Trending Topics:

Jeffrey Goldberg leads the charge on latest BDS smear: Presbyterian Church divestment is anti-Semitic because David Duke supports it

on 120 Comments

Never before on Twitter have so many pro-Israel Jews and mainstream Jewish organizations excitedly linked to the website of David Duke.

The American Jewish Committee did it. Rob Jacobs of StandWithUs Northwest did it, twice. Blogger Elder of Ziyon did it. The Executive Director of the Boston Jewish Community Relations Council did it. The Algemeiner did it.

Suddenly pundits and leaders in Jewish-oriented media want to know: “What does former Klansman and white supremacist David Duke think?”

And the impetus for Duke-Mania 2014 (Jewish edition)? Duke recently issued a statement in support of the Presbyterian Church USA’s move for divestment. The insinuation—rarely spelled out—is that if someone as anti-Semitic as Duke agrees with an action, the action itself is anti-Semitic.

That is, like an insecure game of cooties, anything that David Duke touches becomes anti-Semitic.

Jeffrey Goldberg went furthest when he stated twice, without substantiation, that Duke “claims credit for devising Presbyterian Church strategy”:

Now anybody with a basic awareness of logical fallacies understands that such guilt by association is invalid. However, since we’re talking about spurious defenses of Israel, it needs to be spelled out. Thus I offer a brief history of the David Duke endorsement smear tactic.

Eli Lake stages David Duke’s comeback

Years ago, it would have been unimaginable for mainstream US media to seek out David Duke’s opinion on anything. This changed when it became clear that an endorsement from Duke was a valuable weapon for smearing opponents.

In 2006, when Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer published their Harvard working paper version of “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” it sparked a media firestorm over the power of the Israel lobby in the United States.

David Duke was not cited in the Harvard paper, nor did he hold a perceived position of authority or expertise in academia, the mainstream media, or elsewhere. Yet Eli Lake, reporting for the New York Sun, decided to contact Duke for a review.

In an email to Lake, Duke responded that he had not read the Walt–Mearsheimer paper—only that he had “read about the report and read one summary already, and I am surprised how excellent it is.”

This was enough for Lake, who led his article on March 20, 2006 by stating that Walt and Mearsheimer’s study was “winning praise from white supremacist David Duke.” The only other person Lake quoted as praising the study was a senior member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s guidance council.

In contrast, Lake quoted several people who were critical of the study, many of whom cited in the study as being part of the Israel lobby: Alan Dershowitz, Marty Peretz, Malcolm Hoenlein, Aaron David Miller, Andrea Levin of CAMERA, Herbert London of the Hudson Institute, and Morris Amitay, formerly of AIPAC.

The Washington Post followed suit a week later, reporting that Walt and Mearsheimer had “ignited a furious debate.” In order to demonstrate the ferocity of the debate, the Post quoted eight “experts”—six of whom criticized the study: Alan Dershowitz, Dennis Ross, Shmuel Rosner, Ruth Wisse, CAMERA, and Daniel Drezner. The remaining two quotes offered praise: one from Juan Cole and the other from David Duke.

At this point, Duke realized that he was being given a platform to express his opinions in the mainstream media, and he seized the opportunity. On April 1, 2006, Duke issued a “Formal Statement … on the recent Harvard paper on the Israeli Lobby” on his website. There he wrote:

The use of my name with biased prefixes in an effort to defame the paper ironically has only made it more newsworthy. For now people discuss it all over America. Indeed, that’s all I or the author’s could hope for. The hateful attacks on the paper, its authors and me will directly lead to wider knowledge of it.

Four days later, the Washington Post published yet another attack on the Walt–Mearsheimer report, this time by neocon Eliot Cohen. The piece, entitled “Yes, It’s Anti-Semitic,” dutifully cited from Duke’s “Formal Statement”—just as Duke had hoped for.

At the same time, both Walt and Mearsheimer and other individuals associated with publishing the study were put on the defensive and forced to fight back against this contrived connection to David Duke.

Other media outlets picked up the David Duke connection. The Wall Street Journal published two editorials citing David Duke, one by Ruth Wisse and another by James Taranto, whose piece was entitled “Duke 1, Harvard 0.”

Just as the existence of the Israel lobby was finally being discussed in the mainstream, Eli Lake opened the door for David Duke to contribute to the discussion.

Occupy Wall Street

David Duke’s video in support of Occupy Wall Street

David Duke’s video in support of Occupy Wall Street, entitled “Occupy Zionist Wall Street.”

Occupy Wall Street took off in September 2011 and for weeks became the leading news story. Duke offered his endorsement of the movement, producing a video entitled “Occupy Zionist Wall Street,” in which he proclaimed:

I cheer the men and women on the streets condemning international banks that hold America hostage …. Yes, occupy Wall Street! Occupy the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and Washington. Bring the biggest financial criminals in the world to jusice! Finally Americans are rising up, and it feels great.

Duke also defended the Occupy movement from attacks by conservative commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

Glenn Beck pounced on the story, failing to appreciate the irony that Duke had also supported the Tea Party. Meanwhile, an article on the conservative website The Blaze reported that “Racist David Duke Joins The Unions, Maoists, Communists, Socialists, & Anti-Semites at OWS.”

The American Nazi Party also threw in its support for Occupy, which drew hackles from Gateway Pundit, The Blaze, and Fox News. Fox also noted that Occupy had received kudos from Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

In response, Todd Gregory in Media Matters for America stated what should have been obvious:

If a Nazi says something nice about you, that doesn’t make you a Nazi.

Charles Barron

Charles Barron

Charles Barron

In 2012, Duke produced an 8-minute video as an unsolicited endorsement for the Congressional candidacy of New York City Council Member Charles Barron, a radical African-American activist and former Black Panther.

Barron, who had strongly criticized Israel in the past, was running in the Democratic primary against Hakeem Jeffries, a state assemblyman with strong ties to the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York (JCRC).

Jeffries had already taken the obligatory JCRC-sponsored junket to Israel and Israeli settlements in 2008. Barron, on the other hand, insisted on an “evenhanded policy of negotiated settlement” for Palestine-Israel, and “not a military settlement.” In 2009, Barron participated in the Viva Palestina convoy to Gaza.

Prior to the Duke endorsement, major New York politicians had already denounced Barron at a press conference at the “Museum of Jewish Heritage—A Living Memorial to the Holocaust,” where they labeled Barron an “enemy of the State of Israel” and “a snake.”

Thus when Duke released his endorsement video, Barron’s opponents gleefully publicized it. The Daily Caller announced that “David Duke’s back and this time he’s black—And a Democrat,” also referring to Barron as a candidate “who doesn’t like Jews very much.”

BuzzFeed Editor-in-Chief Ben Smith, who apparently does not read the articles on his own website, claimed that “The old Nazi–Black Nationalist alliance rears its vestigial head,” falsely suggesting that the endorsement was reciprocal.

In fact, Barron shrugged off the endorsement and dismissed the attention around it as “foolishness”:

We’re staying focused—and we demand respect for our campaign …I don’t think that’s a campaign issue. I don’t think it’s intelligent.

And though the media obsessed over the Duke endorsement and noted that it would hurt Barron’s campaign, it failed to ask the obvious question:

Barron was running in a majority-black district that stretched across Brooklyn and Queens, with at best a 30% white population—though that 30% also includes white Jews and “white Hispanics.” It was clear from the beginning that an endorsement from the Louisiana-based ex-Klansman would not benefit the campaign.

If an endorsement from Duke would only damage Barron’s candidacy, what did Duke hope to achieve by offering an unsolicited endorsement?

None of the media that reported on the endorsement bothered to ask.

Jeffries who had also raised close to ten times the amount of money that Barron had raised, defeated Barron in the primary by a landslide.

Max Blumenthal

Late last year when Eric Alterman penned a series of poorly argued pieces attacking Max Blumenthal’s book Goliath, he could not resist mentioning that Goliath had been endorsed on David Duke’s website (though not by Duke himsef). Again, not only was the argument spurious—and Alterman knew so, as he had tellingly situated the accusation as an aside—but others pointed out that Alterman’s own work, unlike Blumenthal’s, had been praised by Duke himself.

Thus, by Alterman’s own false logic, he had more in common with Duke than Blumenthal had.

More recently, critics of Blumenthal, ranging from Rush Limbaugh to an unnamed reporter in the liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz, attempted to implicate him in the Jewish center shootings in Overland Park, Kansas, which had been committed by neo-Nazi Frazier Glenn Miller. As Alex Kane and I had noted, the evidence came down to a single mention of “Jew journalist Max Blumenthal” that Miller had posted on a white supremacist forum two years before the shootings.



The fact that critics could only find one reference to Blumenthal out of Miller’s 12,683 forum posts indicated that the connection was contrived. Instead of seriously investigating the causes of what appeared to be an anti-Semitic hate crime, critics employed a Google search to falsely implicate Blumenthal and punish him for daring to criticize Israel.

Even after the claim was disproven, and after Haaretz removed the accusation, dedicated apologists for Israel such as Hen Mazzig and Michael Dickson, both of StandWithUs, attempted to take the story further:

White Supremacists for Obama

In the run-up to the 2008 presidential election, Esquire reported on “Why White Supremacists Support Barack Obama,” citing prominent neo-Nazi leaders such as Tom Metzger of the White Aryan Resistance, Erich Gliebe of the National Alliance, and Rocky Suhayda of the American Nazi Party. Suhayda praised Obama as “the kind of negro that I can respect,” while Gliebe stated,

I give Obama credit, he seems to have stuck to his guns as far as pulling the troops out of Iraq. He’s a very intelligent man, an excellent speaker and has charisma. John McCain offers none of that. Perhaps the best thing for the white race is to have a black president. My only problem with Obama is perhaps he’s not black enough.

It’s hard not being David Duke

According to Jeffrey Goldberg, receiving an endorsement from the “KKK” should compel reflection on one’s actions and choices:

Aside from the fact that Duke has not been a KKK member for decades, he has taken positions on several issues which would supposedly compel much  “reflection,” though it is unclear what is to be reflected. Duke has:

Duke even condemned the March 2008 Mercaz HaRav shooting—an attack in which a lone Palestinian shot and killed eight yeshiva students in Jerusalem and left many more wounded. As Duke stated at the time:

I do condemn and have the utmost contempt for that Jerusalem attack and all attacks on innocent life. Every decent human decries all terrorism and murderous acts against the innocent … Everyone should find despicable the terrorist attack in Jerusalem by apparently a Palestinian.

In fact, Duke considers himself a staunch advocate of nonviolence. In a recent radio program, Duke implored Palestinians to refrain from attacking Israeli civilians and to practice nonviolence. This brings Jeffrey Goldberg in line with Duke, as Goldberg recently lectured the Palestinians similarly:

In a piece on stress relief, David Duke endorsed scientific studies published by the Journal of Experimental Psychology and the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Employing Jeffrey Goldberg’s dictum, researchers associated with the two studies “should reflect on why David Duke likes” their research.

In order to not be confused for David Duke, a conscientious individual would have to support the Iraq War, detest Occupy and love Wall Street, support the killng of civilians, endorse Palestinian violence and the Israeli mistreatment of African refugees, and eat a lot of carbohydrates.

For that matter, the same individual should check Duke’s website frequently to stay apprised of other activities to avoid.

An interview with David Duke

As part of the research for this article, I contacted David Duke by phone. Duke, it should be noted, rejects the notion that he is an anti-Semite, racist, or White supremacist. He also rejects the label of “ex-Klansman,” as it defines him by a membership that he had ended forty years ago. I asked whether he considered himself a “White nationalist”—particularly since he is a frequent contributor to the self-proclaimed “White nationalist” forum Stormfront.

No, I consider myself a human rights activist. And when I do go on Stormfront posts, that’s what I preach, and that’s what I teach.

One wonders then, if other human rights activists should renounce human rights—as the term has now been claimed by Duke—or if Amnesty International “should reflect on why” they promote a concept shared by Duke. And despite endorsing the Presbyterian Church USA divestment move, Duke qualified his endorsement by dismissing the undue weight with which critics have attempted to give it.

I think it just shows the bankruptcy of their argument. You don’t criticize any principle because someone else endorses it.

“I certainly agree with disinvestment—I have a right to speak like everyone else does,” Duke told me. But he found it ridiculous to reject PCUSA’s divestment “because of some guilt by association, which is not even an association.”

In fact, in my conversation with Duke, it was clear that he would endorse almost any action that was critical of Israel. Duke disagreed with but didn’t have any serious objection to the clauses in PCUSA’s divestment measure that asserted Israel’s “right to exist” and support for the two-state solution.

Thus if one sought to engage in ways to hold Israel accountable for its actions without gaining approval from Duke, one would be immobilized. In the end, freedom for Palestinians—or for that matter any other oppressed peoples—should not be dependent on whether the US “Jewish community” approves or whether David Duke disapproves.

An all-around poor argument

So again, when Jeffrey Goldberg writes that

I think a KKK endorsement should cause Presbyterian leaders to reflect on why David Duke likes their policy.

he is not making a legitimate argument. In place of premises and a conclusion, Goldberg offers only prescription: “Presbyterian leaders should reflect.”

Instead of spelling out his conclusion, Goldberg obligates others to do so. Goldberg himself only implies a conclusion because an actual attempt to connect the dots would expose the fallacy. The prescription is nothing more than an arbitrary rule (“If David Duke says X, you must do Y.”)—imposed in this adult game of cooties.

Thus the level of maturity required to impose this arbitrary rule—and the extent to which any argument can possibly be made from Duke’s endorsement—is summed up in this tweet by Philippe Assouline, former StandWithUs “advocacy strategist” and blogger for the Times of Israel:

That is the full extent of the argumentation.

When neo-Nazis attempted to co-opt Rachel Corrie

I will conclude with a personal anecdote that demonstrates how similarities are contrived and then exploited, and which reveal how little neo-Nazis have in common with Palestine solidarity activists or the Left in general.

In late March 2006, a neo-Nazi group known as the National Socialist Movement (NSM) announced that it would be in Olympia, Washington, on April 2 for a “RALLY TO SUPPORT RACHEL CORRIE.” Rachel grew up in Olympia, and it had just been three years since she was killed in the Gaza Strip by a weaponized Caterpillar bulldozer operated by the Israeli military.

The NSM website referred to Rachel as a “White Martyr” and claimed that

Rachel Corrie died as a Martyr to the white cause. She shown [sic] to all leftists the true colors of the jew. Her death forced many to see the reality of kike government sponsored war crimes against non-jews.

On the same day that the NSM was scheduled to appear in Olympia, local organizers staged an opposing rally in which Rachel’s mother Cindy spoke against the NSM’s appropriation of Rachel’s name.

Neo-Nazi rally at the State Capitol in Olympia, Washington, April 2, 2006 (Photo by Sandy Mayes, Works in Progress)

Neo-Nazi rally at the State Capitol in Olympia, Washington, April 2, 2006 (Photo by Sandy Mayes, Works in Progress)

Soon afterward, when the NSM finally held its own rally, they were shouted down by counter-demonstrators. I was living in Olympia at the time and was present at this rally, which lasted only half an hour before the neo-Nazis were escorted away by the police. Just before they left, however, one of the neo-Nazis decided to taunt the crowd by making a joke about Rachel’s death.

It was a tasteless joke not unlike the many others that I had heard from Israel apologists. Yet coming from a neo-Nazi, it carried a different context: it demonstrated that the neo-Nazis did not view Rachel as a “white martyr.” They exploited her death to the extent that they felt they could, hoping to draw sympathizers from her hometown and among Leftists. Once they realized it was futile, they promptly abandoned it and had no qualms turning against Corrie.

This is, of course, the strategy of many fringe groups, and even mainstream ones—tapping into legitimate grievances in order to recruit new members. To appeal to a broad audience, they try to emphasize similiarities, real or imagined.

Thus when Israel apologists attempt to marginalize all criticism of Israel, they not only silence legitimate criticism but also empower the fringe. When they scare away the principled critics of Israel, observers will ask why the only people willing to speak out against Israeli wrongs are the fringe elements. And suddenly the fringe doesn’t seem so kooky anymore.

And when Israel apologists blur the line between legitimate criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism, they might successfully stifle their opponents, but they also risk making the anti-Semites sound more legitimate.

In my phone conversation with Duke, he compared the reach of his message to that of Mondoweiss and challenged me to consider which would prevail:

In terms of educating the western world, you tell me who’s reached more people with the truth about Palestine and the truth about the crimes of Israel? Who’s reached more people about Jewish political power in America? The buying up of politicians—has it been me or has it been Mondoweiss?…

Who has really actually changed more minds and reached more people on this subject, positively?

In 2006, prior to holding its rally in Olympia, the NSM had published on its website excerpts from Rachel Corrie’s diary. Conspicuously absent, however, was the following passage, which Rachel wrote in her diary on January 19, 2003, two months before her death, as she was making her way to Palestine:

I try to ask myself – whose interests does it serve to identify Israeli policy with all Jewish people? All I can think of is that it serves people who want to stifle all critique of Israeli policy, people who want to execute various foreign policy goals under the guise of doing something humanitarian for Jewish people (i.e. U.S.), and neo-Nazis who want to use Israel’s policy as a way to justify their hate.

In this way the neo-Nazis, and the Israel supporters who cite the neo-Nazis, are connected. They both attempt to exploit each other for political gain at the expense of the truly oppressed.

Phan Nguyen

Phan Nguyen lives in New York and has a Twitter account: @Phan_N

Other posts by .

Posted In:

120 Responses

  1. Justpassingby on June 25, 2014, 3:53 pm

    what a incredible crybaby goldberg is, who takes antisemtism serious anymore with bigots like goldberg using it in every tweet?

    Goldberg, get a life for crying out loud.

    • Krauss on June 25, 2014, 5:20 pm

      Does anyone take him seriously?

      Honest question. Aside from the Zionist orgasations who use him for hasbara purposes.

      • Kathleen on June 26, 2014, 12:22 pm

        Goldberg a classic racist

    • MRW on June 26, 2014, 4:18 pm

      If David Duke said he supported clear air and water for everyone, would Goldberg reject or sneer at it?

      Goldberg’s been given a national platform because he Jewish, not because he’s intelligent or insightful, and it shows. Sadly.

  2. annie on June 25, 2014, 3:53 pm

    I’m sure it’s painful for you to know that David Duke claims credit for devising Presbyterian Church strategy.

    you can tell by goldberg’s condescension he enjoys writing that and wishes it were true. however, has anyone (pro divest) experienced “pain” over this well orchestrated hasbrat campaign? i doubt it. and surely goldberg doesn’t believe it himself when he suggests duke devises church strategy? absurd.

    • richb on June 25, 2014, 7:51 pm

      Given the high amount of controversy for this and for the issue of gay marriage we were cognizant of the pain involved. For example, we understood the pain of the pastor from Peoria that would have his people negatively affected by the Caterpillar divestment. That we listen to and we share in the pain. The lies and the threats on the other hand just anger us.

  3. doug on June 25, 2014, 4:01 pm

    Gee, vegetarians must be Nazis.
    Hitler was a vegetarian.

    Jeffy’s sinking pretty low.

    • Ellen on June 25, 2014, 5:09 pm

      A few weeks back it was pointed out in a Haaretz article that the new Israeli President is a vegetarian, and that Hitler was also a vegetarian. Point of the article was to point out the irony I guess.

      Goldberg went ballistic, pounding on the editors of Haaretz and calling the opinion article “insane.”

      Maybe he was talking about himself.

      • lysias on June 25, 2014, 5:58 pm

        Actually, Hitler was not a total vegetarian, or a total teatotaler either. He used to make an exception for his favorite dish, liver dumplings (Leberknödel), which he used to eat — with beer — at one of his favorite restaurants, the Vier Jahreszeiten, when he visited Munich.

      • Sumud on June 26, 2014, 2:24 am

        So now meat-eaters are nazis too ;-(

        Damn you Hitler [shakes fist at air]

      • Stephen Shenfield on June 26, 2014, 5:40 am

        Hitler was responsible for the Autobahns — a national highway system for rapid motor travel — and the “people’s car” (it is a shocking fact that even after 1945 the Autobahns were not dismantled). This proves that all the countries in the world, with the possible exceptions of Sikkim and Bhutan but definitely including car-infested Israel, are now Nazi (and, it goes without saying, anti-Semitic).

      • soldier_wo_fortune on June 26, 2014, 1:19 pm

        Funny you should mention the “people’s car.” I bought a VW last fall and found that they date their company’s history beginning in 1948!

  4. Betsy on June 25, 2014, 4:09 pm

    If people like Jeffrey Goldberg keep doing this kind of smearing, they are going to discredit themselves in the eyes of ordinary Americans. Hysteria gets old (unless one shares it) — and I just can’t picture mainstream America going hysterical over the Presbyterian Church.

    • lysias on June 25, 2014, 4:19 pm

      Mainline Protestant churches and the U.S. Army were Joe McCarthy’s last targets before the Senate finally got around to censuring him.

      • Betsy on June 26, 2014, 12:07 pm

        whoa. I didn’t know that @lysias

    • Citizen on June 26, 2014, 2:50 pm

      @ Betsy
      Ordinary Americans never heard of Jeffrey Goldberg. They never even heard of the word “Zionism.”

      • MRW on June 26, 2014, 4:52 pm

        Oh yes they have, Citizen. The church crowd has. Zionism is rife. Goldberg maybe not so much. But Zionism, yes.

    • MRW on June 26, 2014, 4:46 pm

      I’ve said it here two or three times before, you take on the mainline Protestant churches in the US at your peril (the mainline Protestant churches do not undertake these actions lightly). Catholic churches don’t have that protection. Neither do mosques or even synagogues, as much as the latter would like to think so.

      Let’s egg Goldberg on. He has no idea the damage he is doing; he expresses no remorse for the human suffering Israel is causing, instead he blames the town criers stateside. I’m already hearing about the reaction within the Presby community to the anger they are getting from the pro-Israel crowd, but that’s because I’m a trusted listener, I just shut up and nod. The reaction is significant, IMO, hardening. Frankly, this blindness to the effects and consequences of their actions has plagued Jewish groups for millennia. The difference today is the internet; they can’t control the message or the facts. Those days are over.

  5. Stephen Shenfield on June 25, 2014, 4:10 pm

    It would be easy to use the same absurd method against Israel, as many far right groups and individuals nowadays admire Israel and even make visits to the West Bank to show their support for the settlers. In Germany, for example, there is the group called “National Socialists for Israel.” By the Zionists’ own logic, that should lead them to reflections concerning why Nazis might support them. But I doubt that it does.

  6. Woody Tanaka on June 25, 2014, 4:20 pm

    It’s not a “charge” it’s a “slander.”

    Goldberg should know that David Duke wears clothes, so Goldberg best be going naked or expose himself as a crypto-Klansman.

  7. Ellen on June 25, 2014, 4:23 pm

    Goldberg is a joke among his Journalist colleagues. He repeatedly makes unsubstantiated, wild assertions to support his propaganda. He is an operative in the US media.

    When he is called out and cornered with his often ridiculous stance and assertions, he lashes out like an unhinged teenager.

    His gig has entered its half life, but he does not know it yet.

  8. seafoid on June 25, 2014, 5:02 pm

    Goldberg is a know nothing.

    Sari Nusseibah has written a stunning piece in Ha’aretz
    “The most I can now feel for my enemies in my sober moments is being sorry for them! Somewhere along the line, I tell myself, something cracked. They managed to lose what was special in them, or about them – what might have vindicated their project, even in my own mind. If once they held the flame of an extraordinary dream – to re-gather the nation in its historical homeland and to show the world what a moral human community might look like – they somehow only succeeded in the end to turn themselves into yet another ugly colonial power, feeding off the sorrows of others.
    Their days, I tell myself now, more with a sense of dread than with any sense of elation, are surely numbered, like all other colonialist projects. One-hundred years is but a faint stroke in the annals of history. Nor will their downfall come by my own doing, but by theirs. Of course, my friends tell me that that is how they have always been – that that has always been their nature. But I refuse to believe that. Because I believe I heard firsthand the throbbing of their idealistic hearts.
    Can I feel sorry for myself as well as for my enemy? Surely I can. For the sorrow springs from the same source: their failure to bring back with them to the homeland that beautiful and ideal dream in which the space where they flourish leaves the same, or enough space for me.

    Do I see Israel now as a failed project? Do I see a time when, like South Africa, it will disintegrate from within? I cannot say I can see that. But I can easily imagine it happening. I can easily see how whatever it is that is rotten and has embedded itself in the system will eventually wear it out of existence, replacing it by something else. Not by war, but by its own body-grown cells. This I can imagine, especially since I cannot easily imagine a reasonable two-state solution happening anymore, a solution that will spare Israel that sad future. Not because such a solution is mathematically impossible, but because it is has become politically unrealistic.
    I cannot see an Israeli government now offering what a Palestinian government can now accept. I can therefore only foresee a worsening climate – not a one-time disaster (say, an avalanche following the killing of a Jew while performing a prayer in the Noble Sanctuary, on what Israelis call the Temple Mount in Jerusalem) that can once and for all be put behind, by whichever side, but an increasingly ugly living climate in which only those who can acclimatize and be ugly themselves can survive. “

    • just on June 25, 2014, 5:41 pm

      Hey seafoid– that is a wonderful & thoughtful essay!

      ( I found it this morning)

      Goldberg is wading around in his self- made Hades. His circle of Hell includes some real nuts.

      “In this way the neo-Nazis, and the Israel supporters who cite the neo-Nazis, are connected. They both attempt to exploit each other for political gain at the expense of the truly oppressed.”

      Thanks Phan.

      • seafoid on June 25, 2014, 5:48 pm

        I think a lot of the Zionist dog whistlers are considerably less intelligent than people like Nusseibah who understand Zionism from the inside. Goldberg is a pilot fish rather than a thinker.

      • Kay24 on June 25, 2014, 6:10 pm

        I wonder what kind of rewards they get for this. Jobs for kids, a promise of a better job, even junket trips (that we know folks like Chris Mathews and others take occasionally) perhaps. Who knows. I know for a fact that our wimps in congress gets these trips as soon as they are elected (with the help of AIPAC).

      • just on June 25, 2014, 6:24 pm

        True seafoid– I posted part of Sari’s essay this morning and Walid basically said that you knew this all along… can’t locate his post right now.

      • seafoid on June 26, 2014, 5:57 am

        Zionism- turning Jews into Cossacks since 1884

        What is the point?

      • bintbiba on June 26, 2014, 7:39 am

        Thanks for the link to Sari Nusseibah’s article in Ha’aretz. Very impressive.

      • bintbiba on June 26, 2014, 7:44 am

        Thanks for the link, seafoid. Didn’t mean to seem impersonal.

      • seafoid on June 26, 2014, 8:09 am

        I think the angle he took is one more Palestinians should follow.
        Israel is a moral car crash.

        Sure they can do what they want with all of those guns but what have they become ?

      • Citizen on June 26, 2014, 3:06 pm

        @ just
        My comment is that I was born in 1942. I grew up in lower middle goy class America. I rebelled against my upbringing. In my early twenties, searching for more, I came across Auschwitz, and it change me forever. Then I came across the notion that “Never Again” was not meant to be a universal principle–the Palestinians people didn’t count. I took up the cause of the Palestinian people. Enough said?

    • lonely rico on June 25, 2014, 5:54 pm


      Sari Nusseibah has written a stunning piece in Ha’aretz
      link to

      Absolutely stunning, a moving article. Nusseibah’s wisdom and humanity in marked contrast to Goldberg’s boorish posturing.

    • ritzl on June 25, 2014, 6:21 pm

      Thanks, seafoid and Sari Nusseibah. Ditto on stunning.

      Funny, I was just thinking about this today. I always try to look for the faintest glimmer of genuine righteousness in people, that maybe they are doing what they do out of some/any sense of and/or need for a constructive contribution to the human condition (if only their own little corner of it). But in the case of current Israel and its unrelenting, straw-grasping supporters I concluded that it has been extinguished. Black as coal. Domination. Power for power’s sake.

      OTOH, in the “A Tree Grows in Brooklyn” sense, Nusseibah may be a little too pessimistic about how overwhelming the “ugly” is going to be in Israel. There are issues that can ally/alloy Palestinians and some Jewish-Israelis. Maybe together over the next generation they can grow a political flower, or many. Nature has a way, maybe even human nature.

      FWIW. Peace.

      • lysias on June 25, 2014, 6:44 pm

        Ali Abunimah stresses in his new book The Battle for Justice in Palestine how extreme the Afrikaners seemed to have become in the 1980’s and how the highest level of violence was reached in the early 1990’s. Pessimism might have seemed quite justified, but in the end it proved not to be.

    • lysias on June 25, 2014, 6:46 pm

      South Africa did not disintegrate. It reformed itself.

  9. StanleyHeller on June 25, 2014, 5:29 pm

    In addition to all these fine arguments one must mention again and again the people who really did play patty cake with anti-Semitic fascists: Theodore Herzl with pogramist Wenzel von Plehve, Russian Minister of Interior, Zionists (1933-1937) with Germany and Italy, the Stern Gang offer (1941-1942), Israel with former Einsatzgrupper commander Walther Rauff in the late 1940’s and early ’50’s, Israel with Argentina in the 1970’s, etc. Learn the whole sorry history of betrayal of Jews at :

  10. Philip Munger on June 25, 2014, 5:53 pm

    The dogged anti-Communist, Winston Churchill, shortly after the 1941 German invasion of the USSR: “If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.”

  11. eljay on June 25, 2014, 6:08 pm

    >> J.G.: I think a KKK endorsement should cause Presbyterian leaders to reflect on why David Duke likes their policy.

    David Duke should endorse Israel as a supremacist “Jewish State”, just to see if it causes Zio-supremacist leaders to reflect on why David Duke likes their policy.

    Hevven knows nothing else seems capable of making Zio-supremacists reflect on the injustice and immorality that are part and parcel of Zio-supremacism and supremacist “Jewish State”.

    • Citizen on June 26, 2014, 3:10 pm

      David Duke’s philosophy seems very similar to Zionist philosophy to me. Just substitute Jewish for White Christian. Anybody else see this?

      • seanmcbride on June 26, 2014, 4:28 pm


        David Duke’s philosophy seems very similar to Zionist philosophy to me. Just substitute Jewish for White Christian. Anybody else see this?

        The resemblance is as clear as day — all ethnic and religious nationalist ideologies tend to look alike.

        The difference here is that David Duke’s language and beliefs are more moderate and temperate than many Jewish nationalists — including many Israeli leaders and American pro-Israel activists — and his agenda isn’t organized around the interests of a foreign government.

        Zionists have lost the moral high ground and intellectual leverage to object to aggressive nationalism as expressed by other ethnic and religious groups, which can simply reply, we are doing exactly what you are doing — pursuing our narrow collective self-interest. Certainly European ethnic and religious nationalist groups will take this line — we are following the Israeli model.

        I am surprised that more critics of Israel haven’t noticed this opening for discussion and debate — you could drive a Mack Truck through it.

        If this thread is closed soon, this discussion can be pursued here:

      • Sumud on June 27, 2014, 3:04 am

        The resemblance is as clear as day — all ethnic and religious nationalist ideologies tend to look alike.

        Which may account for zionists suddenly loving-to-hate Duke.

        Homophobic hate crimes are often perpetrated by men who are struggling with their own sexuality, sometimes to prove how not-gay they are.

        As long as zionist are saying how bad Duke is perhaps they think we won’t notice white supremacism is little different to jewish supremacism, or even worse.

  12. richb on June 25, 2014, 7:00 pm

    This was a coordinated campaign to get us to not divest. Just prior to GA the following pastoral letter was written:

    This has now changed. With the publication of Zionism Unsettled, a “study guide” on Zionism produced by the PC(USA)’s Israel/Palestine Mission Network, and a series of overtures pending before the 2014 General Assembly that reflect its arguments, we are no longer debating how the occupation should end, but whether Israel should exist. Zionism Unsettled announces this shift from its opening section, saying: “put simply, the problem is Zionism.” It makes no distinction between different forms of Zionism, arguing that any form of Zionism is inherently discriminatory. Some forms of Zionism have been violent and exclusionary; the same is true of any form of nationalism (American, British, Chinese, Palestinian, etc.). But to argue that any Jewish desire for any form of statehood within their historic homeland is inherently discriminatory is not only patently false but morally indefensible. And the conclusion is obvious: if Zionism is the problem, then ending Zionism (i.e., Israel) is the solution.

    It is telling that one of the earliest and loudest affirmations of Zionism Unsettled was by David Duke, perhaps the most notorious white supremacist and anti-Semite in the United States today, who said:
    In a major breakthrough in the worldwide struggle against Zionist extremism, the largest Presbyterian church in the United States, the PC(USA), has issued a formal statement calling Zionism “Jewish Supremacism” — a term first coined and made popular by Dr. David Duke.
    The reality that David Duke would endorse a Presbyterian study guide available for purchase on the PC(USA) website is sickening to us, and should give all Presbyterians great pause in considering the arguments and language of this document and Zionism Unsettled’s ideological relationship to the overtures coming before the General Assembly.

    That Sunday we received a letter from Desmond Tutu:

    Archbishop Desmond Tutu Urges Presbyterians to Adopt Divestment

    As the Presbyterian General Assembly gathers for its biennial meeting I reach out in prayer and solidarity that the Assembly will make a strong witness for reconciliation, justice and peace. I am aware that the Assembly will consider eight overtures on the confounding and intractable conflict in Israel and Palestine, however I am especially urging the Assembly to adopt the overture naming Israel as an apartheid state through its domestic policies and maintenance of the occupation, and the overture calling for divestment of certain companies that contribute to the occupation of the Palestinian people. Both are worthy of adoption, by speaking truth in the first instance, and owning up to the Church’s complicity in maintaining the occupation through its investments in the second.

    The sustainability of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people has always been dependent on its ability to deliver justice to the Palestinians. I know firsthand that Israel has created an apartheid reality within its borders and through its occupation. The parallels to my own beloved South Africa are painfully stark indeed. Realistic Israeli leaders have acknowledged that Israel will either end its occupation through a one or two state solution, or live in an apartheid state in perpetuity. The latter option is unsustainable and an offense to justice. We learned in South Africa that the only way to end apartheid peacefully was to force the powerful to the table through economic pressure.

    The overtures proposed at the General Assembly are not about delegitimizing the State of Israel, but about ending its suppression of 4,000,000 Palestinian sisters and brothers. It’s about naming an unjust system and refusing to participate in it. The stubbornness of Israel’s leaders in wanting to hold onto and settling land that is not theirs can only lead to tragedy for both peoples. For the sake of them both as God’s cherished, the strong witness of the two overtures is the only peaceful route left in the cause of justice and ultimate reconciliation. My prayers today are with the members of the General Assembly and with all the peoples of the Holy Land in Israel and Palestine.

    Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu
    June 10, 2014

    A press conference was held and the following response was generated that include 8 former moderators of the PCUSA.

    Sisters and Brothers,

    We are deeply concerned about the Open Letter sent to General Assembly Commissioners by John Buchanan and twenty-eight of his colleagues on Friday, June 13th.

    We consider the signers of this letter our friends. Together, we have been allies and colleagues in our shared work of reclaiming a vibrant church. However, we disagree sharply with their critique of the recommendation that the Presbyterian Church (USA) divest itself from the stock of three corporations that are doing business in a way that supports or benefits the State of Israel’s occupation of Palestine.

    The guilt by association was specifically mentioned in the press conference and what was found “disturbing” in the response letter. David Duke mentioned that Zionism Unsettled alleges that Zionism is “Jewish Supremacist”. I rechecked and could not find any such references. Duke further claimed that the PCUSA “formally” defined Zionism as this. So, instead of undercutting Duke’s anti-Semitism and say that the PCUSA said no such thing the opponents of divestment took Duke’s word for it. Duke then took the critique as “proof” that we really said what we did not. Far from combating anti-Semitism it was aided and abetted. Those of us who have experienced this propaganda campaign were ready for it but naive commissioners were not ready. So, please don’t judge them too harshly. Two years from now will be a totally different story.

    • ritzl on June 25, 2014, 8:14 pm

      Great comment. Thanks again, richb.

      Media circularity is a well-known and well-used (because it’s SO effective, especially for low-info stakeholders) technique. Maybe over the next two years that can be pointed out to membership as well.

      With your openness and publicly deliberative bent, you all are doing such great work (would that be leading?) on this and other issues.

    • joecatron on June 26, 2014, 1:20 pm

      I suspect they meant this, on page 53:

      “Both the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the Israeli Declaration of Independence promised equal rights for all. However, because equal rights for all would compromise the concept of a Jewish state, a dual legal system had to be created to ensure Jewish supremacy.”

      One use, of a different variation of a term, isn’t much on which they can hang their hats.

      But of course, for thoughtful adults, a better question than whether David Duke, Genghis Khan, etc. once used a term, is whether it is fair and descriptive.

      • Citizen on June 26, 2014, 3:24 pm

        The Protestants here are not looking at what Israel does, and does not do in terms of the international consensus that any Israeli rights to be supported must be juxtaposed to any minority rights that are dismissed de facto. Guilt-by-association is weak. Presbys must stand up to it.

  13. seanmcbride on June 25, 2014, 7:53 pm

    The Jewish nationalism of Jeffrey Goldberg (a former Kahanist) — and that of all Zionists (including Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu) — is at least as problematic as the white nationalism of David Duke — and usually much more so. Consider the human rights violations and acts of violence that Jewish nationalists are committing on a daily basis — not to mention the extremism of their often religion-driven and supremacist rhetoric.

    It is really a great mistake for pro-Israel activists like Goldberg to bring the names of white nationalists (call them white Zionists, if you will) into the debate. The obvious line of counterattack: why should Jewish ethno-religious nationalism enjoy greater legitimacy than any other ethnic or religious nationalist movement anywhere in the world? They have no effective comeback. This is why the complaints by pro-Israel activists about the rising tide of ethnic nationalism in contemporary Europe sound so hollow and absurd.

    • Naftush on June 26, 2014, 9:00 am

      Here’s an attempt at an effective comeback.
      1. Your insinuation appears to target not only and exclusively Jewish nationalism but only and exclusively Jewish nationhood. DD proposes a racial reading of American nationhood that mainstream Americans have rejected since before the Civil War; Zionism reframes a Jewish nationhood that has existed for eons.
      2. Tarring Goldberg as a former Kahanist is at least as lowly as labeling DD a former Klan leader.
      3. Your judgment of “all Zionists” is as pure a fallacy as a finding that “all” Palestinian Arabs commit, aid, or abet terrorism.
      4. It is plainly false that one cannot legitimize Zionism without equally legitimizing “any other ethnic or religious nationalist movement anywhere in the world.” Your expressing this in question form suggests that you know it.

      • seanmcbride on June 26, 2014, 2:16 pm


        On what grounds can you define Jewish ethnic and religious nationalism as legitimate and the ethnic and religious nationalisms of all other groups around the world as illegitimate? Do Jewish nationalists enjoy special privileges in this domain that should be denied to other groups?

        Why should the Jewish nationalism of Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, William Kristol or Jeffrey Goldberg be granted more legitimacy than the ethnic and religious nationalism of other peoples?

        There are no reasonable answers to these questions — just emotional appeals — many of them based on biblical fairy tales — that on close inspection break down and reveal their essential illogic and absurdity.

        The ethnic and religious nationalism of the mainstream Jewish establishment in contemporary America (not to mention among the Israeli leadership) is far more aggressive and supportive of violence than the white nationalism of David Duke or Kevin MacDonald. (And to be perfectly clear, I oppose all forms of ethnic and religious nationalism — I think they invariably lead to huge social problems of the very kind that Israel is now facing.)

        Either “Zionism” is good for everyone or it is good for no one.

      • eljay on June 27, 2014, 1:36 pm

        >> It is plainly false that one cannot legitimize Zionism without equally legitimizing “any other ethnic or religious nationalist movement anywhere in the world.”

        It is also plainly false that one cannot legitimize the crime of rape without equally legitimizing other crimes anywhere in the world.

        Jewish supremacism is no better or more valuable to humanity than any other form of supremacism, and it should remain just as illegitimate.

  14. palijustice on June 25, 2014, 9:01 pm

    Sadly Israel is a Jewish Supremacy state. There are over 50 laws which give Jews special privilege over non Jews. This is not a secret or a slander, it’s a fact. This is something Jews need to try and change, but this seems far from happening. Instead, Israel goes deeper into this sinkhole of racism based on religion. If these facts were out there on the MSM it would be pressure for Americans to put more pressure on Israel to change its course.

  15. Nevada Ned on June 25, 2014, 9:14 pm

    Critics of Israel smeared as “anti-Semites”
    Round # 91,653

    Walt and Mearsheimer wrote a book, in which they document the following fact:
    Someone who criticizes Israel gets smeared as an anti-Semite by the Israel Lobby.

    So Walt and Mearsheimer criticized Israeli policy.

    And they were, predictably, smeared as anti-Semites.

    Which proved that their book was accurate!

    CounterPunch published a book, The Politics of “Anti-Semitism”.
    Alexander Cockburn wrote an essay, “My Life as an ‘Anti-Semite'”, which can be found on the Web.

    Abe Foxman ought to change the name of the ADL to the “Pro-Defamation League” (PDL) because they spend so much time defaming Israel’s critics.

  16. piotr on June 25, 2014, 10:43 pm

    I think the Example Number One of guilt by association is Richard Wagner, who became anatema to many (mostly, Jews) on the account of being admired by Hitler.

    Then there was an idiot who wrote an entire book proving that liberals are fascists, with arguments like: many liberals are vegetarian, and Hitler was a vegetarian (I kid you not), Nazis were for socialized medicine and public transit, and so on. I think that to this guy, Hitler was a person who had many good ideas but, unfortunately, was a vegetarian, liked public transit and socialized medicine.

    • Naftush on June 26, 2014, 9:11 am

      Read Wagner’s antisemitic writings before you defend him. Apart from admiring Wagner, Hitler credited Wagner for helping him to form his philosophy. Wagner would have admired Hitler. If it is really mostly Jews for whom Wagner is anatema (sic), one hopes that the others are guilty only of ignorance.

      • piotr on June 26, 2014, 2:38 pm

        Wagner died before Hitler was born, and according to Wikipedia, it is questionable if he was anti-Semitic, and he was surely not a virulent anti-Semite. If Hitler was motivated by Wagner, it is not Wagner’s fault. Der Ring may stoke nationalism by extolling purely Germanic myth and so on, but what is the message?

      • Citizen on June 26, 2014, 3:28 pm

        Wagner wrote that Jews infected German culture, including German music.

      • lysias on June 26, 2014, 3:51 pm

        I think the people who defend Wagner against the charge of being anti-Semitic do so because they think that, if he was, that somehow discredits his music. They ignore the fact that great art can be combined with very objectionable political or other content.

        After Homer, a case can be made that the greatest poets have been Virgil and Milton. They are certainly both of them very great.

        A strong case can be made that Virgil’s poetry is a defense of the regime of Caesar Augustus.

        Milton was the chief propagandist for Cromwell’s genocidal regime. Since I am Irish(-American,) one might think that that fact would make me hostile to Milton’s poetry. It does not. If I cut myself off from his very great work, it is I who would be the loser.

        Likewise, those who won’t watch or listen to Wagner’s work because of his anti-Semitism and the other defects in his extremely flawed character are themselves the losers.

      • RoHa on June 26, 2014, 8:07 pm

        “Der Ring may stoke nationalism by extolling purely Germanic myth and so on, but what is the message?”

        That if you can make Siegfried and Brunhilde shut up, you’ll hear some great music.

    • wondering jew on June 26, 2014, 3:17 pm

      Richard Wagner expressed antisemitism in his writings declaring certain composers Germans and others as foreigners. Included in the foreigners were Jews. No one questions whether Wagner was an antiSemite: Here is the line from wikipedia: Wagner’s writings on the Jews corresponded to some existing trends of thought in Germany during the 19th century;[239] however, despite his very public views on these themes, throughout his life Wagner had Jewish friends, colleagues and supporters.[240] So some of his best friends were Jews and he was only as antiSemitic as the zeitgeist demanded. So he was not a virulent antiSemite? Great! Let’s all dance a jig or a hora.

      • Citizen on June 26, 2014, 3:31 pm

        @ yonah fredman
        And let’s dance as the pro-Israel fanatics demand. Happens daily in USA today.

      • piotr on June 26, 2014, 4:37 pm

        One could make a generalization that in the history of racism, period 1850-1945 have seen a steady rise, although the phenomenon is definitely longer in duration. Perhaps before French revolution it was mostly the thinking of nobility (who regarded EVERYBODY ELSE as lesser races) and colonialists. Wagner was not particularly known for his writing and the influence of his writing is not attested. Nazis definitely needed rousing symbols of “pure Germanic art” and hardly needed any help in developing their ideas. The morbid radicalization is most simply attributed to the great wars, and in a much lesser extend, depressions that affected Germany. To a degree, I stand corrected, “Jewishness in Music” is pretty nasty.

        But was it very nasty? Is there any singling out? Would Wagner be remarkable if he kept his tone, switch topics and publish columns in Hebrew?

      • MRW on June 27, 2014, 6:56 am

        Richard Wagner expressed antisemitism in his writings declaring certain composers Germans and others as foreigners. Included in the foreigners were Jews.

        No different than what Israelis do to Palestinians.

      • Walker on June 27, 2014, 10:56 am

        Let’s all dance a jig or a hora.

        yonah, despite myself I must say that’s rather good.

  17. Katie Miranda on June 25, 2014, 11:34 pm

    Maybe this will cause Jeffery Goldberg to start gorging on carbs.

    • Shmuel on June 26, 2014, 2:53 am

      Carbs are Jewish; fats are anti-Semitic.

      • just on June 26, 2014, 6:18 am

        Katie– that is funny! JG’s “love handles”…..

        Shmuel–lol, but remember– soup is mere bouillon without schmaltz.

      • Shmuel on June 26, 2014, 6:33 am

        remember– soup is mere bouillon without schmaltz

        Schmaltz is not a fat. Some say it is a carbohydrate but it is, in fact, sui generis. Have you ever heard David Duke praising gribenes or chopped liver? There you have it.

      • jon s on June 26, 2014, 7:22 am

        What is Shmaltz? (a worthy topic for discussion on MW)

        Schmaltz (Chicken)
        Nutritional value per 100 g (3.5 oz)
        Energy 3,767 kJ (900 kcal)
        0 g
        99.8 g
        Saturated 30 g
        Monounsaturated 45 g
        Polyunsaturated 21 g
        0 g
        Other constituents
        Cholesterol 85 mg
        Vitamin E 2.7 mg
        Selenium 0.2 mg

      • Shmuel on June 26, 2014, 8:58 am

        a worthy topic for discussion on MW

        Goldberg is a letz. I can think of no more appropriate response to his letzonus than shmaltz.

        Thanks for the nutritional info, but if you eat shmaltz on Shabbos, the neshomo yeseiro (additional Sabbath soul) spirits (so to speak) all the nasty saturated cholesterolly stuff away.

      • piotr on June 26, 2014, 2:41 pm

        There is also Christian schmaltz, made of pig fat. Traditional Jewish schmaltz was made of goose fat, in those days free ranging chicken were rather lean.

        And the “Christian schmaltz” is not sui generis but Adeps suillus or Axungia Porci (in other words, it is not made of itself, sui, but from a pig, suillus). And, according to my web sources, “everybody can make it easily at home”.

      • Citizen on June 26, 2014, 3:34 pm

        Gribenes are a byproduct of schmaltz preparation. A favored food in the past among Ashkenazi Jews, gribenes is frequently mentioned in Jewish stories and parables. Holiday food[edit] This food is often associated with the Jewish holidays Hanukkah and Rosh Hashanah. Not exactly a hot dog or hamburger, eh?

      • Woody Tanaka on June 26, 2014, 5:33 pm

        “There is also Christian schmaltz, made of pig fat.”

        Mmmm lard, the cooking fat and shortening of God himself. If you’re baking with anything else, you’re not really baking.

      • Shmuel on June 26, 2014, 5:57 pm

        There is also Christian schmaltz, made of pig fat.

        Chazer shmaltz? You mean the kind of stuff David Duke eats? No thanks.

  18. Daniel Rich on June 26, 2014, 4:08 am

    And Gary Oldman is ‘antisemitic [Palestinians/Muslims/Arabs not included], because when he read full-page ad in the Los Angeles Times a few weeks ago [2008] to demand that the Screen Actors Guild settle its contract, the open letter was signed by: News Corp. President Peter Chernin (Jewish), Paramount Pictures Chairman Brad Grey (Jewish), Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Robert Iger (Jewish), Sony Pictures Chairman Michael Lynton (surprise, Dutch Jew), Warner Bros. Chairman Barry Meyer (Jewish), CBS Corp. Chief Executive Leslie Moonves (so Jewish his great uncle was the first prime minister of Israel), MGM Chairman Harry Sloan (Jewish) and NBC Universal Chief Executive Jeff Zucker (mega-Jewish). If either of the Weinstein brothers had signed, this group would have not only the power to shut down all film production but to form a minyan with enough Fiji water on hand to fill a mikvah. he thought ‘Jews run Hollywood.’

    So, as I am utterly confused, if Jewish men or women do not ‘run’ Hollywood, who does?

    Who runs Hollywood? C’mon – LAT, December 19, 2008|JOEL STEIN.

  19. Accentitude on June 26, 2014, 5:11 am

    The Presbyterian Church divestment is anti-Semitic because David Duke supports it. Well how can you argue with logic, right? Why stop there? I mean if we’re just going to say that everything in the world is anti-semitic then Obama is ant-Semitic because he once stood in Ramallah in the same building where a member of Hamas also once stood at some point in history before him. The Later Roger Ebert is anti-Semitic because he convinced me, a Palestinian, that Pauly Shore movies have always sucked. Christians are anti-Semitic because Jewish Jesus was crucified for their sins. Coca-Cola is anti-Semitic because a member of the Iranian Team at the World Cup in Brazil probably drank a bottle of Dasani water and said it tasted good. Marvel Comics is anti-Semitic because The Avengers didn’t provide a major role to Scarlett Johannsson, spokeswoman of Settler Sodastream, Inc. Jeffrey Dahmer was anti-Semitic because although he killed many white people, a majority of them weren’t Jewish, which proves that he did’t like them.

  20. quercus on June 26, 2014, 7:29 am

    Isn’t it an awfully long piece to devote to the ravings of a bunch of nitwits? Truly, the charge of anti-semitism has no ‘sting’ left to it, the venom having been squeezed out a long time ago by the likes of Goldberg and others.

    It seems to me the best to do is ignore these fools.

  21. DaveS on June 26, 2014, 7:59 am

    The usual brilliant article from Phan: comprehensive research, impeccable logic, and perfect tone. I would only add that Alan Dershowitz has been a consistent exploiter of the David Duke endorsement smear. Here he is on Walt/Mearsheimer – – and on Norman Finkelstein –

    And here is a beauty about W/M from Dersh’s appearance on Morning Joe:
    It’s going to be rebutted and responded to, but I never thought I would live to see the day when a Harvard dean would essentially copy from the David Duke Web site. And if you look at the report, it’s 80 pages, there is not a paragraph that is original in it. Every paragraph virtually is copied from a neo-Nazi Web site, from a radical Islamic Web site, from David Duke’s Web site. You see parallel citations, parallel arguments. They come from Web sites such as, which is a neo Nazi Web site.

    • Ron Edwards on June 26, 2014, 8:58 am

      Spit take. The Dersh, criticizing alleged plagiarism?! Let’s shine the light of day on Harvard’s internal investigation of his own. The one he claims “exonerates” him but which no one else will talk about.

      • DaveS on June 26, 2014, 5:17 pm

        Yes Ron, Dersh loves to falsely accuse others of acts he actually engaged in. This insane paragraph is a mirror image of what he did with Joan Peters’s book. He also recently said that Egypt ran Gaza as an “open air prison” between 1948 and 1967, precisely repeating the true accusation of how Israel treats Gaza today.

      • Ron Edwards on June 26, 2014, 6:06 pm

        Don’t I know it! I was faculty at DePaul during the Norman Finkelstein showdown and have worked a lot with SJP there. Dersh’s vile behavior and apparently immunity to even the most basic intellectual or professional critique continue to mystify me.

  22. Naftush on June 26, 2014, 8:40 am

    The article and the comments protest too much. We’ve all taken Logic 101. Citing DD to delegitimize PCUSA’s resolution is fallacy on its face and doesn’t deserve the cyberspace lavished on it here. Now that it’s been lavished, I suspect two things that Mr. Phan and the commenters overlook or don’t wish to confront:
    1. The PCUSA resolution is predicated on a Presbyterian attack on Israel as such (Zionism Unsettled), which includes theological arguments that hark, as I see it, to classic Christian antisemitism.
    2. The weight of opinion on MW prescribes much more vigorous anti-Israel action than the mere boycotting of three firms that do specific forms of business with GOI. Some opinion here rues PCUSA’s resolution on precisely these grounds.
    On point 1, the MW mainstream has so inured itself to the charge of antisemitism that it cannot admit to the possibility of its existing elsewhere. Murders in Belgium? possibly of Mossad agents. Stanley Fischer as deputy chair of the Fed? the rotten fruit of a Jewish cabal. A commenter who posts Zionist arguments? must have been born in Brooklyn.
    On point 2, MW accommodates bedfellows whose aim, again in my view, is neither justice nor the adjustment of borders nor the winning of a war of ideas but the obliteration of Israel, after which they’ll drop the whole subject. Hence the torrent of contempt for those who posit a PC-DD link, where a simple smirk would have done.

    • Ron Edwards on June 26, 2014, 9:10 am

      Naftush: clearly you failed that Logic 101 course you speak of. You’re playing two bogus tricks in one spot, each relying on nothing but telepathy.

      1. “Harks to.” If you think it’s anti-semitic, then say so and own it. This is the Dersh’s “smacks of” tactic, to prevent anyone from saying “How?” As long as he says “smacks” and “harks,” he doesn’t have to say how, he Just Knows.

      You can Just Know all you want, but as logic, it’s donkey’s ass.

      2. Reference to abstract others. In this case, the unseen enemies lurking about, the bedfellows, whose malevolent aim as well as their very presence cannot be referenced, only claimed through mysterious senses. Without your mind-scan powers, where are they? (looks and looks) Ah, you Feel It. Well! Who can argue with that?

      Screw your Just Know and your Feels It. The next time you invoke logic, demonstrate some.

      You did say “as I see it” and similar. That’s good. It’s the start of realizing that you presented no basis for your claims at all.

      • Naftush on June 26, 2014, 9:30 am

        On Point 1, read “Zionism Unsettled” and put aside your approval of its conclusions; just follow its train of thought. Pause at the theological repudiation of a Jewish claim to territorial nationhood within any borders. Continue with the innuendos that the authors seed in their garden of liberation theology. Were it phrased in King James English, “Zionism Unsettled” could form an appendix to the Gospel of Matthew. I present the charge of antisemitism tentatively because I lack the telepathy that you sarcastically credit me with.
        On Point 2, nearly every day’s MW posts articles that prescribe punitive action against Israel beyond the singling out of the axiomatic culprit firms. Commenters go farther still. I need not re-post them; it isn’t English 101. But I’ll cite one anyway, the one who tackled my post with cheap sarcasm and rhetorical flourishes such as “donkey’s ass [logic] and “Screw your Just Know and your Feels It.”

      • annie on June 26, 2014, 9:50 am

        “Screw your Just Know and your Feels It.”

        it appears you can’t really pin it down when you write things like I present the charge of antisemitism tentatively because I lack the telepathy that you sarcastically credit me with.

        why present it at all? and don’t blame others for crediting yourself with telepathy when you say things like “I suspect…The PCUSA resolution is predicated on..classic Christian antisemitism.” without a smidgen of evidence.

        and i have no idea what you are talking about here:

        just follow its train of thought. Pause at the theological repudiation of a Jewish claim to territorial nationhood within any borders. Continue with the innuendos that the authors seed in their garden of liberation theology.

        we are not mind readers. is this your evidence of anti semitism? it sounds like gibberish.

      • Ron Edwards on June 26, 2014, 10:23 am

        It is in fact gibberish. Unfortunately, it is strategic gibberish straight from the hasbara manuals which urge confusion as a tactic against those who are not ignorant enough to accept lies.

        Note as well the disingenuousness of falsely accusing others of antisemitism (i.e., of being murderers or wishful murderers), then responding with doe-eyed “wow” to wholly appropriate rebuttal. This poster has zero room for playing the oh-how-hostile hurty-feels game.

      • MRW on June 27, 2014, 7:01 am

        @Ron Edwards

        the oh-how-hostile hurty-feels game

        Nailed that.

  23. a blah chick on June 26, 2014, 9:02 am

    “MW accommodates bedfellows whose aim, again in my view, is neither justice nor the adjustment of borders nor the winning of a war of ideas but the obliteration of Israel..”

    OMG, he’s on to us, people! He has uncovered our super duper secret plan not just destroy Israel but to OBLITERATE it! How we will ethnically cleanse the place and then the few Jews who remain (we’ll let a few remain because we’re not heartless) will have to be second class citizens in their land. There will not be able to hold certain jobs and live in certain places and we will make damn sure that they do not get to marry any Jews living abroad and bring them to glorious Palestine. Then will will begin a campaign to say that there really never were any Israelis, hell their own supreme court just said so! It was all a figment of everyone’s imagination.

    And the evil plots starts by softening up the place, letting them vote for the people who will bring them down.

    • annie on June 26, 2014, 10:21 am

      he is ascribing to us a desire for the same actions zionists/zionism did to palestine (obliteration of palestine) yet he doesn’t recognize the hypocrisy in his own fears and accusations. he thinks others will be as brutal as his own people were/are and seeks to accuse us of bigotry (antisemitism=bigotry exclusively against jews).

      How we will ethnically cleanse the place and then the few Jews who remain

      something tells me no one plans on rounding them up in walled villages with guard towers and snipers. no worries, we won’t act like the zionists; heavily armed military picking off jewish children protesting with rocks; middle of the night child abductions; torture; imprisonment w/out charge and jews starving themselves for their freedom? can you even imagine? passing laws to force-feed jews who choose to die rather than endure endless imprisonment and torture?

      i have never ever heard anything on these comment threads that suggest “obliterating” israel, jews or israelis the way palestinians (and palestine)have been treated. maybe he’s just in denial of the inhumane nature of that which he seeks to defend, and yet he seeks to ascribe to us the injustice inflicted by his own. weird.

      perhaps to natfush, the term “equal rights”, when applied to palestinians, is synonymous with ‘holocaust’.

      • Naftush on June 26, 2014, 11:53 am

        Blah-Blah, your ego is out of control. I’d be a total jerk to consider the MW community a threat to Israel. It indulges in wishful thinking about Israel, maybe. An echo chamber, quite often. But a threat? It would be interesting, however, to see what an Arab-dominated 1SS Palestine would be like and what attitude this community would take toward it. My bet: it would resemble the other Arab “states” and this community would immediately lose interest in it.

      • annie on June 26, 2014, 3:50 pm

        your ego is out of control. I’d be a total jerk to consider the MW community a threat to Israel.

        strawman! i didn’t claim you considered the MW community a threat to israel. i claimed you were ascribing to us a desire for the same actions zionists/zionism did to palestine. (probably to assuage zionist culpability/GUILT for crimes against humanity). way to not listen.

        ps, i wasn’t even talking to you. you’re in outer field dude.

      • Daniel Rich on June 26, 2014, 6:46 pm

        @ Annie Robbins,

        When I was little, my mom told me to appreciate the criticism of others, for it was a door that gave access to their mindset, their real way of thinking.

        Later on in life, I learned another word, perhaps a more familiar one;’projecting.’

        When an individual ascribes this, that or the other thing to you, you have entered that ‘secret, hidden room’ and now know what this person is really all about.

      • annie on June 26, 2014, 7:08 pm

        daniel, yeah.

  24. Basilio on June 26, 2014, 12:07 pm

    David Duke was associated, in the past with the KKK. We understand that. I don’t know where he stands today; I am not really that interested in him. Is Goldberg stating that all those who support Israel have no racist views either among the Christian or Jewish supporters? I mean like at the owners of the LA Clippers. How much more racist can you get, and the owner was talking about how Israel treats black people without making any apologies about it. It’s all ridiculous to ignore all that. By the way, many Zionists, in the distant past in Europe, met with anti-Semites for the sake of Zionist nationalism. It’s not the first time Zionists were connected to racists. Did Goldberg forget about South Africa? I guess he did.

    • annie on June 26, 2014, 12:54 pm

      Is Goldberg stating that all those who support Israel have no racist views either among the Christian or Jewish supporters? I mean like at the owners of the LA Clippers.

      no, this is just a classic point scoring technique in the hasbara handbook. i’ll go look for the name they call it.

  25. justicewillprevail on June 26, 2014, 1:15 pm

    Funny the amount of publicity that Goldberg and Co are giving Duke. I had never heard of him before he began to be mentioned in this context. It illustrates how these people need and feed off each other. Goldberg (and Eisner’s) arguments are so ridiculous that I doubt even they believe them – otherwise they would be telling all vegetarians that they are Nazis, since you know Hitler was one etc. Beyond stupid.
    So you can only really conclude that they are aware of the absurdity of their claims, but that is irrelevant. The project is to raise headlines which associate in the public mind (most of whom do not closely follow these debates) ‘antisemitism’, a concept never to be explained, with any criticism of Israel. The object is to derail any rational debate about the cost and nature of Israel, and to intimidate those who do so, or want to do so. It is crude propaganda, but has proven effective in many newsrooms and media circles, to the extent that it lurks explicitly or implicitly in every mention of the subject, even to the point of self-censorship amongst journalists who worry about their careers. So the pattern is there, and incessantly repeated. It does capture the deeply ingrained cynicism of the likes of Goldberg and Eisner, who know what they are doing, illustrated by their utter indifference to, and ignorance of, any facts or debate. In other words it is a sham, a deliberate charade, designed to stifle, smear and derail the honest efforts of others who dare to care.

  26. James Canning on June 26, 2014, 2:19 pm

    Jeffrey Goldberg appears to have difficulty comprehending that it is a good thing for Israel to receive some tough love from the Presbyterians.

  27. just on June 26, 2014, 3:11 pm


    More “red lines”.

    “Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Thursday slammed MK Amram Mitzna (Hatnua) for comparing the Jewish Home party to Hamas.

    “Political debate must remain within the realms of honesty and fairness,” Netanyahu said. “Mitzna’s comments crossed red lines in both those realms.””

    Netanyahu preaching about honesty and fairness– hilarious!

    “MK Amram Mitzna called on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Thursday to expel Naftali Bennett from the security cabinet, after the economy minister called Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas a “mega-terrorist.”

    “A person who lines the pockets of murderers with tens of millions of shekels each month is a mega-terrorist, who has not changed his ways,” Bennett told Israel Radio earlier on Thursday.”

  28. Rusty Pipes on June 26, 2014, 8:09 pm

    Reserve Corporal Goldberg reporting for duty. How is it that a pundit so associated with morally-reprehensible rhetoric that has endangered the lives of thousands of Americans (advocating for the 2003 invasion of Iraq) still has a job in a reputable publication?

  29. traintosiberia on June 26, 2014, 9:58 pm

    David Duke also supports faith in Christianity. He supports evolution . He supports healthy eating and daily exercise. He has loved children and been nice to the neighbors .He believes in the scientific ,archeological ,and social explanations of human development.
    It is time to repudiate those faiths and explanations and daily practices . These have become antisemitized by Davidic association.

  30. traintosiberia on June 26, 2014, 10:06 pm

    Goldberg . You find it painful to know that the Iraq war would not have happened if the 25 of these neocons were banished to the desert. You my find it agonizing to know that banish or expulsion have prevented other disasters in the past.
    You may find it painful to know that the Iraq war was planned by the neocons is now well known among those who never heard of David Duke.

    • James Canning on June 27, 2014, 2:17 pm

      The neocons took total control of planning for Iraq, as part of the conspiracy to set up the idiotic US invasion. They intentionally excluded American and British experts on the Middle East.

  31. traintosiberia on June 26, 2014, 10:13 pm
    Time to move out of US. Roger Cohen of NYTimes and the professor and Director at Korbel School of International Studies of University of Denver have been touting China snd India as the next destination to avoid the critical attitude in US towards Israel over settlement and Palestinian policy and to thrive in ” historically non existent Antisemitic ” countries .

    • Betsy on June 27, 2014, 12:17 pm

      @traintosiberia — the new govt of India is led by the BJP which is notably Israel friendly. I expect a strong turn towards Asia by Israel as the West gets more critical of Israel. Prime Minister Modi is probably going to take a hyper-nationalist approach (which some in India consider proto-fascist) w/ ethnic / religious supremacist tendencies — in the service of fierce industrial development that could involve deepening crack-down on environmental justice movements. Many fear for minorities within India — especially tribal communities in resource rich regions targeted by the race-with-China developmentalism. There’s a possibility of a new bloc between India & Israel — that should be watched closely, given the challenges of climate change, coming resource wars, energy politics (the material forces behind much of what’s happening in Middle East, that gets reported as ‘cultural’ or ‘tribal’.

      • traintosiberia on June 27, 2014, 7:00 pm

        In US at least,Indians are aware what Israel does to US interest. Same is true for British Indians . Yes there is a Muslim angle but India and China will never be duped the way US is. India will not support sanction or war for Israel . India supports certain things certain times . But that is due the fear of backlash and retaliation from US. India knows its market is in Arab not in Israel. Israel can offer product to India but not a market. Indian Muslims also even within BJP run system will just not stand as passerby and let the train wreck take place.

  32. Pat Kittle on June 26, 2014, 10:47 pm

    Are we allowed to ask specifically what David Duke says that isn’t true?

    If Jewish supremacists tell you not to look at something that is as good a reason to look as any.

    (BTW, I’m a pro-abortion atheist.)

    • annie on June 26, 2014, 11:10 pm

      i’m not really familiar with him. but i remember when dkos banned mondoweiss. the shalom brigade cherry picked a bunch of stuff phil wrote and said ‘david duke says that too!’ it was so ridiculously desperate.

  33. crone on June 27, 2014, 1:14 am

    France has warned its citizens against taking part in any economic activity in the occupied Palestinian territories, saying this may entail legal risks because the Jewish settlements are illegal under international law.

    The warning is part of a joint act drafted by the five largest EU countries: Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and Spain, Haaretz cited a French diplomat as saying.

    Italy and Spain are expected to issue similar warnings over the next few days, while the UK and Germany did so a few months ago.

    The move comes after the failure of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, and also following massive protests against the construction of settlements across the EU.

    The notice by the French Foreign Ministry advises against investing, purchasing land, or engaging in economic activity in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Golan Heights. It was published as part of recommendations for French people traveling to Israel.


    • Shmuel on June 27, 2014, 3:53 am

      Italy and Spain are expected to issue similar warnings over the next few days, while the UK and Germany did so a few months ago.

      Done. Italy and Spain have issued their warnings.

  34. jayn0t on June 27, 2014, 1:59 am

    This article is well-researched, smart and brave.

  35. Ellen on June 27, 2014, 4:53 am

    For a well documented and sourced profile on what a shameless hack Goldberg is:

  36. jayn0t on June 27, 2014, 10:56 am

    “Walt and Mearsheimer and other individuals associated with publishing the study were put on the defensive and forced to fight back against this contrived connection to David Duke.” They weren’t really “forced” to fight back. What they should have done was to have said “OK, David Duke is right about something. So what?”.

  37. jayn0t on June 27, 2014, 11:08 am

    “I give Obama credit, he seems to have stuck to his guns as far as pulling the troops out of Iraq.” On foreign policy, people more right-wing than Duke have more in common with the people who write on this site than either do with Hilary Clinton! But somehow it’s difficult to say “Tom Metzger is right about Iraq, but I disagree with him on his advocacy of hatred and violence against ethnic minorities”.

    • annie on June 27, 2014, 12:53 pm

      people more right-wing than Duke have more in common with the people who write on this site than either do with Hilary Clinton!

      well that is an interesting addition to the conversation jay. why don’t you start by sharing with us which person more right-wing than Duke you have more in common with than hilary.

      • jayn0t on June 27, 2014, 3:12 pm

        Annie – I qualified what I said by prefixing it with ‘on foreign policy’. You are either in favor of murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians or you are not. Hilary is, Duke and co and you and I aren’t.

      • annie on June 27, 2014, 3:41 pm

        ok, sorry for not being clear enough. i should have said ‘why don’t you start by sharing with us which person more right-wing than Duke you have more in common with on foreign policy than hilary’.

        i wasn’t trying to be critical. i just never thought of it that way. i don’t know much about duke or why he’s considered ‘right wing’. is he a republican. he’s commonly used for coding, that’s how his name comes up generally.

      • jayn0t on June 27, 2014, 6:20 pm

        Duke is considered to be a fascist. He used to be a member of the KKK. He has moderated since then. “To the right” I mean people like Tom Metzger, who really does preach hatred (according to Elinor Langer’s book about the case in where he ended up having to pay the SPLC because he supposedly contributed to the murder of an Ethiopian). Hilary would never say she hates anyone. But surely any fascist who opposed the invasion of Iraq is morally better than her.

      • seanmcbride on June 27, 2014, 6:58 pm


        I am assuming that you have no investment in Hillary Clinton? She is appalling on foreign policy. Bill Maher just described her as John McCain in drag. Glenn Greenwald astutely remarked:

        Hillary is banal, corrupted, drained of vibrancy and passion. I mean, she’s been around forever, the Clinton circle. She’s a fucking hawk and like a neocon, practically. She’s surrounded by all these sleazy money types who are just corrupting everything everywhere.

        She is, in fact, basically a neocon and an AIPAC/Goldman Sachs tool. She is a less appealing candidate now than she was in 2008, and she lost the nomination in 2008.

        Pointing out that many white nationalists like David Duke are less extreme in their views and language than mainstream Jewish nationalists is a powerful line of argument to develop with regard to the ongoing debates about Israel and Zionism. Think about it.

        Noting that ethnic nationalism (European “Zionism”) is on the rise in contemporary Europe may help persuade the Jewish establishment to become more energetic in defending universalist values — especially with regard to voicing its opposition to bad Israeli policies.

  38. jayn0t on June 27, 2014, 11:18 am

    I suspect the one mistake in the article is the reference to the guys with Nazi uniforms and confederate flags. When they quote Rachel Corrie, isn’t it possible that they are aware that this harms the cause of Palestinian rights? When they show up at an anti-illegal immigration rally, surely they know that their slogans and Nazi regalia harm that cause too? They seem well-funded. Provocateurs, maybe?

    • annie on June 27, 2014, 12:50 pm

      When they quote Rachel Corrie, isn’t it possible that they are aware that this harms the cause of Palestinian rights?

      i don’t think they could care less about palestinian rights. their focus seems to be on “the reality of kike government”.

      They seem well-funded. Provocateurs, maybe?

      probably/possibly. it’s been done before.

  39. traintosiberia on June 27, 2014, 6:48 pm

    It was a Jewish rabbi who referred to Zionism as racism in 70s. UN adopted it .
    It was money,peddling of influences,promises of career that got some body interested in working on overdrive to get this rescinded in 1990 . The money,threat,and lack of USSR helped him achieve. His name is John Bolton. The thug , a war criminal still agitating for war against Syria and Iran.

Leave a Reply