Trending Topics:

US branch of the Jewish ‘family’ owes the homeland ‘unconditional love’ — Rosner

News
on 170 Comments
Shmuel Rosner, from shmuelrosner.com

Shmuel Rosner, from shmuelrosner.com

Three days ago, in its role of feeding unending Israeli propaganda to the American and Jewish elites, the New York Times ran an op-ed by the conservative Israeli, Shmuel Rosner, titled “Israel’s Fair-Weather Fans,” that arraigned liberal Zionists Roger Cohen, Jonathan Chait, Ezra Klein and Peter Beinart for going wobbly over the Gaza slaughter. And Jon Stewart too (though I’m not sure he’s a Zionist). Rosner was saying, Bugger off. But he also said that Israel needs America– “support from America is a cornerstone of Israel’s security.” So he seemed to call for “family” loyalty.

Here are some excerpts from Rosner’s appeal/malediction, followed by several criticisms of Rosner:

If all Jews are a family, it would be natural for Israelis to expect the unconditional love of their non-Israeli Jewish kin. If Jews aren’t a family, and their support can be withdrawn, then Israelis have no reason to pay special attention to the complaints of non-Israeli Jews.

Moreover, the threat of liberal Jews distancing themselves from Israel is a hollow one. Jews of other nationalities are the proud and patriotic citizens of other countries, and they are free to make the decision to detach themselves from the greatest Jewish enterprise of the last two millenniums….

 If they still want to root for a Jewish state, there’s no substitute for Israel. If they believe there is a need for Jewish sovereignty, Israel is the only option available to them….

Clearly, these critics of Israel’s behavior believe that Israelis themselves would be safer if the country adopted their prescribed liberal policies. That might be true, but it makes no difference.

On matters of life and death, war and peace, Israelis are going to make their own decisions. If they lose the support of some liberal Jews over it, that would be regrettable, but so be it.

The criticisms. First, Donald Johnson: 

This piece is its own satire–it’s a very economical way of writing and thinking when your position is inherently so ridiculous it contains a thesis, its antithesis, and what Jon Stewart would make of it.  Most of the commenters at the NYT are having a field day.   Everything one could say about the narcissism of Israel and its most rabid defenders is right there in this post.  Morality or even simple logic are totally absent.  You should make this guy a regular front page poster at Mondoweiss.   He makes your case better than anyone who writes there.  

David Bromwich:

Interesting that he brings up the family metaphor: you don’t criticize your family in front of strangers. But though family comes up only optionally in the argument, it’s meant to carry decisive weight against Peter Beinart, Jon Stewart, etc. What always occurs to me is how special a case people make of the idea that your country is like your child (or your nephew or uncle or grandmother). Because they have in mind a pretty good child. A child, anyway, “as good as he should be.” One who if he commits a fault is sure to make it something medium-small like stealing a case of beer; or bigger but remediable, like spraying graffiti on your neighbor’s house.

But what if your child is running with a criminal gang, and brings home guns, and starts to tell of hair-raising encounters with loan sharks and being a witness to rough treatment used on people who owe. What then? Must you never call the police? And what becomes your responsibility when the child starts doing things that are worse than all of the above?

Ryland Lu (whom I met at J Street):

I am a longtime reader who usually stays on the sidelines (i.e. I’ve never commented or had an article posted). I felt compelled to email you, however, after reading this awful Op-Ed piece by Shmuel Rosner in the New York Times… Note how Rosner is lashing out at the liberal Zionist criticism of the Gaza offensive and also how his demand for Diaspora Zionists to unconditionally obey the decisions of the “state” echoes the “sovereign dictatorship” theory of the fascist political philosopher, Carl Schmitt.

Finally, here is a liberal Zionist critique from Emily Bazelon at Slate, titled, “Is there a line American Jews should not cross?” She says that she did not read Klein, Beinart, Chait, and Cohen as Rosner did; she didn’t see them as abandoning their Zionism.

I didn’t read the columns that way at all. In his response to Rosner, Chait called his own Zionism “immutable.” Reading him and the others, I assumed that, too. I realize that talking and writing about Israel is like picking one’s way through a minefield, especially in a period of tension and violence, and even more so if you’re Jewish. Still, I saw these pieces as thoughtful if sad entries in a long-running debate over what Zionism means, not whether Jews deserve a homeland.

I went to Israel for the first time when I was 11, with my grandparents, who were proud Zionists. I went back at 16, and then again for a summer during college to research my senior thesis. On that third trip, [here Bazelon addresses Ruth Margalit] I stayed with your aunt and uncle in their lovely, sunny flat in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Baka. You were half of a pair of adorable 8-year-old twin nieces who lived down the hall. I came back after I graduated, to study and write for a year. Throughout and ever since, your family has been my entry into a deeply thoughtful and compassionate circle of the Israeli left. 

I offer the Bazelon somewhat ironically. She’s a writer on American mores who teaches at Yale and espouses liberal ideas; now it turns out she’s an ardent Zionist who affirms that critiques of Israel must be put forward by folks who believe Jews “deserve a homeland” (and has surely never thought about who lived in that house in Baka before her friends did). So the mainstream media offer us another lecture on the rightfulness of Jewish sovereignty, i.e., privilege, in the Middle East from an American Jew who insists on minority rights and religious freedom in this country.

And as for what line American Jews must not cross: some years back at a J Street conference, Jonathan Chait told Matthew Yglesias that it was OK that he was on a panel there, but a panel must never include me. Thus the American Jewish establishment excommunicates anti-Zionists. What damage these people are doing to Jewishness, it’s unfathomable. I thank heaven for JVP and Jews Say No.

Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

170 Responses

  1. Marnie on August 12, 2014, 12:59 pm

    If you believe you are special, chosen by God, that he gave you this piece of dirt, then you don’t need anyone on your side because you have God, right? But you don’t believe in this God, you believe in the dollar, the pound, the yen, the deutschmark; those are your gods. And demanding allegiance from the US? Phony as a 3 dollar bill.

    • samlebon2306 on August 12, 2014, 1:15 pm

      Exactly, why would they need the US when they all they have is God? Maybe they are confused or not sure if God is on their side. So far, they need America more than their creator.

      • Mooser on August 12, 2014, 2:37 pm

        You know, I keep looking at that picture, and thinking “There’s a German word for this, but I don’t know what it is.”

      • Marnie on August 12, 2014, 3:22 pm

        Scheisskopf?

      • Mooser on August 12, 2014, 6:28 pm

        No I don’t think that’s it Marnie. It’s a German word which translates to something approximating ‘a-face-that-begs-for-a-sock-in-the-nose’. It’s not a word I would know.

      • German Lefty on August 13, 2014, 3:47 pm

        Scheisskopf?

        That’s a German word. However, it’s not used by Germans. Only by Amis who live(d) in Germany.

      • Don on August 12, 2014, 3:56 pm

        Just tooo funny…I want to be like Mooser when I grow up.

      • Mooser on August 12, 2014, 6:29 pm

        “Just tooo funny…I want to be like Mooser when I grow up.”

        Really? Okay, it’s easy, just don’t. I never did.

      • lysias on August 12, 2014, 6:45 pm

        Fratze?

      • W.Jones on August 12, 2014, 10:49 pm

        Mooser:

        Eingesichtdasfüreineschlagindernasestelltsich?

        Or in Yiddish
        A ṗnym az bgs par a záq yn dr náz?

      • German Lefty on August 13, 2014, 3:43 pm

        I keep looking at that picture, and thinking “There’s a German word for this, but I don’t know what it is.”

        How about “Backpfeifengesicht”?
        http://www.germany.info/Vertretung/usa/en/__pr/GIC/TWIG__WoW/2014/23-Backpfeifengesicht.html
        http://www.aboutgerman.net/AGNwords/A_Backpfeifengesicht.htm

      • Citizen on August 13, 2014, 5:03 pm

        Bill Kristol, Dershie leap to my mind. Also, Hannity, for starters.

      • Mooser on August 13, 2014, 5:30 pm

        “How about “Backpfeifengesicht”?

        I’m not the one to ask, like I said, I don’t know the word. But I appreciate all the helpful suggestions.

      • Qualtrough on August 13, 2014, 10:41 pm

        Hi German Lefty–As an Ami who once lived in Germany I wish I could assist here, aber Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

      • Stephen Shenfield on August 12, 2014, 7:27 pm

        samlebon2306: Why would they need the US when they have God?

        The trouble with God is that now and then he loses patience with the Jews and visits destruction on them (see the Bible). The US is more reliable.

    • wondering jew on August 12, 2014, 3:48 pm

      Marnie- Raising the issue of “chosen” out of the clear blue is a red flag to me.

      • Marnie on August 13, 2014, 1:32 am

        Yonah – I’ve “raised” it many times before, how is it a red flag? How is it out of the clear blue? Who made you judge? How can it be a red flag when that’s what is taught in synagogues and yeshivas. I guess you disagree with it. I do too. No people are more important than any other people. And if there are, I would expect them to be the most honorable, loving, compassionate people (not exclusively to each other, mind you) on God’s green earth. I say they aren’t and are hypocrites for using that “chosenness” to commit crimes against humanity.
        We all belong to God.
        Nyah!

      • Mooser on August 13, 2014, 12:15 pm

        “Marnie- Raising the issue of “chosen” out of the clear blue is a red flag to me.”

        Wow, Yonah, it’s a good thing you didn’t go to my Hebrew School when I was a kid. You’d be seeing red all day! They used to lean pretty hard on that “chosen” thing.

        Anyway, we know what the Yonah-bull does when it sees a red flag!

      • Xpat on August 13, 2014, 11:16 pm

        Since Yonah claims the right as a Jew to call out a non-Jew for calling out Jews then I, as a Jew, will call out another Jew for calling out a non-Jew for calling out the Jews.
        May red flags rise out of the blue and salmon colored suns sink in the the azure oceans, rising and falling in an endless flow of colorful metaphor, flying the flags and flagging the flies. And the chosen will choose what the unchosen may choose to say.

      • just on August 13, 2014, 11:21 pm

        Well done.

      • Marnie on August 14, 2014, 12:19 am

        Hi – I wasn’t born with a hechsher and don’t have a ketubah, but did study with a rabbi and believe it or not converted +20 years ago making me, I guess, a pseudojew, maccawannabee, kosher lite, or whatever.

      • wondering jew on August 14, 2014, 2:58 am

        If the subject of the post had been a rabbi, who proclaims racist attitude towards nonJews, then raising “the chosen” people motif, might be appropriate. Nothing in Rosner’s piece touched on anything Jewish other than Jewish solidarity. To raise the chosen people motif here is clearly a sign of someone with a theological bias against the Jews, a bias that this commentaror has expressed before. Mixing theology with hatred of Zionism is an iffy business and disentangling that mixture is not an easy thing, but if it’s antiZionist, then Elliot always approves. No matter what, when or why.

      • tree on August 14, 2014, 5:37 am

        Hilarious, Elliot. But I was under the impression that Marnie was Jewish and had lived, or was living, in Israel. Am I wrong on that account? Perhaps there are the chosen and then there are the more chosen who get to choose what the mildly chosen choose to say?

      • Marnie on August 14, 2014, 11:52 am

        Tree – I live in Israel. I’m not special or, to get Yonah’s knickers in a perpetual twist, “chosen”. I’m having a hard time understanding the comments from you Tree and from Elliot.
        However, I stand by what I originally posted and what I’m struck by is that Yonah is pissed about the “chosen” remark, but didn’t say boo about my remarks about God, because that’s the bottom line to me, but I’ve come in contact with more atheists in israel than in all the years I lived in the US, which bothers me a lot. I expected (foolishly I now see) so much better. Yonah, I don’t give a damn about red flags or whatever it is you’re tripping about.

    • RoHa on August 13, 2014, 4:10 am

      ” the deutschmark; ”

      Pssst. The Euro.

    • ThorsteinVeblen2012 on August 13, 2014, 12:22 pm

      Is the Torah a moral guide or a land deed?

      It seems it can’t be both.

  2. lysias on August 12, 2014, 1:05 pm

    Easy to imagine a Nazi apologist writing a similar piece about Germans abroad in the 1930’s or 1940’s, with the same ending:

    On matters of life and death, war and peace, Germans are going to make their own decisions. If they lose the support of some liberal overseas Germans over it, that would be regrettable, but so be it.

    • on August 12, 2014, 1:15 pm

      Yet the vast majority of Germans living in America were fully invested in being Americans, not Germans. And they actually came from Germany.

      Here we have people — Jews — being told they have to give absolute loyalty not to the nation they live in, America, not even to the nation where their family originated, but instead to a foreign nation where most likely they or their family have never lived. And, to a large extent, this has been successful.

      • Stern Gang on August 12, 2014, 1:36 pm

        And if they don’t have a profound love for Israel they are spat upon. It is all propaganda to persuade the herds that the mindset of unconditional support for Israel is a mandate. It simply doesn’t add up.

      • Mooser on August 12, 2014, 2:29 pm

        Always seemed to me like the most extreme form of entitlement, presented in a context of victimization,(just to make it even more attractive? In case the supremacism isn’t enough?) I don’t think that can be good for you, but I’m always way behind the curve.

      • Krauss on August 12, 2014, 2:34 pm

        Yet the vast majority of Germans living in America were fully invested in being Americans, not Germans. And they actually came from Germany.

        Yes, good catch.

        And to add: I find it bizarre that people like Chait are considered “liberal”. If he is “liberal” then so is Jewish supremacist Abe Foxman.

        Most Jews in the American establishment are slavish to a fanatical racial nationalistic ideology. It’s not a coincidence that neither of these “liberals” want to talk to a Palestinian. Because they know they could never win such a debate, they have nothing against a genuine Palestinian that can hold muster.

  3. annie on August 12, 2014, 1:06 pm

    If Jews aren’t a family, and their support can be withdrawn, then Israelis have no reason to pay special attention to the complaints of non-Israeli Jews.

    it’s irrelevant if israelis “pay special attention to the complaints of non-Israeli Jews” if that attention does not have any chance of impacting israel’s agenda. paying special attention for the purpose of modifying talking points, lecturing non compliant non israeli jews, pampering or other ways intending to manipulate those gone astray is ultimately unimportant strategically. as Rosner makes clear “Israelis are going to make their own decisions.” nothing will “convince the government to alter its policies” and thinking otherwise he calls “a self-aggrandizing fantasy” he’s saying nothing you do or say will make any difference.

    yeah, we already know that’s how israel operates. this is why it’s going to take more than diaspora jews to turn this thing around. because if israel thinks it can stand against the world, it can’t. either american support is critical or it is not. you can’t sit there in israel accepting all this american support while claiming, essentially, it would not matter one way or the other because nothing anyone could ever say would make you change your policies. (well, you can, but it’s just empty chutzpa)

    israel wants to be able to say it acts on behalf of “the jewish people”. this is a very potent weapon it weilds. but to do so it requires not only jews but also everybody else to internalize the concept jews are “one family”. this is all hasbara. i say we take him at his word, withdraw support, and only then will we see if israel can really survive without us (the global community, i’m not talking just jews). because i doubt they can. he’s saying they’re invincible, they aren’t. just humans like the rest of us.

    • PeaceThroughJustice on August 12, 2014, 1:52 pm

      “just humans like the rest of us.”

      Hey! that’s “antisemitic.”

    • Citizen on August 12, 2014, 2:35 pm

      Senate backed Israel’s latest escapade 100%, and congress is sending more cash to enhance Iron Yarmulke. Who can effectively “withdraw support”? Obama, by taking the bully pulpit over the heads of Congress, and announcing such intent to the public, and explaining why. Zero chance of that, judging by Obama’s pattern. No excuse for that since Obama knows the reality and is at the end of his last term. The reason he won’t is he’s setting up his post POTUS lucrative speaking, writing, and celebrity career so he can continue to live very comfortably, go golfing at the best spots all he wants.

  4. eljay on August 12, 2014, 1:24 pm

    >> If all Jews are a family, it would be natural for Israelis to expect the unconditional love of their non-Israeli Jewish kin.

    No it wouldn’t. Unconditional love should not be expected or given.

    >> If Jews aren’t a family, and their support can be withdrawn, then Israelis have no reason to pay special attention to the complaints of non-Israeli Jews.

    So what? Israelis should be acting in a just and moral manner, regardless of who they choose “to pay special attention to”.

    • Chu on August 12, 2014, 1:39 pm

      >> If all Jews are a family, it would be natural for Israelis to expect the unconditional love of their non-Israeli Jewish kin.

      – I thought that they were a religion, or was it a race? No wonder he’s confused.

      • eljay on August 12, 2014, 2:20 pm

        >> Chu: – I thought that they were a religion, or was it a race?

        According to the various commenters on this site, Jews are a tribe, a collective, an ethnicity, a religion, a people, a culture, a nation and/or a civilization.

      • Mooser on August 12, 2014, 2:35 pm

        “According to the various commenters on this site, Jews are a tribe, a collective, an ethnicity, a religion, a people, a culture, a nation and/or a civilization.”

        It is, I’ll have you know, also a desert topping and a floor wax.

      • eljay on August 12, 2014, 2:42 pm

        >> Mooser: It is, I’ll have you know, also a desert topping …

        That must be why the term “Jew-licious” was coined. :-)

      • Pixel on August 12, 2014, 5:48 pm

        Mooser, you’re hysterical! Thanks, man, just for being you!

      • seanmcbride on August 12, 2014, 2:57 pm

        eljay,

        According to the various commenters on this site, Jews are a tribe, a collective, an ethnicity, a religion, a people, a culture, a nation and/or a civilization.

        Jews appear to be primarily an ethnic group and nation that organizes its culture around an ethnocentric and nationalistic religious belief system. Many secular Jews buy into that belief system in a general way — they feel loyalty to “the family” and its overarching myths, symbols and narratives. Sometimes that loyalty is based on personal or ethnic self-interest. Jewish identity often seems to be defined in part by group competition and conflict with other peoples — ethnic groups, nations, religions, etc.

        Members of most other ethnic groups in contemporary America don’t approach the world this way — at least I don’t personally know many. They haven’t written many op-ed articles in the New York Times or Washington Post on their ethnic nationalist issues and battles. I haven’t noticed any Irish American or German American versions of Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, David Brooks, Elliott Abrams, Sheldon Adelson or Haim Saban on the American scene.

        God help us if most Americans begin to use Zionism (ethnic and/or religious nationalism) as a model for their own behavior — the United States would come apart at the seams — dissolve into chaos.

        Let me add that I have known many brilliant Jewish humanists who are not bogged down in Zionism in the slightest — they have more interesting matters on their minds that are relevant to us all — but they are still Jewish in a quietly proud and positive way. They have been formed by life-enhancing Jewish values.

      • JeffB on August 13, 2014, 11:50 am

        @Sean —

        Take a look a 19th century Irish, German, Italian media Those groups are further along in their assimilation. German Americans in the first half of the 20th century faced the same sorts of issues. If you read the Cuban Americans or Iranian Americans you’ll see that kind of searching for how best to walk the line between their competing interests.

        Think about it we all know what Pope Francis says or does, why?

        Jews who are a few generations into America are by far the most assimilated non-Christian minority. Jews in their first generation have generally: learned to be fluent in English, taken on American social habits, raise their children to be fully American… On one foreign policy issues involving a semi important country oppressing an even less important ethnic minority within their borders they disagree with about 1/2 of all liberals but instead agree with moderates and Republicans. Now they hold that belief intensely in the same way that gun rights advocates or pro-life advocates often hold their beliefs intensely. That’s the extent of this disagreement. It is a bunch of nonsense hyperbole to treat this issue on par with much more serious issues for most Americans that they are divided on like should we have higher or lower taxes, should we have more or less business regulation, should we have more redistribution of wealth, should we support or oppose government investment in the economy (crony capitalism), should the government encourage or discourage the use of birth control by young unmarried women?

      • seanmcbride on August 13, 2014, 12:16 pm

        JeffB,

        Take a look a 19th century Irish, German, Italian media Those groups are further along in their assimilation.

        Well, yes they are — they are fully assimilated into American culture.

        But quite a few American Jews seem to be DIS-assimilating from American culture — moving backward, not forward.

        The American mainstream media are flooded with the excited opinionating and politicking of Jewish ethnic and religious nationalists, both neoconservative and neoliberal, many of whom are more preoccupied with the interests of Israelis than of Americans.

        Try this:

        sort ethnic groups by number of ethnocentric op-ed articles by members in the New York Times and Washington Post for the past two decades

        Which group do you think would rank at the top of the list?

        What is going on? Do you have any ideas? And where is this going? What’s the endgame from the Zionist perspective?

      • James Canning on August 13, 2014, 2:09 pm

        Perhaps even higher rates of intermarriage between Jews and non=Jews is the way forward.

      • Mooser on August 13, 2014, 5:36 pm

        “Perhaps even higher rates of intermarriage between Jews and non=Jews is the way forward.”

        Maybe I should marry another Gentile woman to help the process along. That would be big of me.

  5. John Douglas on August 12, 2014, 1:36 pm

    Any American, Jewish or otherwise, who expresses unconditional love for Israel cannot at the same time call him or herself a full citizen of the U. S. in the moral sense. The interests of the U. S. and Israel are in constant and fundamental conflict. U. S. support for “Israel right or wrong”, bought with Zionist money and threats, deeply wounds the U. S.’s standing among nations. When those conflicts calls for choice, Mr. Rosner’s “unconditional lover” will tilt to Israel. At very least, an unconditional lover of Israel should be excluded, for reasons of conflict of interest, from political decision making.

    • JeffB on August 13, 2014, 11:35 am

      @John —

      What other political philosophies in your book should be excluded from participation in the American dialogue. Should human rights supporters who give allegiance to UN positions be excluded? Should Catholics who give allegiance to a church that holds to a theory of church / state relations fundamentally at odds with our founder’s theories be excluded? Should Chinese Americans who don’t think Taiwan should be allowed to remain independent be excluded. Should Taiwanese Americans who believe that Taiwan should be a separate country be excluded?

      Who besides Jews fails the John Douglas criteria for real Americans?

      • John Douglas on August 13, 2014, 2:02 pm

        @Jefff

        Happy to respond. John Kennedy was legitimately challenged as to whether he would act based upon orders front the RC hierarchy or upon the his Constitutional duty. He faced it head on and promised the latter. A Christian has a perfect right to believe in and look forward to End Times including what that means for Israel and everyone else. But he should not be given foreign policy responsibilities. Ditto for anyone who declares unconditional love for a group on nation in conflict with U. S. Interests.
        Of course, JeffB, you misstated what I said. This is not an issue of political philosophy. Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders? All the better. My point was about the national allegiance on those who purport to carry out their oath to serve the interests of the American people.
        Finally, I made clear that this is not only about Jews, as you claim – leaning as so often on the anti-Semitism slur – but about “Any American”, including Evangelicals and bought or scared politicians.

      • JeffB on August 13, 2014, 3:30 pm

        @John Douglas —

        You didn’t answer that list of questions. Kennedy did but Kennedy was secular. Rick Santorum is not secular, and takes the Catholic church’s teachings on these issues more seriously. Should be disqualified?

        My point was about the national allegiance on those who purport to carry out their oath to serve the interests of the American people.

        What Jewish politician do you believe sees themselves as acting against the interests of the American people? That is which Jewish politicians if you could read their mind see themselves as violating that oath?

        bought or scared politicians

        Scared politicians is another word for responsive to interests groups. Should politicians who support gun rights because they don’t want the backlash be excluded from participating in our democracy? Should politicians who vote for tough on crime legislation be excluded? On what other issues should a politician who goes with a special interest group should people be excluded?

        ____

        You did give one example though of evangelicals and the end times. Which is something like 30+% of our country. So let’s work that one. How would you propose that be enforced? I mean our previous president held those views. Rick Perry sponsored an entire conference on those views.

      • John Douglas on August 13, 2014, 9:52 pm

        Bought or scared? Every member of the U.S. Senate based on a recent unanimous vote.

        Any candidate who professes to favor the hastening on End Times through a catastrophe in Greater Israel disqualifies himself.

        To the gun control question, yes, excluded from office, not as you say from participating.

        Why would you want me to name Jewish people rather than Lithuanians? It’s irrelevant.

        How should these people who put other interests over the interests they are sworn to promote be disqualified? We live in a democracy, that’s a hint. Why don’t you take a stab at that one.

  6. Chu on August 12, 2014, 1:40 pm

    hey don’t forget to sign this petition: (target is 2 million)
    https://secure.avaaz.org/en/israel_palestine_this_is_how_it_ends_loc/?tZxjbib (1,655,058 have signed. Let’s get to 2,000,000)

  7. seanmcbride on August 12, 2014, 1:56 pm

    Actually, many pro-Israel activists demand unconditional love for Israel from all people worldwide, based on the assumption that Israel is God’s chosen nation and enjoys a special status vis-a-vis “the nations.” And if they don’t receive that love they can become incredibly angry, abusive and vindictive.

    Imagine if Germans, the Irish, the French, etc. demanded unconditional love for themselves and their nations from all members of their respective tribes worldwide — AND from everyone else worldwide. The notion is insane on its face — but Shmuel Rosner doesn’t seem to notice. What kind of mental glitch is in play?

    Diaspora Jews, of course, have often been forceful critics of the nations in which they have resided (quite a few them are now tearing Barack Obama and John Kerry to shreds). Apparently all the love is supposed to flow only in one direction.

    “Narcissism” is really not an adequate term to describe what this is all about. “Megalomania” might be closer to the mark.

    Megalomania: “delusion about one’s own power or importance (typically as a symptom of manic or paranoid disorder).”

    • Chu on August 12, 2014, 2:33 pm

      That’s definitely getting closer. I would think Meglomania + entitled + cult are some of the essential terms for what we are witnesses to nowadays. What does that equal in total?

      • Marnie on August 13, 2014, 1:40 am

        A catastrophe for everyone else.

      • Chu on August 13, 2014, 8:59 am

        especially their surrounding neighbors. The US only has to underwrite the cult expenditures and make some vacuous statements about standing with Israel. Big news now is that Cuomo is in Israel, and yes he ‘stands with Israel’- very presidential material*.

        The hollow sloganeering of the political class without debate is AIPAC’s benefit but to the US constitution’s demise.

    • American on August 12, 2014, 4:15 pm

      Yep…just plain narcissism doesnt really describe it in full any more.

      • Mooser on August 12, 2014, 6:36 pm

        “Yep…just plain narcissism doesnt really describe it in full any more.”

        Hmmmm, I’m wondering, if right-wing Zionists in America get violent towards their perceived opponents, and have to defend themselves in court, will I live to see the “Ziocaine Syndrome” in the DSM? Could be!

  8. American on August 12, 2014, 2:10 pm

    Max B. in tweet asks where in the US were these Jews radicalized?
    All youth are more or less stupid until they learn by experience. I blame the parents.

    IN PHOTOS: 108 future Israeli soldiers make aliyah
    The young men and women are among 338 Jews who arrive in Israel from the U.S. and Canada on Tuesday.

    http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/1.610121

    • Chu on August 12, 2014, 2:52 pm

      Good for Max – stepping up the pressure with critical statements. Israel needs more troops and at least 100 parents are providing them with soldiers. > So they grow up in schools funded by Canadian and American tax dollars, but join a foreign military without any repercussions? geez… Who drafted that law?

      Israel look less like a cult, and more like a western country because of it’s technology. But take away the jets, the intel plants, etc and you’re left with a group of ideologues that believe in some strangely entitled fantasies, with a supreme racial hatred for Arabs.

  9. James Canning on August 12, 2014, 2:15 pm

    What total rubbish from Shmuel Rosner. He needs to campaign to get Israel out of the West Bank.

  10. ritzl on August 12, 2014, 2:24 pm

    Shorter Rosner: Blood is thicker than genocide.

    The truth of that is as yet TBD.

  11. atime forpeace on August 12, 2014, 2:32 pm

    Phil what is the moral difference between allowing these racist calls by jews to stand for Israel to ensure that no critique of Israels actions be allowed to go unpunished within your community and what Jews would call anti-semitism?

    In many cases these “tropes” are used to stifle inquiry and they serve from allowing diaspora jews from discovering zionist actions of the past. I would imagine that the book Righteous Victims is an anti semitic book? It must be because the zionist turned their back on the righteous victims who were slaughtered en masse in Europe.

    You allow Jewish racism to be posted on this board ( these pronouncements to stand as one behind Israel) are a racist call to shut out any debate that point to Israel “The Jewish State” right after they just slaughtered a mostly helpless population on the basis of racism.

    I understand the need to be hyper sensitive to what your community may think of you if you were to allow any of those “old tropes” as the jews are fond of calling anything that points to jews being involved in unsavory historical facts.

    What is the difference between allowing clearly racist views and what Jews conveniently call anti-semitism?

    I am not a jew. I see it purely as racism. I always compared jews to the catholics in the middle ages where the mass was given in latin and noone knew what the hell was being said…just trust and obey for there is no other way.

    A clueless and Shtetl existence enforced by ostracization.

    • Mooser on August 12, 2014, 6:39 pm

      “A clueless and Shtetl existence enforced by ostracization.”

      Before Zionists could send a single group of Jews to Palestine under their auspices, they had to learn how to control and motivate Jews. And at that they are expert.

  12. Sycamores on August 12, 2014, 2:34 pm

    If all Jews are a family, it would be natural for Israelis to expect the unconditional love of their non-Israeli Jewish kin. If Jews aren’t a family, and their support can be withdrawn, then Israelis have no reason to pay special attention to the complaints of non-Israeli Jews.

    Rosner appeal unintentionally makes Israel sound like a spoilt child demanding ‘unconditional love’ from it tired parents.

    more and more these days it seems like zionism uses threats and demands to tell people to toe the line http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2014-08-11-op-ed-being-jewish-opposing-human-rights-violations/#.U-i56aPOfIW

  13. Bandolero on August 12, 2014, 2:42 pm

    The argument “You must obey, because we are family” sounds quite familiar to me.

    To me it sounds quite likewhat I heard about the Italian Mafia.

    • Mooser on August 12, 2014, 6:51 pm

      “If all Jews are a family….”

      Ah, but here you see, is the difference! In most cultures which have a history of being terribly oppressed, and have the victims of genocide, one might expect to see a whole lot of family dysfunction, wouldn’t you? But, ah, see, we don’t have that because, well, you know, Jewish.
      And of course, we are one big happy family.
      It is so amazing to me, so baffling, Jewish identity is like a nudibranch constantly turning itself inside-out.

      • Bandolero on August 12, 2014, 10:25 pm

        I see.

        That’s probably why this one big happy family is so happy to have very good ties to other long oppressed families, like for example the Saud family.

  14. American on August 12, 2014, 4:36 pm

    ” I saw these pieces as thoughtful if sad entries in a long-running debate over what Zionism means, not whether Jews deserve a homeland.”’

    ..”debate over what zionism means”…..gawd!
    If brilliance isnt in you baffle yourself with bullshit…forever and ever Amen.

  15. wondering jew on August 12, 2014, 5:11 pm

    What Rosner misses is that the objections raised by Liberal Zionists will win the day in the US Democratic Party sooner or later. He can disown the Liberal Zionists and tell them/us that we’re not being unconditional loving sons and daughters, but in the end, that will not change the course of events and that course of events include the eventual abandonment of Israel by the US Democratic Party, particularly if the Netanyahu- Lieberman- Bennet axis prevails in Israel.

    • Mooser on August 12, 2014, 6:43 pm

      ” that course of events include the eventual abandonment of Israel by the US Democratic Party, particularly if the Netanyahu- Lieberman- Bennet axis prevails in Israel.”

      Well, there’s always the Republicans. Besides, there will be a lot less hypocrisy needed from both sides. I think you’ll get along much better with the Republicans.

  16. traintosiberia on August 12, 2014, 5:36 pm

    Israel’s new lawyer: Hillary Clinton
    She sees the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through Bibi’s eyes, which could be the reason she gets so much wrong.
    By Peter Beinart 0
    Haaretz

    Israel can ride out the unpleasant situation easily and smoothly . Female will vote for her for she is a she . Israel will invent other qualities in her to get the LGBT and Blacks and Hispanic get impressed and even optimistic of the future

    • Citizen on August 12, 2014, 6:33 pm

      Every female in my, extended family said they will vote for Hillary, from grandmas to young twenty somethings, and of various political stripes and beliefs–including both my sisters.

      • Philip Munger on August 13, 2014, 2:53 am

        My wife and daughter will probably vote for her in ’16, if it comes to that. My son and I beat them to it, though – we voted for Jill Stein in 2012.

      • michelle on August 13, 2014, 5:53 am

        .
        seems like it would be easy to show the world
        that H. Clintin is not the female to lead the world
        toward a better more just and peaceful future
        .
        G-d Bless
        .

  17. rpickar on August 12, 2014, 6:21 pm

    What is going on is totally at odds with what I learned in Hebrew school. Many of the news events upon which we base our emotions either didn’t happen or had a different cause than the one stated (I’m talking here about false-flag terror). I haven’t the vaguest idea of what to do with Zionism or Judaism.

    I’m stuck, so after consulting with people, I think that I’ll just choose “love” as my religion. Just love your fellow man, and that’s it.

    • Marnie on August 13, 2014, 1:48 am

      I think someone somewhere had said the reason it’s so hard to just love one another is that when you see yourself in someone else that is what you hate, not their difference from you, but the similarities? I’m tired and probably way off, but I thought that was the explanation for hatred, bigotry, etc.?
      Organized religion is a recipe for disaster, any religion.

  18. American on August 12, 2014, 6:28 pm

    Hmmm…I am curious about something.

    We are always seeing these appeals to US Jews by Israelis..support us, stick with the family, so on.
    But I havent ever seen any appeals to the general American public to support Israel…not a single one. We have never seen a NYT or other headline… ‘Israel calls on Americans to stand by them”…like we have seen from Isr to US Jews

    Interesting since they are always claiming that the ‘american public totally supports israel’.
    So if they really thought that was true they would making that big appeal to the triple millions of the public to pressure Obama on Israel.
    But they go after the Obama adm directly not thru trying to drum up pressure from the non jewish US public..
    The only other thing we see re from Isr to the general US public is the media propaganda aimed at us.

    What do I surmise from this?….I surmise that the last thing on earth Isr and the zios want is to actually attract too much attention of non jewish americans to Isr and P/I.
    Thats why we dont see any Isr or zio generated appeals to the US public at large.

    Isr and the zios have steered way clear of accusing the US public of not supporting Israel enough for a reason…they think it would back fire.

    • W.Jones on August 12, 2014, 9:50 pm

      That’s probably why some things are not more overt on the news. Why don’t they run Netanyahu’s speech with the joint session unanimous ovations from everyone on CSPAN, CNN, and NBC if it was that important?

    • RoHa on August 13, 2014, 4:32 am

      Perhaps they think that the support of American Jews will be enough to ensure the support of the U.S. The lesser beings will follow their masters’ lead.

      • Citizen on August 13, 2014, 9:41 am

        Yes, the entire US senate is enough, 100 people. They speak for all 320M Americans.

    • Citizen on August 13, 2014, 9:42 am

      The closest things is Fox Channel, which has been broadcasting commercials from Zionist groups regularly.

  19. jayn0t on August 12, 2014, 9:40 pm

    “If they believe there is a need for Jewish sovereignty, Israel is the only option available to them…”. Rosner’s article is a remarkably clear explanation of the connection between Jewish identity and support for Israel. It’s logical that more self-identified Jews listen to the likes of Shmuel Rosner than to Philip Weiss.

  20. Jabberwocky on August 12, 2014, 10:55 pm

    The issue is that “Zionism is to Judaism as the Islamic State is to Islam”.

    Both are nationalistic, militaristic perversions of a religion and both ignore human rights, tolerance and everything their religions are meant to stand for.

    So why should any Jew be pressed to be supportive of Zionism, when it is the moral and humanist values of their religion that they treasure. They should purge Zionism just as Islam needs to purge IS and Al Qaeda.

    • Citizen on August 13, 2014, 9:36 am

      On Cable TV news/infotainment shows, the Muslims are constantly being called upon to publicly separate themselves from groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda, and condemned for not doing so, but nobody is calling on Jews to do same regarding Israel’s conduct.

      Last night Hannity argued with a well known ivy league black professor in this context. Hannity was amazed Israel would be brought up in this context. He parroted every hasbara talking point available like a grade school kid reciting the Lord’s prayer. Bibi N must be laughing in his sleeve at the dumb goy, with his altar boy sensibility.

      • Chu on August 13, 2014, 10:32 am

        Hannity should get the annual award for ‘dumbest goy’. It’s really no contest. Inviting Yousef Munayyer as a guest on his show and then using him as a whipping boy was ludicrous! It’s like what not to do in journalism 101. ~and Russell Brandt’s takedown was funny…

      • JeffB on August 13, 2014, 10:55 am

        @Citizen

        On Cable TV news/infotainment shows, the Muslims are constantly being called upon to publicly separate themselves from groups like ISIS and Al Qaeda, and condemned for not doing so, but nobody is calling on Jews to do same regarding Israel’s conduct.

        No one is calling upon Iraqi / Syrian Sunni muslims who are opposed to the USA / Assad / Iranian axis to separate themselves from ISIS because they mostly are ISIS or at least ISIS supports. American Jews with very few exceptions won’t separate themselves from the Israeli government because they in large part agree with them. In my conversations with American Jews, most of whom were pacifists, they were pretty stridently in favor of Netanyahu’s position. Once the people of Gaza decided to launch missiles into Israel proper their feeling was the attack on Gaza was a defensive war and as such they fully stood behind Israel. Joan Rivers was only slightly to the right of the Jewish mainstream.

        The media stops trying to get someone to take a clear position once they have one.

      • Citizen on August 13, 2014, 5:25 pm

        OK, now throw in the foreign aid US gives to Israel. What do we get?

    • jayn0t on August 13, 2014, 10:07 am

      I’m sorry, Jabberwocky, but your comment inevitably leads to the following questions:
      – What percentage of the world’s Muslims reject ISIS?
      – What percentage of the world’s Jews reject Israel?
      You can bet that the second figure is much, much lower than the first.

      • Citizen on August 13, 2014, 11:46 am

        @ jaynot
        Really? On what basis do you make your bet?

      • jayn0t on August 13, 2014, 11:46 pm

        Citizen: I admit I haven’t done a scientific survey. My claim is impressionistic. However, having traveled quite a bit, and encountered numerous Muslims, from average Pakistanis, to extremist nuts in Hyde Park, London, and numerous Jews, from the founders of ‘Jews Against Zionism’ to nice, but Zionist, Israeli rock-climbers, plus a number of Jewish friends… Also, from a general impression of the popularity of Israel, compared with ISIS, among the population at large, I think it highly likely that Jews are far more likely to support supremacist violence than Muslims. I wonder why this is.

      • Jabberwocky on August 14, 2014, 6:38 am

        I don’t think that percentages matter. It is simply recognizing that for one faction of a group (Zionists to Judaism) to say that they represent a religion does need acceptance by the rest of the group.

        In reality both religions have their problems but it is scary that followers of Judaism have traditionally accepted that Zionists are the upholders of their religion. When in fact they can see that Zionists do not represent their religious values – especially as Israel continues the slaughter of innocents and brushes off criticism with delusional comments. This support of the group may have something to do with religious education in synagogues presenting a rose colored picture of Israel. As we see from JVP, Monodweiss and other groups more people are deciding that Zionists do not represent their Judaism. In fact, many can see that Zionism is the antithesis of Judaic values.

      • jayn0t on August 14, 2014, 10:21 am

        In absolute numbers, more Jews probably support Israel than Muslims support ISIS. There are about 100 times as many Muslims as Jews.

      • Jabberwocky on August 14, 2014, 11:18 am

        Probably hard to achieve absolute numbers of Zionist supporters versus Islamic State because of the large disparity in the total numbers of followers of each religion.

        One thing is for sure, the nationalist, pseudo-religious movements that do not respect human rights must all be defeated. The Islamic State needs to be crushed and so does Zionist Israel.

    • Mooser on August 13, 2014, 1:40 pm

      ” They should purge Zionism”

      I keep on saying that given the nature of the organization of the Jewish religion, that is not possible! The institutions which make up what we know as “the Jewish Community” are not owned in common by all Jews, nor do they answer to them. Each one is a private organization, set up under the prevailing regulations for such things, and they answer to the owners, the board, whatever, of the institutions.
      When Jews decided being kosher was not necessary, (just as an example) they did not “purge” the Jewish religion of it, they went out and started a new “Reform” Judaism, with its own institutions. Leaving the others who wished to retain it.
      I don’t see how non-Zionist Jews have any other choice. I think a non-Zionist denomination would bring many who have ceased to identify with Judaism back to it.

      • seanmcbride on August 13, 2014, 1:49 pm

        Mooser,

        When Jews decided being kosher was not necessary, (just as an example) they did not “purge” the Jewish religion of it, they went out and started a new “Reform” Judaism, with its own institutions.

        I don’t see how non-Zionist Jews have any other choice.

        This was the clearest articulation of your views on Judaism that I’ve seen so far — I am beginning to understand your position better.

        What I am thinking, however, is that non-Zionist Jewish religious institutions won’t emerge and develop quickly enough to avert a major crisis in Jewish/non-Jewish relations over Zionism.

        Another option for non-Zionist Jews is simply to drop out of the culture altogether — the Gilad Atzmon approach.

      • RoHa on August 14, 2014, 6:12 am

        And you should set up a non-Zionist denomination.

        If not you, who?

        If not now, when?

  21. JeffB on August 13, 2014, 8:54 am

    I think a not bad analogy to this is the attitude of conservative or hawkish American Jews towards Oslo. Rightwing Jews didn’t support the Oslo peace process when Israel was seriously making peace (or at least seriously talking about making peace). They didn’t support the the huge land giveaways that Israel at the time was promising and didn’t think Israel was getting nearly enough. There was a push for America to sweeten the pot for both sides to help close the gap and those rightwing American Jews were agitated against the USA making those guarantees to enhance the possibility of success for the process. Israelis felt that all American Jews including the right should simply fall in line with Israeli policy.

    The American Jewish right at the time replied with: If Israeli policy represents Jews then we should voice in making it in which case our objections to Oslo should be considered. If it doesn’t then I’m an American and free to support whatever American foreign policy I think is in the best interests of my country and thus free to object.

    Most American Jewish Liberals mirrored the Israeli claim. That if Oslo fell apart it would be Israeli Jews not American Jewish hawks that would bear the brunt and thus we should defer.

    I think Liberal Jewish discomfort has a lot to do with the current government. If Yair Lapid was Prime Minister I suspect that the liberal Jewish handwringing would disappear almost entirely. I certainly remember Liberal Jews being absolutely disgusted with the massacre in Lebanon under Sharon. There was a lot of handwring at the time about how the Jews possibly commit war crimes given their history…. I was at the time genuinely non-Zionist, by which I mean I was completely indifferent. I didn’t identify with Israel, didn’t feel responsible in the slightest and thus didn’t feel anymore emotion towards it than I do towards the Rabaa Massacre that happened last year. BDS (for Jews) is not the opposite of Zionism, indifference is.

    But those Jews bounced back. Within a few months those very same Jews were raising money for the JNF, helping Russian Jews escape to Israel. That was the wave of renewed Zionism where I first became Zionist. Mostly the handwringers just hated the Begin government, when Shimon Peres became Prime Minister of Israel and Reagan won his 2nd term in a landslide showing America’s deeply troubled soul in their eyes those very handwringers often spoke of how much better America would be if it was more like Israel.

    Say that Iran leaked powerful chemical weapons to Hamas and Hamas killed 40k Israelis in a chemical weapons strike on Tel Aviv. Roger Cohen, Jonathan Chait, Ezra Klein and Peter Beinart would not be cheering that the Palestinians finally managed to be effectual in their resistance. None of them has ever advocated anything remotely like the horrors the end of Zionism would really entail. They just want a Labor government. They aren’t falling in line with policies they oppose. They are objecting to Israel’s policy not Israel’s existence. They don’t hate Israel they hate being identified with Netanyahu.

    • Mooser on August 13, 2014, 1:31 pm

      ” BDS (for Jews) is not the opposite of Zionism, indifference is.”

      Hey, don’t get me wrong, I’m all for indifference, but the problem is that “(for Jews)”,
      indifference is counted as consent. Your consent is assumed. My consent is assumed.
      Not that indifference isn’t a good thing.

      • JeffB on August 13, 2014, 4:35 pm

        @Mooser

        I don’t know your views. We haven’t been on too many threads so you might want to give me the 3 sentence where you stand.

        But yes. If you are indifferent you consent to either option.

      • Mooser on August 13, 2014, 7:09 pm

        “But yes. If you are indifferent you consent to either option.”

        It’s been my experience, that when people know I am Jewish, they assume I am Zionist. It’s often a shock to them to find out I am not, and in many cases, they refuse to believe it.
        I think Zionism makes much of this assumption.
        But believe me, I’m not demanding anything of anybody, I’m perfectly satisfied with an indifference to Zionism. I don’t ask anybody to loath it as I do now.

      • jayn0t on August 14, 2014, 12:05 am

        Mooser says “when people know I am Jewish, they assume I am Zionist”. At one time, I would have said that’s a racist assumption. Today, I’d be more likely to ask “why wouldn’t they think that? why would you call yourself Jewish if you’re not a Zionist?”. How many other kinds of Jewishness are there, and what is the point of identifying with any of them?

    • justicewillprevail on August 13, 2014, 1:38 pm

      You’re right, it’s not bad, it’s ridiculous. Change the monkey, but keep playing the same tune.

    • Jabberwocky on August 14, 2014, 6:46 am

      “None of them has ever advocated anything remotely like the horrors the end of Zionism would really entail”

      There would be no horrors – just one nation from the Med to the River Jordan with equal rights for all and no Jewish supremacist ideology. This is what the alternative was when the Zionists decided on their militaristic pursuit of a Zionist homeland. It is still the only morally acceptable option.

      If they will not accept it then the rest of the group needs to step up (as they are increasingly doing) and state that Zionism does not represent Judaism and that Zionism must be isolated (perhaps initially through BDS) until there is a morally acceptable solution instead of continued murder.

      It worked in South Africa and it can work in the case of Israel.

  22. MHughes976 on August 13, 2014, 10:25 am

    The family analogy isn’t as one-sided as Rosner makes it appear. It’s natural for families to have disputes and for outsiders to have at least some awareness of the problem, though those caught up in disputes may well say that they love one another in spite of everything. At that rate, the love of Western Jewish people for their counterparts in Israel will not stop disputes and reproaches, though it may moderate them. By the same token, the love of Israeli Jewish people for their Western counterparts may moderate or limit, but will definitely not (contra Rosner) abolish their special concern for what the Westerners feel. They would also logically feel concern over the impression made on outsiders, since family disputes are not usually unknown and the fact that some objections are coming from within would add power to them.

  23. Citizen on August 13, 2014, 11:34 am

    All in the family? What about the hired prostitutes?

    Congressional Vote to give Israel $225 million in emergency military aid in early August 2014: House of Representatives: 395 to 8; Senate: 100 to 0.

    The eight courageous dissenters in the House (four Democrats and four Republicans) are: Keith Ellison (D-MN), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Jim Moran (D-VA), Beto O’Rourke (D-TX), Justin Amash (R-MI), Walter Jones (R-NC), Tom Massie (R-KY), and Mark Sanford (R-SC).

  24. seanmcbride on August 13, 2014, 1:02 pm

    JeffB,

    Who are the Anglo-American, Irish-American, German-American or Italian-American equivalents in contemporary American culture and politics of Jewish ethnic and religious nationalists like Bret Stephens, Charles Krauthammer, Dan Senor, David Frum, Dennis Ross, Douglas Feith, Elliott Abrams, Eric Cantor, Fred Hiatt, Haim Saban, Howard Stern, Jeffrey Goldberg, Jennifer Rubin, Joan Rivers, John Podhoretz, Michael Ledeen, Richard Perle, Sheldon Adelson, William Kristol, etc.?

    There are many more strident Jewish nationalists in American public life in the 2010s than there were in the 1960s. Why? Why do their numbers keep expanding and their voices keep becoming more shrill? Why are in they in the forefront of lobbying for never-ending American wars in the Mideast?

    Jewish Zionists should perhaps stop listening to the strange voices in their heads — deprogram themselves — but I think most of them are unable to do so.

    • JeffB on August 13, 2014, 3:22 pm

      Who are the Anglo-American, Irish-American, German-American or Italian-American

      Let’s pick the NYTimes a very Jewish paper. Yet still

      Charles M. Blow — black issues.
      Frank Bruni — Catholics and sexuality
      Gail Collins — women’s issues
      Ross Douthat –WASP issues
      Maureen Dowd — could you get more Irish Catholic? Writes about Catholic issues frequently.

      To have columns there has to be controversy. There is not a global movement in 2014 who want to see Italy conquered by a hostile foreign power and its population either subjugated or expelled. No one is bombing Italy right now. The UN, the EU … are fine with Italy’s borders. No one questions the legitimacy of Italy as an entity. So Italians when they talk ethnicity get to talk about food, religion, sex and sports. Jews would love it if the world would leave Israel alone and American Jews didn’t have to talk about Israel. That will happen but it will take time.

      A better analogy to Israel would be the debate over immigration and America’s relationship with Hispanic Americans. Where I could easily create an infinite list of Hispanic Americans talking about their ethnicity and ethnic issues. Similarly you see it with Black writers because Blacks face the kinds of issues in America that Jews face and faced in Catholic Europe the idea that you can’t be fully: Greek, French, Spanish, … without being Catholic. When you read Florida papers you’d see lots of Cuban americans fretting about cuban issues…

      • seanmcbride on August 13, 2014, 4:24 pm

        JeffB,

        Charles Blow, Frank Bruni, Ross Douthat and Maureen Dowd are not ethnic or religious *nationalists*, or lobbyists for a foreign government that is organized around ethnic and religious *nationalism*.

        Ethnic and religious *nationalism* stands in stark contradiction to fundamental American and modern Western democratic values.

        If Blow, Bruni, Douthat and Dowd did begin promoting their respective ethnic and religious *nationalist* agendas in the mainstream media, the American Jewish establishment would go crazy with outrage and brand them as anti-American.

      • JeffB on August 13, 2014, 4:49 pm

        @seanmcbride

        Ethnic and religious *nationalism* stands in stark contradiction to fundamental American and modern Western democratic values.

        Not really. Most states are ethnic No one is opposed to Ireland being the state of the Irish ethnicity or China being the state for the Chinese ethnicity. America is not an ethnic state itself, neither is Brazil. But that certainly doesn’t mean it opposes ethnic states. And certainly the rests of the Western nations haven’t agreed to dissolve their ethnic states.

        Now it is the case that the European ethnic states often don’t like people’s trying to undergo nation formation especially when that involves border changes even though that’s how they themselves formed. That’s Europeans being hypocrites. It is most certainly not a fundamental value.

        First off the people you are talking about are not ethnic nationalists. If they were they wouldn’t have any problem with what’s going on in Gaza. Ethnic nationalists don’t wring their hands about whether nation formation is a going to damage Israel’s soul. It is because these Jewish writers are not ethnic nationalists that they sound so confused. Israel isn’t part of America.

        f Blow, Bruni, Douthat and Dowd did begin promoting their respective ethnic and religious *nationalist* agendas in the mainstream media, the American Jewish establishment would go crazy with outrage and brand them as anti-American.

        I can disprove that pretty easily. There has been substantial debate since about 1990 regarding Iraq. During that time we’ve had writers support Sunni supremacy (the majority position until the 2nd Clinton term ). We’ve had writers support Shiite supremacy(the current majority position since 2003). We’ve had people like our current vice president argue for dissolving Iraq on ethnic lines. There was no outrage.

      • seanmcbride on August 13, 2014, 5:12 pm

        JeffB,

        Not really. Most states are ethnic.

        Modern Western democratic states are NOT ethnic nationalist states — they are the states of all their citizens, from all ethnic and religious backgrounds.

        Most Zionists fail to comprehend the fundamental differences between civic nationalist states on the one hand and ethnic and religious nationalist states on the other. Their comprehension would improve markedly if the United States and European nations decided to go “Zionist” — to officially define themselves as ethnic and/or religious nationalist states and to define their domestic and foreign policy agendas around that identity. They would be outraged — and they would justly feel threatened.

      • seanmcbride on August 13, 2014, 5:02 pm

        JeffB,

        Once again: who are some prominent black, Hispanic, English, Irish, German, French or Italian ethnic nationalists in American politics and in the American mainstream media? So far you haven’t mentioned any.

        Here are a few prominent Jewish ethnic nationalists in American politics:

        1. Aaron David Miller
        2. Abraham Foxman
        3. Alan Dershowitz
        4. Ari Fleischer
        5. Charles Krauthammer
        6. Dan Senor
        7. David Brooks
        8. David Frum
        9. Dennis Ross
        10. Douglas Feith
        11. Elliott Abrams
        12. Eric Cantor
        13. Fred Hiatt
        14. Haim Saban
        15. Jeffrey Goldberg
        16. Jennifer Rubin
        17. Joe Lieberman
        18. John Podhoretz
        19. Jonah Goldberg
        20. Lanny Davis
        21. Larry Summers
        22. Malcolm Hoenlein
        23. Martin Indyk
        24. Martin Peretz
        25. Michael Bloomberg
        26. Michael Ledeen
        27. Mort Zuckerman
        28. Morton Klein
        29. Rahm Emanuel
        30. Richard Perle
        31. Robert Kagan
        32. Robert Satloff
        33. Sheldon Adelson
        34. Shmuley Boteach
        35. William Kristol
        36. Wolf Blitzer

        Many of them were ringleaders of the Iraq War.

        Jewish nationalists who are preoccupied with Israel are much more conspicuous on the American scene now than they were fifty years ago — in what sense have they assimilated into American culture?

  25. JeffB on August 13, 2014, 2:30 pm

    @seanmcbride

    Well, yes they are — they are fully assimilated into American culture.

    But quite a few American Jews seem to be DIS-assimilating from American culture — moving backward, not forward. The American mainstream media are flooded with the excited opinionating and politicking of Jewish ethnic and religious nationalists, both neoconservative and neoliberal, many of whom are more preoccupied with the interests of Israelis than of Americans.

    I think you are conflating two different things here. Let me just use my family. I’m much more focused on Israel than my grandparents were. But they were much less American than I am.

    My great grandparents grew up in Ukraine and Russia. They spoke Yiddish and Russian natively. Most learned English but Yiddish was often their primary language. They lived in Jewish ghettos, and primarily socialized with Jews. They loved American and wanted their children to be American but they themselves were not.

    My grandparents spoke fluent Yiddish as a 2nd language. They had gone to American public schools and had only a few scattered memories of Europe. They lived in mixed neighborhoods with a heavy Jewish population. They were completely at ease with other American minorities but still had a strong Jewish identity.

    My parents grew up in these Jewish mixed neighborhoods mostly being close friends with other Jewish kids though they had lots of non-Jewish friends. They had American Christian culture, and had to go to go synagogues where they got Baptist / Jewish hybrid religion to try and maintain the Jewish aspects of their life. They felt comfortable living in places where there wasn’t a strong Jewish presence though mostly lived where there was one. While they can understand most yiddish they are only capable of speaking pigeon yiddish.

    I went to Hebrew school and got a decent Jewish education. My parents needed to focus on that because without it I would have been entirely American Christian. I’ve lived in places where there were few Jews. I married Jewish but I could have married a gentile women I dated for 5 years and was engaged to. I got synagogue related activities a 1/2 dozen times a year. I have a weak Jewish identity, and culturally am entirely American. I know a few hundred yiddish words. I have entirely American politics. OTOH I do identify with Israel. I lived in LA at the time 9/11 happened but I still understood it as an attack on me and in the same way I view BDS as an attack on me. Even though in neither case I do live in the specific place being attacked. On foreign policy I have about a dozen things that meaningfully influence my vote one of them is that Israel should be treated the same as France or China in particular be given full autonomy to govern itself and act in its people’s interest without outside interfere. I don’t see that as “going backwards”. I’m not nearly as Jewish and unassimilated as either my great-grandparents or grandparents or parents. Given your last name you probably don’t remember 1st or 1st 1/2 generation immigrants in your family but the difference between them and people who have some vague tribal loyalty is huge.

    I remember during the 1980s when Irish people used to pretty openly raise money for the IRA. Which was directly opposed to USA foreign policy. No one considered that to be a sign that the Irish were disassimilating .

    My daughter goes to a school where Jews are a fraction of the population. Mostly she hangs with the Asian kids not the Jewish kids. Compared to her first and 2nd generation Asian friends she’s very Jewish but compared even to me she is far less so. OTOH when she heard the 3rd witch in Macbeth throw
    Root of hemlock digg’d i’ the dark,
    Liver of blaspheming Jew,
    Gall of goat, and slips of yew
    Sliver’d in the moon’s eclipse,

    into the cauldron she kind of curled in a defensive crouch. She’s rarely heard anyone with genuinely anti-Semitic views live but when she has she understands the threat to her. When she hears a Taliban or North Korea on the news she understands those people are her enemies, even though they would say they are only opposed to the American government not the American people. She believes that American government for all its flaws is a government of the people for the people and those opposed to it are opposed to her. There is no real difference in extending that to anti-Semities / anti-Zionists.

    sort ethnic groups by number of ethnocentric op-ed articles by members in the New York Times and Washington Post for the past two decades
    Which group do you think would rank at the top of the list?

    Blacks. Probably followed by Hispanics. Then likely European expats. Probably Irish and Italian Americans come next. Let’s say Jews are about 8th on the list.

    What is going on? Do you have any ideas? And where is this going? What’s the endgame from the Zionist perspective?

    The endgame from a Zionist perspective is that Israel becomes just another country with no particular interest at all. Israel is for Israelis the same way France is for the French, Argentina for the Argentinians and China for the Chinese. Nobody continues to talk about the Sui dynasty’s joining of south and north China were legitimate or not. Or whether China should or should not have internationally recognized borders. They simply accept China. The end goal of Zionism is that same sort of untroubled existence where a statement that Israel is the home of the Jewish people is met with an indifferent shrug.

    • eljay on August 13, 2014, 3:34 pm

      >> JeffBeee: On foreign policy I have about a dozen things that meaningfully influence my vote one of them is that Israel should be treated the same as France or China in particular be given full autonomy to govern itself and act in its people’s interest without outside interfere.

      1. Israel’s people being its Israeli citizens, immigrants, ex-pats and refugees. I agree.
      2. As long as Israel continues to operate outside of its / Partition borders, outside interference is required.

      >> … The endgame from a Zionist perspective is that Israel becomes just another country with no particular interest at all. Israel is for Israelis the same way France is for the French, Argentina for the Argentinians and China for the Chinese. … The end goal of Zionism is that same sort of untroubled existence where a statement that Israel is the home of the Jewish people is met with an indifferent shrug.

      I like how, in one paragraph, Israel goes from being an innocuous “Israel is for Israelis” right back to a supremacist “Israel is the home of the Jewish people”.

      Those Zio-supremacist never stop trying…

      • JeffB on August 13, 2014, 4:59 pm

        Eljay

        I like how, in one paragraph, Israel goes from being an innocuous “Israel is for Israelis” right back to a supremacist “Israel is the home of the Jewish people”.

        You missed that those were the answer to two different questions. One was my opinion one was about mainstream Zionism.

        I’m heading to London next week who also shockingly believe the UK should be governed by a government elected by the people of the UK to act for the benefit of the people of the UK. We can call them UK supremacists. Or we can just use normal language and say they are people who believe in self determination.

      • seanmcbride on August 13, 2014, 5:40 pm

        JeffB,

        I’m heading to London next week who also shockingly believe the UK should be governed by a government elected by the people of the UK to act for the benefit of the people of the UK. We can call them UK supremacists. Or we can just use normal language and say they are people who believe in self determination.

        Once again, you reveal a baffling lack of comprehension of the critical differences between civic nationalism on the one hand and ethnic and religious nationalism on the other.

        The “people of the UK” consists of individuals from all ethnic and religious backgrounds who are citizens of the UK.

        Why is this distinction so difficult for Zionists to understand? I think the problem is that they are determined *not* to understand the distinction — to understand it would delegitimize their entire project.

        If the UK became aggressive about promoting an Anglo-Christian agenda as official British policy, you and other Zionists would probably finally understand the distinction.

        In the meantime, many Americans and Europeans are writing off Zionists as people with whom one can hold a rational and sane conversation — there is really no basis for meaningful communication.

      • jayn0t on August 14, 2014, 12:19 am

        seanmcbride: “If the UK became aggressive about promoting an Anglo-Christian agenda as official British policy, you and other Zionists would probably finally understand the distinction.” No, they wouldn’t. They see the Anglo-Christian agenda as ‘hate’ and ‘racism’.

      • eljay on August 13, 2014, 6:16 pm

        >> JeffBeee: I’m heading to London next week who also shockingly believe the UK should be governed by a government elected by the people of the UK to act for the benefit of the people of the UK.

        There’s nothing shocking about that, and if Israelis were to elect governments that acted for the benefit of all Israeli citizens, immigrants, ex-pats and refugees, equally – rather than primarily for the benefit of Jewish Israelis and non-Israeli Jews – there would be nothing shocking about that, either.

      • RoHa on August 14, 2014, 4:17 am

        “the UK should be governed by a government elected by the people of the UK to act for the benefit of the people of the UK. ”

        I believe Clem Attlee tried that. It didn’t last, though.

    • seanmcbride on August 13, 2014, 3:45 pm

      JeffB,

      I wrote:

      sort ethnic groups by number of ethnocentric op-ed articles by members in the New York Times and Washington Post for the past two decades

      Which group do you think would rank at the top of the list?

      You responded:

      Blacks. Probably followed by Hispanics.

      I can’t think of a single writer for the The New York Times or Washington Post who is a black or Hispanic nationalist and who has lobbied for American wars on behalf of a foreign black or Hispanic ethnic nationalist state.

      Who is the black or Hispanic equivalent of Charles Krauthammer or David Brooks at the New York Times or Washington Post?

      Nor can I think of a single writer at those publications who is an obsessed lobbyist for any European ethnic nationalist movement.

      Jewish ethnic and religious nationalists abound in the mainstream media — they led the charge for the Iraq War — no other ethnic group comes even close for conspicuous visibility in contemporary American culture and politics.

      • JeffB on August 13, 2014, 5:00 pm

        @Sean

        Jewish ethnic and religious nationalists abound in the mainstream media — they led the charge for the Iraq War

        Jews were split on the Iraq war. The group that led the charge for the Iraq war were evangelicals. Let’s deal with reality here.

      • James Canning on August 13, 2014, 5:35 pm

        Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon played key role in duping George W. Bush to set up the idiotic US invasion of Iraq. Most officials in that Office were Jews.

      • seanmcbride on August 13, 2014, 5:48 pm

        JeffB,

        Jews were split on the Iraq war. The group that led the charge for the Iraq war were evangelicals. Let’s deal with reality here.

        The neoconservative policy centers which engineered the Iraq War — AEI, PNAC, JINSA, CSP and many others — were dominated by Jewish neoconservatives — not evangelicals. Again, it is easy to serve up lists of the lead players in the drive behind the Iraq War along with their ethnic and religious affiliations.

        Some of those lead players: Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, Abram Shulsky, Eliot Cohen, David Wurmser, etc. All of them are Jewish nationalists with strong ties to Israel.

      • JeffB on August 13, 2014, 6:21 pm

        @Sean —

        George W Bush — president, Evangelical
        Dick Cheney — powerful vice president, Methodist
        Donald Rumsfeld — Sec Defense, Congregationalist
        Colin Powell — Sec State, Episcopalian
        Condoleezza Rice — National Security Advisor, Presbyterian
        etc…

        Something like 60% of the American population supported war with Iraq. If even 10% of Jews did that’s 500k Jews. So I don’t doubt you can list the names of Jewish supporters. But that doesn’t make it a Jewish war.

        The Neo Conservative Centers you are talking about were moderately influential lobbying groups. If I went through AEI positions and listed them out most of them are not in-acted into law. They just don’t have that much pull. The people with the cool sounding titles are in fact the people in charge of stuff. There is no secret conspiracy. The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 was pushed by Bill Clinton (President at the time, Baptist) which made regime change the USA policy towards Iraq. We then elected a president who thought it was a good idea. And then Saddam after Bush’s “with us or against us” speech decided to press his luck.

        The Iraqi war was discussed for a long time and the people who led the charge were the elected government of the United States.

        ___

        Now the one thing you can say about Jews is that the peace movement was ineffectual. And that was mainly because of Jews.

        1) Jews who normally would be opposed because of Saddam’s support for the suicide bombings weren’t opposed.

        2) The peace movement in the lead up to the Iraq war took a pro-Palestinian position at the time (i.e. the cause of Islamic stress at America was Israel) so Jews in the peace movement felt uncomfortable and distanced themselves.

        Jews were much less supportive of this war than evangelicals. They were much less supportive than almost any other subgroup of Americans. They were much more supportive than they normally would be because Saddam was anti-Israel. If you want to start saying that Jews are acting against America’s interests based on secret government conspiracies then it is like discussing politics with LaRouche’s guys who blame everything on the British Monarchy’s secret control.

        Yes I agree there are large groups of Americans who hold those conspiracy views about Jews. They are in your bible. And ultimately the fact that you consider these plausible is one of the reasons that Jews will never let Israel fall. But in the real world, the people who decided to go to war in Iraq were a bunch of Protestants and it was about oil. A business which BTW Jews are strongly underrepresented in.

    • seanmcbride on August 13, 2014, 3:57 pm

      JeffB,

      The endgame from a Zionist perspective is that Israel becomes just another country with no particular interest at all.

      The end goal of Zionism is that same sort of untroubled existence where a statement that Israel is the home of the Jewish people is met with an indifferent shrug.

      But clearly Israel, contrary to Theodor Herzl’s expectations, has become an increasingly abnormal and controversial nation with each passing decade, in ever-escalating conflict with the entire world — including Europe and the United States.

      Religious Zionism increasingly dominates Zionism as a whole and there are messianic and apocalyptic elements of that ideology — in both the Jewish and Christian Zionist traditions — which make it likely that the climax of the Zionist experiment/project will be a vast explosion. Most religious Zionists have no interest in being normal people — they believe that they are special and exceptional — on a mission from God.

      Your views on Zionism may be reasonable — but people like you do not control the Israeli government or the Israel lobby. You exert no influence over messianic Greater Israelists in the pro-Israel community.

      • JeffB on August 13, 2014, 5:54 pm

        @Sean

        But clearly Israel, contrary to Theodor Herzl’s expectations, has become an increasingly abnormal and controversial nation with each passing decade,

        I don’t see that. I see it become less controversial with each passing decade. Israel’s status in 2014 is better diplomatically then it is has ever been by far. They just launched a brutal campaign against the Palestinians and had the Egyptians (the former protectors of the Palestinians) and Saudi Arabia egging them on. 2004 they had diplomatic relationship and trade far greater than 1994. Etc… going back all the way to the 1880s.

        in ever-escalating conflict with the entire world — including Europe and the United States.

        What ever-escalating conflict? They haven’t had a war with a foreign country besides Lebanon since 1973. The USA is closer to Israel than it has ever been. Europe is arguably closer than it has ever been.

        Most religious Zionists have no interest in being normal people — they believe that they are special and exceptional — on a mission from God.

        All religious people believe they are on missions from God. So what?

        You exert no influence over messianic Greater Israelists in the pro-Israel community.

        Are you concerned about apocalyptic thinking or greater Israel? Those aren’t the same thing. If you are concerned of course the seculars Israelis have ways of exerting influence. They control most of the financial resources of Israel. They hold many of the governmental slots and they comprise well over 1/2 the population. They are currently unifying the education system to increase assimilation. Mandatory service is being expanded to the religious.

        The division between secular and religious parties is disappearing and so the religious are being brought into the mainstream.

        What is the Irish version of AIPAC in the Democratic and Republican Parties?

        The North Eastern Democratic party was the Catholic party! The equivalent of AIPAC is the Democratic party. That’s the difference between 100m strong and 5m strong. They don’t have to lobby. The same way gun owners have a powerful lobby (the NRA) while food eaters don’t need a lobby.

        Count up the number of angry exchanges between Jewish and non-Jewish Americans over Jewish nationalist issues in the comment sections of leading publications on the Web — you will find many thousands of such comments, with a great deal of verbal abuse being directed by Jews against non-Jews over Israeli issues. Sure looks like disassimilation to me.

        How does that number compare with say comments sections on the web between supporters of various football teams? Or say pro-choicers vs. prolifers?

        Look at all the angry and abusive remarks that have been directed at Barack Obama and John Kerry by American Jewish nationalists over the last year.

        As contrasted with say the angry and abusive remarks from birthers, people opposed to the Patient Protection Act, people ticked off about the Veterans affairs department, people mad about the NSA, people angry about Solyndra….

        Jews overwhelming vote Democratic. When Kerry and Obama act against Jewish interests they get critiqued. When Obama acted against Catholic perceived interests with birth control he got critiqued. When Obama acted against gun owners he gets critiqued. When Obama acted either for or against hispanics he got critiqued. Big deal that’s how the system is supposed to work. Obama is not a dictator. If people disagree with his policies they are free to express that disagreement.

        This behavior is noticed and remembered by many Americans.

        I doubt it. There aren’t many Americans except Jews for whom Israel is a major voting issue. The other main group for whom it is are evangelicals and they are usually well to the right of Jews on Israel. The disagreements on other issues are far louder.

        Now it is true that foreign policy liberals who normally can count of Jews being in their camp are notice that Jews start sounding like Republicans when the issue becomes Israel. And if they remember that good. They should take a look at France where the French left pushed the Jews into the hands of the right in the 1990s and 00s. They should remember their history on other issues like the race riots of the 1960s where blacks attacked the Jews who had been the previous generation living in the ghettos and still owned many of the business. Jews today are thought of as white and generally wealthy. They are liberal because liberal politics is a Jewish hobby part of the Jewish identity. If they voted like Christian Americans with the same racial, economic makeup they would break about 2/3rds Republican rather than being the most liberal minority in America.

        Democrats are shy about guns because they know democratic gun owners will jump ship over the gun issue. Republicans are often shy about women’s issues because they know Republican women can flip to the other side over these issues. I don’t think it is a bad thing at all if Liberals understand what mainstream Democrats understand, that Israel is one of the few issues that can get Jews to vote Republican.

        Jews are:
        2% of the population
        4% of the electorate
        10% of liberals
        25% of liberal donors and activists

        Liberals shouldn’t want to lose that group over a BS foreign policy issue. If they take note of that fact, good.

      • seanmcbride on August 13, 2014, 6:17 pm

        JeffB,

        The North Eastern Democratic party was the Catholic party! The equivalent of AIPAC is the Democratic party.

        What American wars have Irish nationalists in the Democratic Party instigated on behalf of Irish nationalism? How much American financial and military aid have they channeled to Ireland over the years? How many ugly arguments are they embroiled in with their fellow Americans over Irish nationalist issues? How many leading Democrats mention Ireland at all?

        Your analogy/argument doesn’t make any sense — it is not lined up with the real world.

        I am still waiting for your list of prominent non-Jewish ethnic nationalists in American politics — black, Hispanic, English, Irish, German, etc. I provided you with a list of 36 prominent Jewish nationalists who are blaring their narrow message in the mainstream media on a daily basis — there are hundreds more who could be named.

      • RoHa on August 14, 2014, 4:35 am

        NORAID, etc., collected lots of money from Irish people hiding in the US and from Americans who pretended they were Irish because an ancestor came from Ireland, but that wasn’t US government money.

        How many high-ups in the US government have dual US/Irish citizenship?

      • seanmcbride on August 13, 2014, 7:07 pm

        JeffB,

        The USA is closer to Israel than it has ever been. Europe is arguably closer than it has ever been.

        The American government has been subjected to abusive attacks from the highest levels of the Israeli government in recent months — the US/Israeli relationship is closer than it has ever been? And have you taken the trouble to browse the torrent of anti-American hate speech coming from Israelis in the comment sections of Israeli publications?

        In a BBC poll from last year, Israel ranked among the world’s least popular nations:

        “BBC World Survey Ranks Israel Near Bottom in Global Popularity”
        http://spectator.org/blog/53879/bbc-world-survey-ranks-israel-near-bottom-global-popularity

        So how is that Herzlian dream of “normality” working out?

      • jayn0t on August 14, 2014, 12:34 am

        “JeffB” has a point. The phrase “led the charge” is too vague to use to pin down the real movers behind the Iraq catastrophe. Among the most influential advocates of that war, Jews are massively overrepresented. But so what? They were just expressing their opinion – “we think you should send your sons to die for Israel”. What matters is interests. The Iraq war was in the interests of the Jewish neocons Frum, Feith, Abrams etc.. It was not in the interests of 60% of Americans. They were suckers.

    • seanmcbride on August 13, 2014, 4:14 pm

      JeffB,

      Truly assimilated Americans are not ethnic or religious nationalists nor do they lobby the United States to prosecute endless wars on behalf of their narrow ethnic or religious nationalism and the agenda and interests of a foreign government.

      I remember during the 1980s when Irish people used to pretty openly raise money for the IRA. Which was directly opposed to USA foreign policy. No one considered that to be a sign that the Irish were disassimilating .

      Irish nationalism has played a relatively small role in American politics for the last half century compared to Jewish nationalism. What is the Irish version of AIPAC in the Democratic and Republican Parties?

      Count up the number of Irish nationalist articles that have been published in the New York Times and Washington Post during that period — very few — and compare it to the number of Jewish nationalist articles — many hundreds.

      Count up the number of angry exchanges between Jewish and non-Jewish Americans over Jewish nationalist issues in the comment sections of leading publications on the Web — you will find many thousands of such comments, with a great deal of verbal abuse being directed by Jews against non-Jews over Israeli issues. Sure looks like disassimilation to me. Look at all the angry and abusive remarks that have been directed at Barack Obama and John Kerry by American Jewish nationalists over the last year. This behavior is noticed and remembered by many Americans.

      • Citizen on August 13, 2014, 5:33 pm

        Did the IRA ever get an annual giant chunk of foreign aid from US? Did Ireland? How does that fit in here?

    • Mooser on August 13, 2014, 7:15 pm

      “The end goal of Zionism is that same sort of untroubled existence where a statement that Israel is the home of the Jewish people is met with an indifferent shrug.”

      Hey, thanks, Jeff B! I always wondered what Israel is working towards when it murders all those Gazans, won’t declare where its borders are, and settles people in stolen land. I always wondered, “what on earth are they trying to accomplish?” But I guess now I know, huh? Sure, that must be it! What else could they be doing?

      Why don’t you take that grade-school hasbara and stuff it.

      • JeffB on August 13, 2014, 10:18 pm

        @Mooser

        I always wondered what Israel is working towards

        I’ll help

        when it murders all those Gazans

        Well it appears they were trying to clear a 3km buffer near the fence. So either they wanted them more concentrated or they wanted something like a DMZ. We’ll know what the buffer was for over the next few years.

        won’t declare where its borders are

        The borders are Mandate Palestine X-Gaza.

        settles people in stolen land.

        Get land under the control of a friendly population and away from a hostile population. Also, governments can’t steal on their territory it is definitionally impossible. All the land in Israel is the ultimately the Israeli governments. They can reallocate resources. And that’s what they are doing.

    • Mooser on August 13, 2014, 7:18 pm

      We have got to ban that Anti-Semitic Shakespeare! He nearly killed that little girl.

  26. JeffB on August 13, 2014, 6:37 pm

    @Citizen

    Did the IRA ever get an annual giant chunk of foreign aid from US?

    Yes. From the 1850s onward many of the Irish political groups in the United States called themselves Irish Republican Brotherhood. 1916-1920 they poured money into Ireland in support of the civil war while the British were otherwise occupied. Most Brits and IRA members acknowledged the majority of the IRA’s budget in the 1980s came from America. The American Irish Foundation was founded by a Massachusetts politician by the name of John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Tip O’Neill whip, majority leader then speaker ’71-87 was very critical publicly of British policy and shifted the USA public discourse on the IRA even though the IRA was supporting all sorts of other leftwing causes the USA opposed. On particularly bad days during the 1980s Irish bars used to have drinks called “car bomb” and “kill a brit” where the cost of the drink was put off the the side.

    Yes the funding came from the USA. Yes the IRA had the support of Irish Americans.

    • lysias on August 13, 2014, 6:47 pm

      Donations by private U.S. persons does not constitute foreign aid from the U.S., as that term is normally understood.

      • JeffB on August 13, 2014, 6:50 pm

        @lysias

        My discussion with Sean was about Irish support. Not American government support. The USA was always a British ally after the Spanish American war and thus officially on the British side.

      • just on August 13, 2014, 6:58 pm

        Some people just don’t want to understand the difference…

      • Philemon on August 13, 2014, 8:16 pm

        Oh, JeffB understands the difference. He was deliberately equivocating.

        Just as he equivocated above about all the Israeli-firsters in the Office of Special Plans manufacturing intelligence about WMDs and Nigerian uranium, and the Zionist policy wonks coming up with the plans, with “popular support” for the 2003 Iraq war. Oh, and Big Oil, of course, because we know they are all powerful. /sarc/

        Popular support was never a driving force, as most Americans were opposed to the damn thing and didn’t shift until it was well underway, when they hoped it would be over soon. Of course, by the time of Fallujah, “popular support” (and those polls weren’t exactly unbiased) was waning sharply.

        In case you didn’t make it to the end of JeffB’s screed up there, it’s just all those anti-semitic conspiracy nuts who noticed all the AIPAC/Israel lobby efforts to lie the U.S. into a war that no one seemed to want except Israel supporters:

        JeffB: “Yes I agree there are large groups of Americans who hold those conspiracy views about Jews. They are in your bible. And ultimately the fact that you consider these plausible is one of the reasons that Jews will never let Israel fall. But in the real world, the people who decided to go to war in Iraq were a bunch of Protestants and it was about oil. A business which BTW Jews are strongly underrepresented in.”

        You gotta love the guy for mentioning “your bible”! Any Dispensationalists here, raise your hands. None?

        And, wow, I never knew that Jews were “strongly underrepresented” in the oil business. No Jewish geologists? They’re noticeably less than 2% of employees? Or maybe JeffB means they aren’t as well represented as they are in, say, Hollywood or the Supreme Court? The Federal Reserve? The New York Times?

        Talking about Northern Ireland, Israelis and their Zionist fellow-travelers should really pay attention to it as a model for securing peace. Of course, it helped that the British didn’t blockade, bomb and shell the Bogside and the Falls Road. The Brits also abandoned internment. Israel could try that! Just a thought.

        And if you want to bring up U.S. citizens’ contributions to the IRA/Sinn Féin, well, why can’t U.S. citizens contribute to either the political or military wing of Hamas? Fair’s fair.

      • JeffB on August 13, 2014, 11:20 pm

        @Philemon

        Americans were opposed to the damn thing and didn’t shift until it was well underway

        In the year leading up to the war 59-64% favor
        31-38% opposed
        http://www.gallup.com/poll/7990/public-support-iraq-invasion-inches-upward.aspx

        That’s a 25% better for favoring. No Americans were not opposed. You are right that immediately after it started support went even higher;

        The war started March 20th 2003.
        March 24 2003 Americans were polled:
        75% in favor
        23% opposed
        2% undecided

        And the reason for that was the early successes.
        At the time when asked how the war was going:
        21% Very well
        64% well
        12% moderately well
        2% badly
        1% very badly

        But just to prove the point. 3 years earlier when asked to evaluate Iraq:
        2% ally; 8% friendly; 39% unfriendly; 47% enemy; 4% no opinion

        Office of Special Plans manufacturing intelligence about WMDs and Nigerian uranium,

        The person most responsible for Nigerian Uranium spoof was Scooter Libby a WASP.

        Of course, by the time of Fallujah, “popular support” (and those polls weren’t exactly unbiased) was waning sharply.

        Really. After Fallujay support was 72/27 down just 3% from the all time high. You wouldn’t have stable majority opposition until Aug 2005.
        http://www.gallup.com/poll/1633/iraq.aspx

        They’re noticeably less than 2% of employees?

        Yes Jews are less than 2% of oil company employees.

        why can’t U.S. citizens contribute to either the political or military wing of Hamas? Fair’s fair.

        Because unlike the IRA Hamas has gone after Americans:
        Yitzhak Weinstock, Nachshon Wachsman, Scot Doberstein. Eric Goldberg, Joan Davenny. Tons in bus bombings…. and then quite a few more since 1996.

        In 1997 (February 23, 1997) a Hamas affiliated person conducted an attack in the USA proper. August 9, 2001 they attacked a USA owned pizza chain killing a bunch of Americans along with Israelis. October 15, 2003 Hamas based attack on American diplomats: John Branchizio, Mark Parson and John Martin Linde. Etc…. The USA considers Hamas to be an enemy not just of Israel.

      • seanmcbride on August 14, 2014, 9:55 am

        JeffB,

        The person most responsible for Nigerian Uranium spoof was Scooter Libby a WASP.

        Wrong: Scooter Libby is Jewish, not a WASP, and he was a key member of the group of mostly Jewish neoconservatives — “the JINSA crowd” — that engineered the Iraq War in the Bush 43 administration, along with Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Abram Shulsky and many others.

        See Wikipedia:

        Libby was born to an affluent Jewish family in New Haven, Connecticut; his late father, Irving Lewis Liebowitz, was an investment banker.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scooter_Libby

      • seanmcbride on August 14, 2014, 10:06 am

        JeffB,

        By any reasonable measure: Iraq, Afghanistan are #1 and #2. After that South Korea.

        How many Iraqi, Afghan and Korean ethnic nationalists within the American political system are responsible for engineering these high levels of aid to those respective nations? None.

        Americans are spending a fortune in Iraq and Afghanistan as the result of the grand neoconservative plan to destabilize and break up power blocs that the Israeli government and pro-Israel activists see as a threat to Israel and Zionism. Google into Oded Yinon and the Clean Break paper for the details.

        From a strategic perspective, US aid to Egypt, Iraq and Afghanistan should really be filed under US aid to Israel. The Israel lobby has used US aid to Egypt to defuse and defang its opposition to Israel. We keep pumping money into Iraq and Afghanistan to support the delusional belief that the neocon wars against those nations have been a success — when in fact they have been crushing failures and foreign policy disasters.

    • seanmcbride on August 13, 2014, 6:56 pm

      JeffB,

      Yes the funding came from the USA. Yes the IRA had the support of Irish Americans.

      And how much financial and military aid has Ireland received from the US government over the past half century? What prominent Irish nationalists can you name in the mainstream media?

      See this:

      [Top 10 US foreign aid recipients for 2008 and 2012 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/fullpage/top-10-us-foreign-aid-recipients-17534761 ]

      Israel ranks number 1 on the list for both years — Ireland doesn’t appear on the list.

      • JeffB on August 13, 2014, 10:33 pm

        @Sean

        And how much financial and military aid has Ireland received from the US government over the past half century?

        Very little. But notice how you have to keep narrowing and narrowing and narrowing your comparison.

        As for top recipient. By any reasonable measure: Iraq, Afghanistan are #1 and #2. After that South Korea. It is only by playing the same game of excluding most forms of aide like bases and direct troop deployments that Israel comes out on top. Also this is a weapons procurement deal. Most of the money (75%) has to be spent on USA arms. I’m not sure why having USA troops carrying USA arms is carried at 0 while having Israeli troops carrying Israeli arms is carried at the retail price of those arms. That seems like very strange accounting.

        Anyway Israel would love the USA to stop meddling. Naftali Bennett ran on a package of 0 military aide in exchange for the USA giving Israel a totally free hand. I’d fully support that.

    • jayn0t on August 14, 2014, 1:39 am

      JeffB’s comments about Americans and the IRA prove the opposite of what he intends. When George Mitchell told the British government, on behalf of the American government, to talk to the IRA, they did. When he tried the same thing in Israel, the opposite happened. Ted Kennedy supported the IRA. The Brits could do nothing about it. Whereas American politicians are fired for the slightest hint of deviation from groveling to the Jewish state. The relationships of Britain and Israel to the USA are exactly opposite: the dog wags the tail, and the tail wags the dog.

  27. seanmcbride on August 13, 2014, 6:44 pm

    JeffB,

    The Neo Conservative Centers you are talking about were moderately influential lobbying groups.

    They were the lead groups in promoting the Iraq War, the most influential groups by far, and members of those groups dominated the Bush 43 administration.

    Colin Powell himself, who had a front seat at these proceedings, laid the blame for the Iraq War on “the JINSA crowd” — this network of neoconservative groups.

    It is easy to Google into all the gory details on this issue:

    [Google; iraq war neoconservatives http://www.google.com/#q=iraq+war+neoconservatives ]

    The top 25 Google hits will turn up all the key data.

    Then Google into the role of Israel in driving the neoconservative agenda:

    [Google; neoconservatives israel http://www.google.com/#q=neoconservatives+israel ]

    • JeffB on August 13, 2014, 10:48 pm

      @Sean

      Colin Powell himself, who had a front seat at these proceedings, laid the blame for the Iraq War on “the JINSA crowd” — this network of neoconservative groups.

      Yeah that’s believable. The JINSA crowd were the ones who dress up and Powell and went before the UN and lie. It was JINSA that caused him to ignore his own staff who found dozens of factual problems in his speech. The JINSA crowd’s lookalike Powell was the one who went on television week after week after week to defend obviously fraudulent sources. I’m guessing it was some JINSA guy that went before a closed door session of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to back the Bush administration intimidating CIA officers about the Nigerian Uranian leaks. And I’m guessing s JINSA kidnapped him so he didn’t go to Congress and testify under oath about how he had been lied to. The JINSA crowd were the ones who still wearing their Powell disguise flew all over the world trying to get extra support for Iraq.

      And I’m guessing it was JINSA that when he resigned caused him to keep his mouth shut until after the 2008 election about all that went on.

      ___

      Now in point of fact in his book he clearly lays the blame on Cheney. JINSA is not supportable. Powell doesn’t like the fact that he did it.

      • seanmcbride on August 14, 2014, 10:25 am

        JeffB,

        Regarding “the JINSA crowd” (JINSA=Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs):

        Secretary of State Colin Powell’s Chief of Staff (2001-2005), Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, makes taboo-statements on the role of the neocons and Israel in bringing about the war on Iraq in the following video. “Tyranny & Politics of Fear, Loyalty to Israel vs. US.”

        Wilkerson’s statements about the neocons and Israel are largely based on his own direct experience as a member of the Bush administration. Wilkerson has made similar statements before and I include some of them in my book, “The Transparent Cabal.”

        For example, “A lot of these guys, including Wurmser, I looked at as card-carrying members of the Likud party, as I did with Feith. You wouldn’t open their wallet and find a card, but I often wondered if their primary allegiance was to their own country or to Israel. That was the thing that troubled me, because there was so much that they said and did that looked like it was more reflective of Israel’s interest than our own.” (T.C., p. 120)

        http://home.comcast.net/~transparentcabal/article18.html

        Regarding the oil factor:

        Finally, we have the oil argument. Wilkerson states the obvious in pointing out that Iraq has oil reserves. He does not show how particular individuals involved in the oil business lobbied for war. As I point out in my Chapter 18 of my book, the oil companies, instead of pushing for war, sought to eliminate sanctions on Iraq in 2001. Moreover, they have not shown much interest in acquiring leases that the current Iraq government has auctioned off, which have almost completely gone to non-American oil companies. American oil companies, American business in general, and the US government is certainly concerned about Middle Eastern oil, but that does not mean that they advocate US wars in this region. Actually, the oil factor is often a reason that peace and stability are sought.

        Regarding Israeli and neocon agitation for an American war against Iran:

        It should also be emphasized that the neocons are also pushing for war on Iran. The overall Israel lobby and the government of Israel had been supportive of the war on Iraq, but stayed largely in the background. Both these groups are much more openly supporting a war on Iran. That both wars have been pushed by supporters of Israel and have the support of the government of Israel should indicate that these factors are the most important motivation war in the Middle East. It is hard to see how bombing Iran, which is likely to greatly impede the transport of oil, would help the US to control oil in the region. Bombing Iran would not involve US occupation, so it is hard to believe how bombing a country would make its government or its inhabitants more favorable to American oil interests.

      • Jabberwocky on August 14, 2014, 11:14 am

        Sean,

        Just one point. Israel was very much pushing for the war in Iraq and Netanyahu published a famous article stating the case:

        http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=22400

        He was also instrumental in “A Clean Break” – put together with the help of American Zionists:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm

        Destabilizing Israel’s neighbors was a major thrust and it is not co-incidence that we have the chaos in Iraq and Syria.

  28. JeffB on August 13, 2014, 7:03 pm

    @Sean

    I’ve tried posting that list of Hispanics twice. Not sure what’s happening. But you are now limiting the conversation from a discussion of ethnic groups discussing their particular ethnic which is common, to one particular issue that you are defining so narrowly that it only could apply to Jews. If you want to say that Jews are the most prominent group of ethnic Americans supporting a state that Liberals don’t like based on some ethnic bond. Yeah that’s true.

    If the UK became aggressive about promoting an Anglo-Christian agenda as official British policy, you and other Zionists would probably finally understand the distinction.

    What do you think the British empire was but an organization to promote the Anglo-Christian agenda?

    If you exclude the discussion of the Palestinians (effectively a hostile invading force, even though they were there first) then Israel is a state for all its people. The Palestinians aren’t willing to be Israeli that’s what the fight is about. They won’t live under Israeli law, they won’t go to Israeli schools, they won’t speak the Israeli language, they won’t participate in the Israeli economy…. They reject the state they live in. They want their own state complete free of Jews, they want large Palestinian minorities to remain in the “Jewish” part and then they want to flood the Jewish part with Syrians, Jordanians, Iraqis and Lebanese. That’s their “peace offer”.

    But when Israel is confronted with minorities who are willing to assimilate they have done so quite successfully the Mizrahi and Sephardic, then the Russian surge including Russian Christians. Israel is not incapable of exactly the same kind of nationalism that exists everywhere else on the planet. They just happen to currently have a large minority group that doesn’t want to be Israeli.

    No state tolerates an invading population. And that’s what Israel is currently faced with, a group of people that are effectively invaders.

    • seanmcbride on August 13, 2014, 9:56 pm

      JeffB,

      I’ve tried posting that list of Hispanics twice. Not sure what’s happening.

      In your reply to this comment, please list the names of non-Jewish ethnic nationalists from any ethnic group that are prominent in American politics and the mainstream media, and who are lobbying for the interests of a foreign ethnic and/or religious nationalist state.

      I am looking for non-Jewish equivalents to the 36 well-known Jewish nationalists I listed in this comment:

      http://mondoweiss.net/2014/08/homeland-unconditional-rosner.html#comment-701248

      What do you think the British empire was but an organization to promote the Anglo-Christian agenda?

      Yes, but Britain abandoned that agenda during the last century. Would you prefer that it revert to defining itself as an aggressive ethno-religious nationalist state — to go “Zionist”? Certainly Zionists would have no grounds on which to object. If ethnic and religious nationalism is “good for the Jews,” it’s good for every other ethnic and religious group on the planet.

      • jayn0t on August 14, 2014, 1:00 am

        seanmcbride – “If ethnic and religious nationalism is “good for the Jews,” it’s good for every other ethnic and religious group on the planet.” If you believe in universal values, it is! But if you’re special – not at all.

      • seanmcbride on August 14, 2014, 9:42 am

        jayn0t,

        “If ethnic and religious nationalism is “good for the Jews,” it’s good for every other ethnic and religious group on the planet.” If you believe in universal values, it is! But if you’re special – not at all.

        Many people have begun to notice that many Zionists believe that Jewish nationalism is the *only* legitimate form of ethno-religious nationalism in the world — all other forms of ethno-religious nationalism are illegitimate or criminal. Certainly to some degree this world model must be grounded in biblical exceptionalism and the religious cult notion that there is a single chosen nation on the planet — all other nations are subordinate to the instrument of God’s will and master plan.

        Liberal Zionists bring these peculiar self-contradictory attitudes into relief — they are strident in preaching universalism in the United States and Europe (which includes the disintegration of traditional non-Jewish ethnic and religious majorities) and strident in defending Jewish ethnic and religious unity and domination in Israel.

        Zionists (including liberal Zionists in the United States in Europe) openly agonize about demographic threats to Jewish domination in Israel — much in the same way that white nationalists like David Duke in the United States or Anders Breivik in Norway agonize about demographic threats to white Christian domination in America and Europe.

        Actually, these attitudes aren’t self-contradictory — they are perfectly consistent. Universalism is “good for the Jews” in the Diaspora (among “the nations”) and Jewish ethno-religious nationalism is “good for the Jews” in Israel (and even in the Diaspora, within “the nations”).

        If WASPs developed the same organizational tools (like the Conference of Presidents and its constituent organizations) to promote and protect their ethnic and religious interests in the United States that the Jewish establishment has developed to promote and protect its ethnic and religious interests, they would of course be branded and attacked by the Jewish establishment as racists.

        This is not a level playing field.

    • Philemon on August 13, 2014, 10:38 pm

      Really, JeffB, the invading population are and have been the Zionists.

    • RoHa on August 14, 2014, 5:45 am

      “What do you think the British empire was but an organization to promote the Anglo-Christian agenda?”

      In the earlier phases, it was more a disorganisation. There was no plan to build and Empire. The various bits of territory were acquired in a variety of different ways. Frequently the man on the spot simply took over and sent a message back to London. (Peccavi!) The trading posts of private companies turned into colonies, sometimes to the annoyance of the British Government.

      Nor was there a single motive. Some of the prominent motives were:

      1. Private profit. Sugar plantations in the West Indies, the Hudson Bay company, the East India company, and so forth were all organized to make rich people richer.

      2. Dish the Frogs. (Always a worthy enterprise.) Confounding French machinations played a major role in gaining India and Canada. I recall reading that when a French diplomat asked a British official how much of Australia Britain claimed, the official (who had only the vaguest idea what or where Australia was) replied instantly “the whole”.

      3. Set up bases and coaling stations for the Royal Navy.

      4. The sheer adventure of it.

      Yes, in the later stages there was a lot of humbug talked about Christianity, and some prominent figures were enthusiastic Christians, but it was never really part of the official agenda.

      Queen Victoria ruled over more Muslims than the Caliph, as well as nearly all the Hindus, Jains, and Sikhs, a goodly number of Buddhists, Taoists, and sundry others. The official (if unspoken) position was that they were all less annoying than Welsh Methodists or Scottish Presbyterians, so let them get on with it. Except for the Thugs.

      The British did promote the English language, the ideas of education for women, Rule of Law, and (oddly, for a despotic empire with a strong racist streak) personal freedom. After profiting from the slave trade in the eighteenth century, Britain became a strong force against slavery in the nineteenth.

      But the Empire was not set up to promote these ideas.

  29. JeffB on August 13, 2014, 10:22 pm

    @Sean

    Aníbal Acevedo-Vila, Governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
    Joe Baca, U.S. congressman
    Herman Badillo, U.S. congressman
    Joan Baez, folk singer and activist
    David Barkley, soldier and Medal of Honor recipient
    Xavier Becerra, U.S. congressman
    Jaime Benítez, Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico
    Ben Garrido Blaz, Delegate from Guam
    Henry Bonilla, U.S. congressman
    Albert Garza Bustamante, U.S. congressman
    Dennis A. Cardoza, U.S. congressman
    José Francisco Chaves, Delegate from the Territory of New Mexico
    Cesar Chavez, labor leader
    Dennis Chavez, U.S. congressman and senator
    Linda Chavez, conservative commentator
    Linda Chavez-Thompson, labor leader
    Henry Cisneros, U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
    Anthony Lee Coelho, U.S. congressman
    Antonio J. Colorado, U.S. congressman
    Jorge Luis Cordova Diaz, U.S. congressman
    Baltasar Corrado-del Rio, U.S. congressman
    Félix Córdova Davila, Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico
    Ron de Lugo, Virgin Islands territorial senator
    Federico Degetau, Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico
    Lincoln Diaz-Balart, U.S. congressman
    Mario Diaz-Balart, U.S. congressman
    Antonio Manuel Fernandez, U.S. congressman
    Joachim Octave Fernandez, U.S. congressman
    Antonio Fernos-Isern, U.S. congressman
    Maurice Ferre, former mayor of Miami
    Jaime B. Fuster, U.S. congressman
    Ernesto Galarza, labor organizer
    Robert Garcia, U.S. congressman
    Alberto Gonzales, U.S. attorney general
    Eligio de la Garza, II, U.S. congressman
    José Manuel Gallegos, U.S. congressman
    Roberto C. Goizueta, businessman
    Charles A. Gonzalez, U.S. congressman
    Henry Barbosa Gonzalez, U.S. congressman
    Raúl M. Grijalva, U.S. congressman
    Luis Vicente Gutierrez, U.S. congressman

    Should I keep going?

    • seanmcbride on August 13, 2014, 10:43 pm

      JeffB,

      Which one of these people you listed are Hispanic ethnic nationalists who have been lobbying for a foreign ethnic nationalist state? Not a single one that I recognize.

      Certainly none of them are equivalent to the Jewish neoconservatives who have been agitating for a series of American wars on behalf of Israeli interests or who have helped enable the transfer of many billions of dollars in American financial and military aid to Israel.

      The issue here is the prominent role of Jewish *nationalists* in American politics who feel a passionate attachment to Israel and Zionism — not Jews in general, many of whom may well feel no involvement with Israeli issues at all.

      Joan Baez equivalent to Richard Perle, Douglas Feith or Sheldon Adelson? — not remotely.

      To be clear on this: Jews and Jewish nationalists are two very distinct and different categories. Many prominent Americans of Irish descent are of course Irish — but most of them are not Irish nationalists.

    • Qualtrough on August 13, 2014, 11:09 pm

      JeffB–I assume most of these politicians are of Mexican descent, either through migration or because borders moved. Assuming that is true for the sake of argument, can you please let us know how many of these politicians have pledged that there should be no daylight between Mexico and the USA when it comes to foreign policy?

    • seanmcbride on August 14, 2014, 12:03 am

      JeffB,

      Regarding comparisons of the Israel and Latino lobbies — what are the Latino equivalents to elements of the Israel lobby mentioned following? (Replace the question marks with the appropriate items.)

      # Israel lobby/Latino lobby
      1. AIPAC/?
      2. CAMERA/?
      3. Commentary Magazine/?
      4. Conference of Presidents/?
      5. Dennis Ross/?
      6. ECI/?
      7. JINSA /?
      8. neoconservatives/?
      9. NJDC/?
      10. NORPAC/?
      11. RJC/?
      12. Weekly Standard/?
      13. William Kristol/?
      14. Zionism/?
      15. ZOA/?

    • jayn0t on August 14, 2014, 1:06 am

      JeffB’s list is simply a collection of politicians with Latino names. They don’t lobby the US government to fund ethnic cleansing on their behalf. The US taxpayer doesn’t send $8m per day to Mexican child-murderers. The USA doesn’t suck up to Hispanic, black, or white ethnic supremacists.

  30. Xpat on August 13, 2014, 11:23 pm

    I have always thought of Israel as family in the sense of a difficult, eternal teenager:
    – Well into his 60s he still demands an annual allowance of several billions dollars a year from his folks.
    – He pretends that he is doing his parents a favor by taking their money.
    – He then tells his folks to shut up with their opinions about how he should or shouldn’t behave.
    – He threatens to go ape shit if anybody tries to stage an intervention.
    – He periodically does go ape shit, starting fights with the neighbors, making the above threat real.
    -He makes up his own rules. He pouts when people point out that these are self-serving and unfair.
    – Nobody can make him see reason, least of all his parents.

  31. Xpat on August 13, 2014, 11:38 pm

    Rosner ends with: “Israel will have to learn to survive without that support, and I’m certain it will.”

    Israel loses the bedrock of its political support in the one country that bankrolls, arms and shields her politically. Israel loses the support of the one group whose friendship justifies its existence as the state of the Jewish people.
    Consequently, the shekel plummets, the Israeli army is left without its main supplier, Israel is exposed at the U.N. and every other international arena. On top of which its mission statement is exposed as a sham.
    Mr. Rosner, why don’t you show us your evidence of how Israel that can survive such a collapse?
    The Times’ editors could have subtitled the piece: From whining narcissism to empty bravado.

  32. Jabberwocky on August 14, 2014, 6:30 am

    Perhaps we should just accept that as ISIS and Al Qaeda are not really Muslims, Zionists are not really Jews. They are a nationalist, racist group that operate under the guise of a religion that many do not really follow.

  33. JeffB on August 14, 2014, 7:48 am

    @James

    Perhaps even higher rates of intermarriage between Jews and non=Jews is the way forward.

    Absolutely it is. If the Palestinians hadn’t been so rejectionist over since the 1920s the population of Israel would have been intermixing for five generations. Even if only 20% intermarried it today would consist mostly of people who were Palestinian Jewish mixed, a majority. There wouldn’t be two nations just one. And there wouldn’t be ethnic conflict.

    Of course instead the Palestinians preach denormalization, which not only aims to present a healthy merger of the nations but attempts to prevent the kinds of healthy human interaction that lead to Israelis developing any positive feelings at all. And after dehumanized themselves to the more powerful tribe “shockingly” the level of violence the soldiers are willing to use to put down Palestinian uprisings skyrockets.

    • just on August 14, 2014, 8:22 am

      I am so overcome with disbelief & laughter @ your absurd post that I cannot really bother to say more than this!

    • tree on August 14, 2014, 8:36 am

      Ah, more blaming the victims from Jeff. Quelle surprise!

      The European Zionists came to Palestine with a sense of superiority, considered the Palestinian natives as savages, set up covenants on the land they bought that prevented non-Jews from working on it, evicted the Palestinian tenant farmers who had rights to live and work the land under the law at the time. They set up kibbutzim that non-Jews, and Arab Jews alike, were barred from joining. They preached a version of ethnic superiority that ranked European Jews above Arab Jews, then Palestinian Arabs, then Bedouins as a physical, spiritual and intellectual hierarchy. They also preached a “conquest of labor” which involved boycotts, sometimes forced, of non-Jewish goods and services, refused to agree to a Palestinian legislative council unless Jews got at least half of the representatives within it, even though Jews were less than a fourth of the population, and in general refused to learn the local language and customs, and talked among themselves of desire to transfer out the native non-Jewish population. And all of this was began BEFORE the 1920’s. The JNF and its covenants were founded in 1901. The second aliyah (1904-1914) is identified with both the “conquest of land” (i.e., removing indigenous tenant farmers) and “conquest of labor” (boycotting Jewish landowners or business owners who hired non-Jewish employees, and boycotting non-Jewish goods). Arthur Ruppin, a eugenicist and sociologist who believed in the superiority of European Jews over Arabs, both Jewish and non-Jewish, became the chief Zionist land agent and the “father of the settlements’ during that period.

      BUT, of course, its all the Palestinians fault for being “rejectionist” by not acquiescing to their own dislocation and failing to welcome their newly arrived self-professed alien overlords.

      • just on August 14, 2014, 9:17 am

        Thanks tree. Whew, JeffB’s post was so laden with the most absurd delusions that maybe it should get a special award.

        (He also forgot to mention that Israel is an Apartheid project.)

    • justicewillprevail on August 14, 2014, 8:37 am

      This is la la land. Jewish immigrants just wanted to party with the Palestinians, but they went off in a huff. Yes, biscuit taken.

    • eljay on August 14, 2014, 8:39 am

      >> If the Palestinians hadn’t been so rejectionist over since the 1920s the population of Israel would have been intermixing for five generations. Even if only 20% intermarried it today would consist mostly of people who were Palestinian Jewish mixed, a majority.

      Palestinian-Israeli mixed. Or maybe even Israeli-Palestinian mixed.

      Of course, the most sensible thing would have been to avoid all the sh*t the Zio-supremacist project started over 60 years ago and simply have immigrants to Palestine become Palestinian citizens.

      >> There wouldn’t be two nations just one.

      Which one nation would there be: Israel, or Palestine? (“Jewish” isn’t a nation.)

Leave a Reply