on March 24, 2014, 4:11 pm

    I too could not help noticing the extreme hatred of Palestinians, indicated in the letter to the editor (NYT Books).
    And, of course, what utter nonsense (that the Palestinians want “to kill” all the Jews).

  13. Peter in SF on March 25, 2014, 2:18 am

    by word and deed, Palestinian Arabs have avowed as their goal the killing of all Jews.

    I think it is important to understand where this is coming from. If you asked the letter writer how he knows this, no doubt he’d point to the fact that the Palestinian Arabs (the ones in the occupied territories) freely voted for Hamas in their most recent election, and he’d echo what people like Michael Oren have been saying:

    “The [Hamas] charter calls for the destruction of Israel and the destruction of the Jewish people worldwide … It’s a genocidal charter. It’s not just in writing; Hamas acts on it.”

    Where does the Hamas charter call for destruction of the Jewish people worldwide? The document is here:
    It does refer to “Our struggle against the Jews” and “the fight with the warmongering Jews”, but the part that is claimed to call for killing of all Jews worldwide is in Article 7:

    “The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews.” (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).

    Of course, Michael Oren et al. don’t quote the part of Article 31 that says:

    Under the wing of Islam, it is possible for the followers of the three religions – Islam, Christianity and Judaism – to coexist in peace and quiet with each other. Past and present history are the best witness to that.

    • Ira Glunts on March 25, 2014, 10:44 am

      To Peter in SF (the discoverer of the source of an Almond Tree), ;-)

      I think that the inspiration of the Schimmerling quote is Naftali Bennett.

      A new idea arrived a few days ago. Jews would live and remain in their homes, but under Palestinian sovereignty. I repeat: Jews would live and remain in place but under Palestinian sovereignty. So I’ll make it simple for you: It won’t happen. It won’t happen and it can’t happen.

      Do you know why Jews cannot live under Palestinian sovereignty? Why can’t Palestinians govern Israelis? Because they will kill them. How do I know that? How do I know? Because it has already happened. January 28, 2014 speech at INSS Conference

      To All, BTW, I think an alternate response to this post is to contact the NY Times and register your objection to its publication of the Schimmerling letter. I have already done so.

  14. The JillyBeans on March 25, 2014, 1:39 pm

    The reviews showed one per book title. In that I don’t think having Mr Schimmerling’s was unfair. But surely his wasn’t the only one that was opposed to Judis’ premise. Schimmerling clearly is a racist by all definitions, is out and proud about it. It is a great pity that we have come to a point in western society where there are certain groups we are free to libel bu not others. True inequality, not to mention defamation.

  15. Basilio on March 25, 2014, 2:07 pm

    It is considered acceptable in America to say whatever horrible things you want to say about Palestinians or Arabs because they’re considered, to some extent, subhuman by the political establishment, and, in large measure, due to the influence of Israel’s friends in America. If one said the same kind of thing about Jews, it would NOT be printed. This fellow has the nerve to talk about Arabs and genocide when Israel has a history of having ethnic cleansed 700,000 people only in 1948, and, since 1967, it has destroyed over 27,000 homes in the West Bank. It’s very much the pot calling the kettle black. Certain Israelis and their Zionist forces will talk about genocide and live in some alternative universe where no homes belonging to innocent Palestinians are destroyed, and that Israel follows international law, but the UN is irrelevant. On what basis do they base international law and their sense of morality I remember a former of Bosnia talking about how we need to all have a moral compass pointing to justice. So many of Israel’s friends are pointing their compass in the direction from which extreme Serbian nationalism came from. It’s the same kidn of thing, the same kind of dark hatred. The Serbians demonized the much weaker Bosnians, as well.

  16. hophmi on March 26, 2014, 11:30 am

    As I wrote elsewhere, the writer is referring to Palestinian Arabs as a political group, not as individuals. Writing that Palestinian Arabs are out to kill Jews is no different than writing that Jewish Israelis are out to kill Palestinians. If you hold that the former is racist, you must hold that the latter is racist.

    • Ira Glunts on March 26, 2014, 12:27 pm

      That is correct Michael. Most of us will totally agree.

    • eGuard on March 27, 2014, 6:48 pm

      Nonsense. Except maybe from the part “Jewish Israelis are out to kill Palestinians”.

Leave a Reply