Trending Topics:

Goldberg tries to police view that Israel’s actions fuel anti-Semitism

US Politics
on 107 Comments

The Rev. Bruce Shipman controversy at Yale— Israel’s carnage in Gaza is fueling anti-Semitism — is echoing in other places. Ken Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, is the son of a Holocaust survivor, but Jeffrey Goldberg at the Atlantic polices him for speaking incorrectly about the effects of Israel’s actions on European anti-Semitism:

A few days ago, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth, tweeted the following statement: “Germans rally against anti-Semitism that flared in Europe in response to Israel’s conduct in Gaza war. Merkel joins.” Roth provided a link to a New York Times article about the rally, which took place in Berlin.

Roth’s framing of this issue is very odd and obtuse. Anti-Semitism in Europe did not flare “in response to Israel’s conduct in Gaza,” or anywhere else. Anti-Semitic violence and invective are not responses to events in the Middle East, just as anti-Semitism does not erupt “in response” to the policies of banks owned by Jews, or in response to editorial positions taken by The New York Times. This is for the simple reason that Jews do not cause anti-Semitism.

It is a universal and immutable rule that the targets of prejudice are not the cause of prejudice.

Roth responds:

Is NYT wrong that antiSemitism “flared up..following Israel’s invasion of Gaza” … was it the weather?

From that Times story:

“Thousands of Germans, many wrapped in Israeli flags, gathered at Berlin’s historic Brandenburg Gate on Sunday for a rally against anti-Semitism, which has flared up in Europe following Israel’s invasion of Gaza.”

More Roth to Goldberg:

Why don’t you admit a connection? It doesn’t justify anti-Semitism. It’s always wrong to blame Jews for Israel’s abuses.

The instances of anti-Semitism in that Times piece are horrifying, but we all recognize the logic of Roth’s position. Especially because the Jewish community and the Israel lobby seek to enforce an identification of Jewishness with Zionism; because Israel’s rightwing warmongering prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated that he is the “leader” of the Jewish people. Thus, this new report by Amcha, a pro-Israel group, on anti-Semitic activity on campus include supporting Boycott, divestment and sanctions;  comparing Israelis to Nazis, “demonizing” and “delegitimizing Israel,” and so forth. Throughout the report, attacks on Israelis are deemed to be attacks on Jews. If the two categories, Jews and Israelis, are held to be co-extensive by these propagandists, then is it any surprise that some Europeans who dislike Israel will make the same error?

Gary Rosenblatt at the Jewish Week seems to agree with Roth; he says that Netanyahu’s indifference to world opinion in the wake of Gaza makes Jews around the world “cringe.”

Did you, like me and many other supporters of Israel, cringe on reading the other day that the Jerusalem government had laid claim to nearly 1,000 acres of land in the West Bank, presumably for settlement expansion?…

The bottom-line message he projects to the world, and especially to the U.S. and to American Jews, is that Israel is not subject to international pressure, even from its best friends…

What, if anything, can we as American Jews do to stop the hemorrhaging of goodwill in Washington and around the country toward Israel?

[We should] let Israel’s leaders know of our discomfort with their diplomatic arrogance. They need to understand that while American support for Israel continues to hold, there is slippage among younger people, particularly among minority groups and women. The same unease holds true for many younger American Jews who feel that Israel has not done all it could to make a two-state solution a reality. These are not healthy signs for the future.

Second, challenge Israeli government officials to take a wider, deeper view of their decision-making process, and to appreciate the serious consequences.

Again: among those serious consequences is a widespread confusion of Judaism and Zionism, which the Jewish state and its supporters have propagated. And anti-Zionists are doing the hard labor here, of explaining that Judaism and Zionism may be overlapping categories, but they are in no way congruent.

P.S. Goldberg’s neoconservative ally, James Kirchick at Tablet, doesn’t accept Goldberg’s rule, that the targets of prejudice are always innocent. Not when it comes to Muslims anyway:

While it’s true that many Europeans are prejudiced against Muslims, to conflate all critical attitudes of Islam is to act as if Islam itself and the behavior of Muslims play no part in generating negative views.

Thanks to Scott Roth.

 

 

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

107 Responses

  1. Balfour
    Balfour
    September 22, 2014, 2:01 pm

    “It is a universal and immutable rule that the targets of prejudice are not the cause of prejudice.”

    Just a hunch Mr. Goldberg, but I’m pretty sure there was a lot of anti-German prejudice in Europe right after the Nazis invaded Poland in 1939.

    • Krauss
      Krauss
      September 22, 2014, 3:16 pm

      But that’s a ridicolous comparison on multiple levels. First, Zionism isn’t Nazism. Even if you do not outright state it, the fact that you go all Godwin’s Law on us denigrates your argument.

      Second, Germany’s actions in WWII was as a total state. Those who disagreed were jailed or executed.

      But back to Phil’s post:

      While it’s true that many Europeans are prejudiced against Muslims, to conflate all critical attitudes of Islam is to act as if Islam itself and the behavior of Muslims play no part in generating negative views.

      This quote by Kirchick can be used by anyone against Jews. And it has been used by Jews.
      I actually agree with Kirchick in this scenario. I’ve visited Jewish communities in Europe where 99% of the anti-Semitism comes from muslim immigrants. That’s just a basic fact in most European major cities today(I’m talking about Western/Northern Europe, where the native population is typically pretty philo-Semitic on a personal level even if many dislike Israel. Eastern Europe is another ballgame).

      Was it okay to be prejudiced against Southern whites, even those who were moderate, during Jim Crow? Because that’s really what we are talking about in Israel at this stage. Jim Crow or worse. Goldberg is not a liberal, he supports that ideology.

      To what extent does the Jewish community or the white Southern community or the muslim community in some parts of Europe have to take collective responsibility for a general attitude? My answer is that it depends on the monolithic nature of said attitude.

      The basic reality is that Zionism is, still, the absolute default position for most Jews. And Zionism is doing really ugly things to people. Is it surprising that people react that way towards Jews when most Jews are Zionists and said Zionists do everything they can to conflate Jewishness with Zionism?

      Goldberg wants it both ways: he wants every Jew to be judged individually when it suits him, but when Israel must be protected, all of a sudden Zionism=Judaism, because then you can use the anti-Semitism card to protect Israel, which is his real job description.

      • tree
        tree
        September 22, 2014, 5:42 pm

        But that’s a ridicolous comparison on multiple levels.

        I didn’t read it as a comparison, but a negation of the “universal and immutable rule” as espoused by Goldberg.

        But the real problem with Goldberg’s “rule” is that he is applying it incorrectly. Israel is not “the Jews” so therefore the victims of prejudice are not the cause or precipitating actor in this case, Israel is. So unless you insist that Israel equals Jewishness, which is itself an anti-semitic prejudice, when Israel’s actions cause anti-semitism to increase, it is not the victims who are at fault or the cause. Those who insist that criticizing Israel is criticizing “the Jews”, or that all Jews must defend Israel or be cast out as not real Jews, are also responsible for this conflation that leads to prejudice.

        And protesting a group of Jews or even a synogogue that defends Israel’s actions in Gaza or the West Bank is not anti-semitic. It is protesting a political viewpoint, not a religion or an ethnicity.

      • September 22, 2014, 7:21 pm

        Zionism is very similar to Naziism. Virtually indistinguishable in theory and practice,

      • annie
        annie
        September 22, 2014, 8:42 pm

        krauss, just thought i’d point out you’re not making any arguments here:

        “But that’s a ridicolous comparison on multiple levels. ”

        ” multiple levels.” which you don’t mentions.

        “First, Zionism isn’t Nazism.”

        that’s merely a declaration. and i don’t think anyone suggested they were one and the same.

        “Even if you do not outright state it, the fact that you go all Godwin’s Law on us denigrates your argument. ”

        like i said, this is not an argument.

    • annie
      annie
      September 22, 2014, 8:35 pm

      It is a universal and immutable rule that the targets of prejudice are not the cause of prejudice – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2014/09/goldberg-israels-semitism#sthash.iiV4HJxj.dpuf

      i wonder if goldberg would similarly characterize this attack as anti semitic?http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/watch-arsonists-torched-car-salford-7808421

      Arsonists have torched the car of a Salford Rabbi who has spoken out over Israel’s military action in Gaza.

      Firebugs poured petrol over Ahron Cohen’s Volvo estate before setting fire to the vehicle outside his home in Broughton, Salford .

      They first attached a makeshift fuse to the fuel tank, but when it failed to ignite they returned a few minutes later and used a can of petrol to start the fire.

      • American
        American
        September 22, 2014, 9:23 pm

        Is this the same guy that was attacked before or a different one?
        Seen several reports of Jews being attacked by Jews in England for criticizing Israel.

      • annie
        annie
        September 23, 2014, 11:57 pm

        a different one american. i think manchester might have a posse of vindictive jewish zionists. that or else it’s simply a coincidence.

    • Stephen Shenfield
      Stephen Shenfield
      September 23, 2014, 6:36 am

      Would you insist that the recent outburst of hostility against Chinese people in Vietnam has absolutely nothing to do with the state policy of China toward that country?

      • annie
        annie
        September 24, 2014, 12:02 am

        but the chinese are never responsible for racist prejudice against it.

        on principle i do agree that the victim is not responsible anothers racism. however, lines are easily blurred wrt israel, zionism and jews, because of the insistence by (many of) israel’s defenders that criticism of the state is inherently anti semitic. bds is too!! we’re boxed in, nothing is ever their fault!

  2. seanmcbride
    seanmcbride
    September 22, 2014, 2:11 pm

    Again: among those serious consequences is a widespread confusion of Judaism and Zionism, which the Jewish state and its supporters have propagated. And anti-Zionists are doing the hard labor here, of explaining that Judaism and Zionism may be overlapping categories, but they are in no way congruent.

    The worldwide Jewish establishment has worked aggressively and relentlessly for decades now to synonymize “the Jewish people,” “the Jews,” Jewishness, Judaism, Zionism and the Israeli government in the mind of the world.

    Mission accomplished for most its propaganda targets in the United States, Europe and everywhere else. That work may now be impossible to undo without a radical revolution in the thinking of the Jewish establishment and decades of hard work to fix the damage it is has done.

    Why haven’t Jeffrey Goldberg and hundreds of other Jewish thought leaders spoken out against the conflation of Zionism with Judaism and “the Jewish people” by the Jewish establishment and the Israeli government? Perhaps the problem is that they fervently hold that belief themselves.

    • ritzl
      ritzl
      September 22, 2014, 6:11 pm

      Agree Sean. And notice that not only do they NOT speak out about lumping all Jews together, all three of them actually do it in the provided quotes. I don’t get it.

  3. eGuard
    eGuard
    September 22, 2014, 2:11 pm

    “The instances of anti-Semitism in that Times piece …”, Phil writes.

    Well, first and foremost we must correct NYT: labeling things “anti-Semitic” while they are not. What the NYT actually linked under the text “the anti-Semitism … seen in Paris” was a violent riot by pro-Israel Jews, with no police intervention. The synagogue’s rabbi himself has stated that there was no threat to Jews or to the synagogue.

    It is this mislabeling by the NYT that is the original sin in this topic.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/07/world/europe/militant-jewish-group-confronts-protesters-in-a-tense-france.html

  4. seafoid
    seafoid
    September 22, 2014, 4:18 pm

    “It’s always wrong to blame Jews for Israel’s abuses. –

    the concept of Birthright is very tricky , isn’t it ?
    Why would people associate Jews in the diaspora with Zionism ?

    Is it supposed to be like a Fed put, with all the upside and none of the downside ?

    • eGuard
      eGuard
      September 22, 2014, 4:29 pm

      Yeah. It’s wrong to blame the Jews, but not wrong to say something about Jews. What does that say about Roth? Lost his edge?

  5. Shmuel
    Shmuel
    September 22, 2014, 5:08 pm

    Thousands of Germans, many wrapped in Israeli flags …

    If there’s no connection, why the flags? It seems to me that the flags were actually wrapped in the protesters — in order to defend Israel. Now why would they do that at a demonstration that was supposed to be about anti-Semitism.

    • tree
      tree
      September 22, 2014, 5:19 pm

      Ahhh. I was about to make the same point. If the point is that its anti-semitic to blame Jews for what Israel does, then wrapping oneself in an Israeli flag at an anti-anti-semitism protest is sending mix messages at best, and at worst is totally negating the idea that Jews and Israel are NOT synonymous.

      • tree
        tree
        September 22, 2014, 5:20 pm

        NO edit function! To clarify: ” IF the point (of the protest)….”

      • American
        American
        September 22, 2014, 9:32 pm

        Me too….

        My thought when reading they were wrapped in Israeli flags is the a-s protestors must be jewish…cant imagine non jewish German wrapping themselves in the Israeli flag to protest a-s.
        Maybe someone can find more exact coverage of this.
        Cause wrapping yourself in the Israeli flag to protest a-s has to be the dumbest thing I’ve heard of.

  6. ckg
    ckg
    September 22, 2014, 5:29 pm

    Cpl. Goldberg must have forgotten to give the nuanced talking points to Abe Foxman. Here is Foxman today in HuffPo:

    In terms of anti-Semitism globally, by any measure the year 5774 was an annus horribilis for the Jewish people. The passions whipped up by those protesting the war in Gaza led to open displays of hostility against Israel.

    • just
      just
      September 22, 2014, 5:40 pm

      nice, ckg.

      they’re talking out of synch. not on the same page at all.

      what will the dersh say?

      Anyway, Haaretz has this up:

      “The top opinion articles from Haaretz in 5774
      As the Jewish year comes to a close, Haaretz presents a selection of the best of its commentators’ offerings, speaking to the Gaza conflict, anti-Semitism, immigration to Israel and other issues.”

      http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/1.617142

    • tear-stained uzi
      tear-stained uzi
      September 23, 2014, 10:16 am

      ckg, I read,

      “Abe Foxman … by any measure [is] an anus horribilis [of] the Jewish people.”

      I was amused by this for an indecently long time.

      • just
        just
        September 23, 2014, 2:51 pm

        thanks tsu!

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      September 23, 2014, 8:40 pm

      In terms of anti-Semitism globally, by any measure the year 5774 was an annus horribilis for the Jewish people –

      Sounds like Holocaust denial to me.

  7. ritzl
    ritzl
    September 22, 2014, 6:32 pm

    Hi Shmuel,

    I see you and tree already touched on the flag-draped merging of Israel and Jews so…

    This is why I brought up the need for the “clarity” of a division in the “Jewish community” a few weeks ago. It’s not because I, personally, am confused (I have my discerning questions ready.). It’s because the kind of exchange in the article is becoming generally perceived as noise/mush to those of us on the outside. It doesn’t even appear that there is a generally accepted acknowledgement of a terminology problem among these guys (e.g. “Jews will cringe” [some will no doubt but not all], “Jews should not be blamed…” [some should], “Jews do not cause anti-Semitism” [images of 500 slaughtered children will not have zero effect, so some do]). They ALL seem to generalize. It’s a big problem.

    Outsiders are simply going to stop trying to figure it out and the loudest, most propagated line, “Israel equals the Jews” is going to be the accepted condition. Whatever Israel does will then be observed to be what “Jews” do, unless proven otherwise (and maybe not even then if Gaza has a deadly cholera epidemic or something).

    Barring some loud cracking fissure on Israel within the “community,” adopting, whether actively or through acquiescence, the Israeli version of this representation debate would seem to me to be a very dangerous way to go forward. That raises a sense of urgency in me, but there just doesn’t seem to be any urgency on Israel within the “Jewish community,” (as represented by these three; see I almost did it too.) It all seems so philosophical in a cloistered, “the rest of you can be present as long as you don’t talk” sort of way.

    I don’t know. I think I’m getting all “que sera sera” on whether Israel represents (or is perceived to represent) all Jews or not.

    This is not a poke or an argument, just a sad observation.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      September 22, 2014, 9:21 pm

      “This is not a poke or an argument, just a sad observation.”

      That’s quite a little Catch 18 the Zionists set up for the rest of the Jewish world, and naturally we fell for it.

    • American
      American
      September 22, 2014, 10:27 pm

      @ ritzl

      If I say ‘Zionism’ to people most of them have no idea what I am talking about. Everyone knows Jews and everyone knows Israel is a Jewish State. But unless they are followers of I/P and Isr or have researched /explored the history and conflict chances are they never heard of Zionism.

      And trying to avoid the wrong phrases or language like ‘The Jews or the’ Jewish community is just about impossible even when you have a Phd in Zionism because the Zionist constantly make it overlap with their Jews claim and then the anti zio side even makes it over lap langauge wise in ‘the Jewish community’ usage…..so really no matter how much you know , discussing Israel and Jews is like trying to walk thru a cow pasture without stepping in any cowpies—you are inadvertently going to step in some shit now and then..

      • tree
        tree
        September 23, 2014, 4:45 pm

        If I say ‘Zionism’ to people most of them have no idea what I am talking about.

        And then there are those, like the former British Conservative MP, who think ‘Zionist’ is a “cheap code word for Jew”. Here’s her famous twitter gaffe where she insisted she was going to block anyone using the term, including Theodore Herzl.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/08/18/louise-mensch-theodor-herzl-zionist-twitter_n_5688177.html

        I had a similar online conversation with someone when I first started delving into the matter. To them, ‘Zionist’ was just an anti-semitic code word for Jew. She had no concept of history or the political meaning of the word. It’s like trying to explain quantum theory to someone who’s anti-science. You can’t even get agreement on first principles before they’ve turned off.

  8. American
    American
    September 22, 2014, 11:23 pm

    “all we see right now coming out of Syria and Iraq are these beheadings … that just captures the public….. of course we’re going to associate that with the Muslim religion and Islam in general.” —

    Susan Crabtree, Washington Examiner http://www.c-span.org/video

    • American
      American
      September 23, 2014, 6:59 pm

      @ tree

      Everything is ‘code’ to the code hunters..
      I cant forget the time a commenter called me a racist.
      When I asked why she would think that she said because I used the word ‘lynch’ and black people used to be lynched and only a bigot would be insensitive enough to use that word..
      Swear to gawd that’s what she said and she was serious….and I had used the word lynch in reference to some ‘politician’, a ‘white’ politician I am pretty sure, in a conversation that had nothing to do with blacks or race.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 23, 2014, 8:42 pm

        Google “Lynch” he was a man and you can find out what a “Lynch Mob” is, and why it is called that.

      • American
        American
        September 23, 2014, 10:37 pm

        @ Mooser

        Evidently the “Lynch’ as specifically related to lynching blacks is a hoax.

        According to this the lynch term probably came from:… ” A better documented early use of the term “Lynch law” comes from Charles Lynch, a Virginia justice of the peace and militia officer during the American Revolution”

        William Lynch speech
        From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
        Slavery

        The William Lynch speech is an address purportedly delivered by a certain William Lynch (or Willie Lynch) to an audience on the bank of the James River in Virginia in 1712 regarding control of slaves within the colony.[1] The letter purports to be a verbatim account of a short speech given by a slave owner, in which he tells other slave masters that he has discovered the “secret” to controlling black slaves by setting them against one another. The document has been in print since at least 1970, but first gained widespread notice in the 1990s, when it appeared on the Internet.[2] Since then, it has often been promoted as an authentic account of slavery during the 18th century, though its inaccuracies and anachronisms have led historians to conclude that it is a hoax.[2][3]

        Contents

        1 Text
        2 Popular references
        3 William Lynch
        4 Notes
        5 References
        6 External links

        Text

        The reputed narrator, William Lynch, identifies himself as the master of a “modest plantation” in the British West Indies who has been summoned to the Virginia Colony by local slaveowners to advise them on problems they have been having in managing their slaves. He briefly notes that their current violent method of handling unruly slaves – lynching, though the term is not used – is inefficient and counterproductive. Instead, he suggests that they adopt his method, which consists of exploiting differences such as age and skin color in order to pit slaves against each other. This method, he assures his hosts, will “control the slaves for at least 300 hundred [sic] years.”[1] Some online versions of the text attach introductions, such as a foreword attributed to Frederick Douglass, or citations falsely giving Lynch’s name as the source of the word “lynching”.[2]

        The text of the speech has been published since at least 1970.[2] It appeared on the internet as early as 1993, when a reference librarian at the University of Missouri–St. Louis posted the document on the library’s Gopher server.[4] The librarian later revealed that she had obtained the document from the publisher of a local newspaper, The St. Louis Black Pages, in which the narrative had recently appeared.[4] Though eventually convinced the document was a forgery, the librarian elected to leave it on the Gopher server, as she believed that “even as an inauthentic document, it says something about the former and current state of African America”, but added a warning about its provenance.[4]

        The text contains numerous anachronisms, including words and phrases such as “refueling” and “fool proof” which were not in use until the early 20th century.[3] Additionally, historian Roy Rosenzweig notes that the divisions emphasized in the text – skin color, age, and gender – are distinctly 20th-century in nature, and make little sense in an 18th-century context.[2] As such, historians such as Rosenzweig and William Jelani Cobb of Spelman College regard the William Lynch speech as a hoax.[2][3]
        Popular references

        Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan quoted the speech at the Million Man March in October 1995, making the speech better known in the process.[5] He later cited Willie Lynch’s scheme as an obstacle to unite African Americans in his open letter regarding the Millions More Movement in 2005.[6] The speech was also quoted during the protests surrounding the 2001 presidential inauguration.[2]
        William Lynch
        Main article: William Lynch (Lynch law)

        Forewords attached to some online versions of the speech credit the narrator’s name as the source of the terms “lynching” and “Lynch law”, despite the narrator specifically advocating against lynching.[1][3] A man named William Lynch did indeed claim to have originated the term during the American Revolutionary War, but he was born in 1742, thirty years after the alleged delivery of the speech.[7][8] A document published in the Southern Literary Messenger in 1836 that proposed William Lynch as the originator of “lynch law” may have been a hoax perpetrated by Edgar Allan Poe.[9] A better documented early use of the term “Lynch law” comes from Charles Lynch, a Virginia justice of the peace and militia officer during the American Revolution

      • eljay
        eljay
        September 24, 2014, 8:13 am

        >> Mooser: Google “Lynch” he was a man and you can find out what a “Lynch Mob” is, and why it is called that.

        I’m guessing you don’t mean this man and his mob. Talk about politically-incorrect!

      • eljay
        eljay
        September 24, 2014, 8:14 am

        >> eljay: Talk about politically-incorrect!

        To clarify: Mr. Lynch, not Mooser.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 24, 2014, 3:21 pm

        Thanks, American and eljay.

        I gotta say, if my last name was Lynch, I don’t know if I could call my band the “Lynch Mob”. I’d be tempted to, but I don’t think I would.

  9. American
    American
    September 22, 2014, 11:24 pm

    BTW……the US is bombing Syria right now.

    • tree
      tree
      September 23, 2014, 4:49 pm

      BTW……the US is bombing Syria right now.

      …and beheading people from a distance with technologically complex weapons… which is so much more “civilized’ then using more basic weapons to do the same thing.

      • just
        just
        September 23, 2014, 5:34 pm

        So moral. So pristine. Just like the IOF.

      • Another Steve
        Another Steve
        September 23, 2014, 11:44 pm

        It’s more civilized if you don’t see their faces.

  10. Martin Edwin Andersen
    Martin Edwin Andersen
    September 23, 2014, 12:58 am

    On the question of what the UN-approved definition of indigeneity can mean for creating a new paradigm for peace between the Jewish State of Israel and the Palestinians, please see the Open Letter to the Delegates to the U.N. World Conference on Indigenous Peoples, “Unleashing Avatar: Indigeneity as a paradigm for peace for the peoples of Israel and the Occupied Territories,” and the essays, “Pyrrhic victories and glass houses: The Palestinians, the Jewish State of Israel, and the Wobbly Ceasefire,” “Common Lands, Common Ground: The indigenous agenda, Israel, Palestine and breaking the post-Oslo Accords logjam,” and “Indigeneity: Opening the Door to the Path of Peace Between the Jewish State of Israel and the Palestinians” (also @ http://goo.gl/kyn1u4 , @ http://goo.gl/XZIKoa , @ goo.gl/wAJgOJ respectively).

  11. RoHa
    RoHa
    September 23, 2014, 12:59 am

    “This is for the simple reason that Jews do not cause anti-Semitism. It is a universal and immutable rule that the targets of prejudice are not the cause of prejudice.”

    Then why do Jews, or Gypsies, or other groups, become the targets for prejudice?

    I have seen various “explanations”, but most of them seem to be little more than vague hand-waving full of references to “difference” and “other”.

    Since we lack a complete and convincing explanation, how can we rule out the possibility that some characteristic behaviour of members of the group is at least a contributing factor?

    If, every time the Gypsies pass through a village, they leave behind a mess of clothes pegs and worn-out violins, is it so unreasonable to suggest that this might arouse some anti-Gypsy feeling in the villagers?

    • Talkback
      Talkback
      September 23, 2014, 8:39 am

      RoHa: Then why do Jews, or Gypsies, or other groups, become the targets for prejudice?

      And I always thought you were only an antisemite. But the combination of Jews and Gypsies is quite revealing.

      • American
        American
        September 23, 2014, 10:07 am

        ” And I always thought you were only an antisemite. But the combination of Jews and Gypsies is quite revealing ”’…..Talkback

        That is a ridiculous accusation against RoHa imo.
        Of course any groups habits/ traits/attitudes/actions can bring about dislike of the group or discrimination against them by some other group.
        No one says the dislike or discrimination is always valid, sometimes it may be and some times not.
        And there is no ….’ universal and immutable rule that the targets of prejudice are not the cause of prejudice. -” ……that is total bs
        I am prejudice against cannibals because they eat people.

        What is the problem with mentioning or as you say combining Jews and Gypies? ……I dont get it.

        .

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        September 23, 2014, 6:44 pm

        You thought that Jews were the only group I disliked? You haven’t been paying attention.

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      Maximus Decimus Meridius
      September 23, 2014, 5:25 pm

      “This is for the simple reason that Jews do not cause anti-Semitism. It is a universal and immutable rule that the targets of prejudice are not the cause of prejudice.”

      I thought that was an odd statement too, and the Gypsies came to my mind as well.

      Now, there is no doubt that the Roma received and continue to receive extreme mistreatment in many parts of Europe. But it also has to be said that the way they behave may contribute to – but not excuse – such prejudice. If we take the example of Muslims, who are also on the receiving end of much prejudice in the West today, we can acknowledge that this is not entirely without some sort of foundation – terrorist attacks committed by Muslims, and the behaviour of some Muslims – without in any way saying that all Muslims deserve to be the victims of prejudice or stereotyping. But still, there is some kernel of truth, however distorted, which has led to the prejudice.

      When it comes to Jews, of course, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to ask if there was perhaps something in the way Jews behaved vis a vis their Gentile neighbours might have had something to do with prejudice against them. Of course to do so would not be to excuse such prejudice, much much less to excuse violence or pogroms against Jews. However, it seems that merely to ask such a question makes one little better than Hitler. Instead, one needs to go down the Daniel Goldhagen route – hatred of Jews is simply engrained in the Gentile DNA, and has absolutely nothing to do with the behaviour of Jews themselves.

      • American
        American
        September 23, 2014, 7:53 pm

        I am beginning to think the word prejudice is over used or means too much in a lot of cases.
        One of my sons was so sloppy his room was always a disaster area—his mother and I disliked that trait of his and stayed on him all the time about it………were we prejudiced against him?
        So if Gypsies are actually sloppy and leave a mess if they stay on my property and it irritates me , am I actually prejudiced against Gypsies or just disapproving of that particular habit of theirs?
        What if I say the Jewish habit of agonizing over who, what, etc is a Jew and so forth gives me brain freeze cause its too much navel gazing for my taste? Am I prejudiced against Jews just because to me personally all that introspection is boring or a turn off?
        What if Jews say non Jews or gentiles are too blunt and insensitive to people, they are rude and uncouth. Are they prejudiced against gentiles?

        The ‘prejudice’ thing gets blown out of proportion a lot of the time imo. You can even think the ‘group’ shares some traits you dont like. But so what, not everything about every body appeals to everyone else, doesn’t mean you really, as in *Really Don’t Like Them*–means you don’t like certain habits or whatever they have. You can even not want to hang out with them cause they aren’t your cup of tea.

        Prejudice to me means you dislike a person or group to the point where you don’t think they are deserving of the same basic things or treatment other people are.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 23, 2014, 8:51 pm

        “When it comes to Jews, of course, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to ask if there was perhaps something in the way Jews behaved vis a vis their Gentile neighbours might have had something to do with prejudice against them. “

        This is beyond belief! For Christ’s goodam sake, as everybody knows, and as is plain, friggin documented history, the biggest goddam problem with the Jew is that they weren’t Christians For God’s sake, thje Christian Churches themselves had no problem saying that.

        Yes, there is something Jews did which could cause their non-Jewish neighbors to dislike hate or even kill them. They were not Christian, and Christianity, at that time, very much believed, and promulgated the belief, and acted on the belief that a non-Christian person was an inferior person. You didn’t know that? They did not want, and could arrange, that non-Christians (mainly Jews, in Europe) were discriminated against and segregated.
        Would you like to say that isn’t true?

        What are you going to ask next, if the inherently aimless and shiftless qualities of Africans is what made them slaves where slavery is permitted.

        Or is it that Jews are pushy, arrogant have bad table manners and smell funny?

      • Gene Shae
        Gene Shae
        September 23, 2014, 10:45 pm

        MDM: I love that you are on team P! Please keep spreading your interpretations of history.

      • Gene Shae
        Gene Shae
        September 23, 2014, 10:47 pm

        Mooser: since most of your postings are preposterous and inane, most people are going to miss the stunningly important point of this posting.

      • American
        American
        September 24, 2014, 1:30 am

        Mooser
        September 23, 2014, 8:51 pm

        Oh come on Mooser you arent that uneducated.
        Jews didnt like Christians any more than Christians liked Jews.
        The Jews threw a lot of dirty stuff around about Christians that got the Catholic Popes and Churches after them just like the Christians did about Jews.
        You know the crazy Rabbi Kook and his ranting about how goy souls are less than the lowest souls on earth and the other Rabbi nutcase in Israel who preached that it was perfectly fine to kill non Jewish babies lest they grow up and attack Jews? Well if you read some history about the past the Jews were saying that same stuff way back then also so it wasn’t like they was just minding their own business and weren’t provoking some trouble themselves. I cant remember which Pope is was but one of the banishing of the Jews was caused by some Rabbis passing out what the church viewed as ‘vile’ writings about Jesus’s mother Mary. So naturally that started something.

        I do agree the Jews got the short end of the spear most of the times in those ancient fights. But the fact is that the Jews got done in most of the time because they were the smaller group, they had lost their numbers to first to Christianity and then later lost more followers to Islam so they were outnumbered every time any shit hit the fan.

        And actually there were times when the Jews slaughtered Christians documented in real history books–‘real’ as opposed to the religious’s favorite religious books. The Jewish slaughter of some 60,000 Christians at Mamilla is one of the well known ones during the Persian takeover. And there are documented instances where they joined up with Romans also in attacks on Christians.

        http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/125435

        snip…

        ‘’ Jews and Persians joined forces in the Galilee, and together destroyed Byzantine churches and other Christian buildings up and down the coast from Antioch to Gaza in 614 A.D. All of the churches and Christian buildings in Palestine, including the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, were destroyed, and the remnants of the True Cross were taken triumphantly to Persia.

        The Persians ransomed their hostages to the Jewish fighters, who then marched them to the Mamilla Pool and slaughtered them.

        The only church that remained untouched at this time was the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, because the Persians, recognizing the Magi depicted in a mosaic as Persian sages, decided to leave it unharmed. The war permanently shaped the Christian built environment in Jerusalem and its rural hinterlands, the Galilee, and along the Lebanese coast.
        Ultimately, the Persians withdrew in 617 A.D. and the Byzantines began to rebuild.

        The Mamilla Massacre is a dark chapter in the annals of the Jewish people, a sobering and necessary reminder of what hatred and revenge can breed in the human heart – ”

        See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/125435#sthash.4GexDq5y.dpuf

        P.S The site of the Jewish slaughter of the Christians at Mamilla is where Israel is building another holocaust or ‘tolerance’ center. Its also where Muslim graves were and they tried to get Israel to choose another site and leave the graves undistrubed ….But, of course they wouldn’t. Unfortunately for Isr some archeologist had already excavated the site and dug up the remains so the events at Mamilla resurfaced in the news again before Israel could ‘pave over it’.

        The Christian -Jewish hatred was always mutual. When people educate themselves and understand that maybe they will finally let it go.

      • Maximus Decimus Meridius
        Maximus Decimus Meridius
        September 24, 2014, 12:55 pm

        Mooser,

        For some reason I can’t cut and paste from your post.

        However, if you’re asking me if Jews were at all points in history forbidden from integrating into ‘gentile’ society, then I would answer with a definite ‘No’. Many Jews were quite happy to self-segregate, and had no desire to integrate with their Christian neighbours, whom they looked down upon just as much as Christians looked down upon them.

        Obviously, for long periods of history there was great prejudice against Jews – and Muslims – simply because they were not Christian. But this was not always the case, however much your ‘eternal blameless victim’ narrative would like to pretend it is.

        Do you think no group has ever done anything to give rise to resentment and prejudice, however disproportionate? Or are only Jews so entirely innocent?

      • annie
        annie
        September 24, 2014, 8:27 pm

        For some reason I can’t cut and paste from your post.

        sometimes the yellow is such a pale-light color i can’t see it, but it still works. however, when i try to transfer it onto an email in my mac program, i can’t see it at all until i click ‘make plain text’ in the format option. good luck!

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 24, 2014, 3:24 pm

        “Mooser: since most of your postings are preposterous and inane, most people are going to miss the stunningly important point of this posting.”

        The point that Zionism is anti-Semitism? That Zionism seeks to continue and profit from the discrimination against Jews? That Zionism uses racism to anchor its beliefs.

        I think most people here get that. Do you?

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 24, 2014, 4:13 pm

        “Jews didnt like Christians any more than Christians liked Jews.”

        Judaism was born in the Middle East, and spread all around the Meditarreanean basin, into Europe and Asia. I do believe the height of Jewish Kingdoms was about 400 AD. About that time Christianity started consolidating it’s hold on Europe, and of course a little later, comes the Moslem, and Jews were very much the odd man out for the next oh 1500 years, culminating in a terrible European century of anti-Semitism ( and of course, all kinds of other terrible ‘cides including WW 1 and 2) about 1850 to 1950, except in the US. Anybody wanna dispute that as a fair summation?

        So, unless you are going back to about 400 AD and before, what on earth are you talking about? Europe was Christian, and Jews wouldn’t be. Do you blame them for that? Or is there some special “Jewish” thing Jewish people do which just pisses all right-minded decent people off?
        I rewally wish you would tell me what it is, American. It would be a kindness, don’t you see? You tell me what it is that Jews do which pisses people off, and I’ll try to not do it. Can’t garauntee, blood’s, blood, you know, and will tell. But it’s a win-win. I refrain from doing something bad, and people get less pissed off at me, or even Jews generally. So what is it?

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 24, 2014, 6:05 pm

        But upon reflection (I passed a mirror, you think that’s easy for me?) it occurs to me, why, it wouldn’t be hard, not hard at all, to see how the actions of the latest generation of Zionists, their smug satisfaction in the virtues of their own valorous racialization, could make a person start to doubt that Jews were ever actually persecuted.
        Gosh, they don’t act like people who have ever been anything but first-and-a-half class citizens, they act like people who are completely entitled, and moreover can demand to be accommodated.
        Is it possible all that stuff about suffering and persecution was a myth? These people are obviously powerful and seemingly, very sure of themselves and united!

        Yup, I can sure see it,

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 25, 2014, 6:54 pm

        Yup, looking at them, who could ever believe that the situation was once other than it appears to be now? Oh, my. Oh, my oh my.
        I’ve been beating my brains out about this ridiculous “what did the Jews do to make people not like them” ever since I started reading Mondoweiss, and I couldn’t understand it. I think I do now.
        And really the fact that things were at one time very different than they are now means very little. What obtains now is what people must base their viewpoints and judgements on.

  12. Jabberwocky
    Jabberwocky
    September 23, 2014, 3:15 am

    Zionism is to Judaism as Islamic State is to Islam.

    A perversion of a religion into a racist, nationalistic and militaristic philosophy that is intolerant of others.

    • Gene Shae
      Gene Shae
      September 23, 2014, 10:49 pm

      Wow. For real?

      • annie
        annie
        September 24, 2014, 1:22 am

        yeah, really. with the right kind of mind numbing lubricant both can be perceived as a ‘ethnic liberation movements’, for some people. deadly for others tho.

    • American
      American
      September 25, 2014, 9:58 pm

      Mooser

      ”I rewally wish you would tell me what it is, American. It would be a kindness, don’t you see? You tell me what it is that Jews do which pisses people off, and I’ll try to not do it. Can’t garauntee, blood’s, blood, you know, and will tell. But it’s a win-win. I refrain from doing something bad, and people get less pissed off at me, or even Jews generally. So what is it? – >>>>>>>

      It is what I said was–and evidently still is for some—its the Hatfields and McCoys Feud!

      As for what Jews do that piss people off we do have to insert the *Some Jews* here.
      Currently it is Israel and the US Zionist that have people pissed off at the Jews.
      Yea,yea,yea…you can say its just Zionist– but thats not the *perception* the public has…..thanks to Isr and the Zios…..and even thanks to some mainstream Judaism that has adopted it…and then too the Jews that get out and create a spectacle supporting Isr and waving Isr flags around while Isr is slaughtering people.
      That is not exactly brilliant PR for Jews.
      And yea yea yea you can say well its still antisemitism if people blame or take it out on All the Jews.
      But dont ask me how to solve the problem of people blaming
      all the Jews.
      But I will say most Jews who dont want people blaming all the Jews go about their a-s complaints/talking the absolutely wrong way.

      • American
        American
        September 25, 2014, 10:20 pm

        P.S.

        Since you asked though what you specifically could do …..you could do less agonizing over what Zionism is doing to the Jews and more agonizing over the non Jewish people its killing and oppressing.
        I cant remember you ever writing a comment about Palestines.
        Maybe you did and I didnt see it.

  13. Boomer
    Boomer
    September 23, 2014, 8:16 am

    I’m surprised how little attention the U.S. media have given to the sinking of the ship with refugees from Gaza. MW reported it nearly a week ago. It is true that NYT had an editorial the next day which alluded to it, in the context of a broader discussion of people coming to Europe from many countries, but I haven’t seen discussion elsewhere about how it illustrates the need to open Gaza. Nor about U.S. responsibility for the suffering and deaths. The U.S. media seem to do a pretty good job of policing themselves.

    • American
      American
      September 24, 2014, 12:26 am

      Yes. No mention of the drowned Gazans fleeing Israel’s slaugher.
      But the US media spent 3 weeks chewing their cud over the dead in the plane crash in the Ukraine.

  14. piotr
    piotr
    September 23, 2014, 8:42 am

    “It is a universal and immutable rule that the targets of prejudice are not the cause of prejudice.”

    It is worth to remember when we discuss anti-Muslim and anti-Arab prejudice. Or frequently expressed hatred for all Europeans and various European nations that one can see in comments on English language Israeli news sites.

  15. Dan Crowther
    Dan Crowther
    September 23, 2014, 9:27 am

    I suppose I agree with Kirchick in principle; so did Hannah Arendt, who talked of when “the racism of myth meets the racism of experience.” I’d say, in regards to Israel, a lot of the myths are well represented by their leaders and their supporters outside Israel.

  16. eljay
    eljay
    September 23, 2014, 9:40 am

    >> It doesn’t justify anti-Semitism. It’s always wrong to blame Jews for Israel’s abuses.

    It’s always wrong to blame all Jews for Israel’s abuses, but given that…
    – Israel proudly proclaims itself a “Jewish State”; and
    – its abuses are predominantly (exclusively?) carried out by Jews,
    …it is not wrong to blame some Jews for Israel’s abuses.

    (Zio-supremacists contend that Israel is a “Jewish State” the same way Germany is German State. But, hypocritically, you never hear them say it’s always wrong to blame Germans for Germany’s abuses.)

  17. Les
    Les
    September 23, 2014, 11:12 am

    The charge that critics of Israel’s incineration of Palestinians are anti-semitic is an attempt to hide reality with an invisibility cloak.

  18. just
    just
    September 23, 2014, 2:56 pm

    Tweet from IOF Goldberg:

    “You are aware, aren’t you, that I’ve spent years advocating for human rights in Iraq and Syria?”

    https://twitter.com/jeffreygoldberg/status/514245179306704897

    • Maximus Decimus Meridius
      Maximus Decimus Meridius
      September 23, 2014, 5:27 pm

      So are we to take it that when Goldberg volunteered as a guard in a notorious Israeli prison, his real aim was to advocate for the human rights of Arabs?

      I’ve heard it all now.

      • just
        just
        September 23, 2014, 7:34 pm

        breathtaking, eh?

  19. MHughes976
    MHughes976
    September 23, 2014, 5:29 pm

    ‘Prejudice’ means judgement without reason, so if I have a negative opinion of someone based solely on prejudice it is an unfairly formed opinion and could be justified only by accident. It’s equally true that negative opinion based on reason comes from a fair process and could be mistaken only by accident, if there is some vital piece of information that was not available to me.
    It is possible for a reasoned judgement at one point – anti-German feeling in the war years, see Balfour’s remark above – to be part of the causation of prejudice later on. One of my very first political lessons, very true thought taught to me by the British Government for reasons of its own, was that it was wrong to be prejudiced against Germans in the post-war years. That sort of prejudice – an exaggeration of sentiments originally based on reason – is still prejudice and still dangerously misleading – but it’s not quite true to say that actual and regrettable behaviour by Germans was no part at all of its causation.
    Hope not to sound insufferably smug. I am well aware that there was regrettable behaviour on our part too.
    The idea that to be the victim of prejudice at one point is never to do wrong later on or never to be the target of reasonable objection or anger, which Mr. Goldberg seems to suggest, is of course quite untrue.
    It is also untrue that negative prejudices are the only dangerous ones. Positive prejudice, in which I will forgive X anything, is a terrible menace because it looks benign.

    • Stephen Shenfield
      Stephen Shenfield
      September 23, 2014, 7:25 pm

      It seems to me that Mr. Goldberg is defending a claim to hyper-protected status for Jews (my term) that delegitimizes and smears as anti-Semitic opposition to any Jewish practice, institution or belief, past or present — not only Israel but also, for instance, circumcision, ritual slaughter of animals, sexual abuse of children by rabbis, or even Jewish money-lending practices in the Middle Ages. All such issues are excluded from the public sphere and go underground, where they cannot be dealt with rationally and fester, creating understandable resentment among non-Jews and the potential for an anti-Semitic reaction that must eventually explode into the open. Thus hyper-protection is not in the real interest of the hyper-protected group, quite apart from the moral corruption it causes.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 24, 2014, 3:28 pm

        “All such issues are excluded from the public sphere and go underground, where they cannot be dealt with rationally and fester, creating understandable resentment among non-Jews”

        Screw the non-Jews, if you’ll excuse my saying so. What about the resentment against these things among Jews? We’ve got one hell of a walk-away rate, you know.

        My God, the idea that non-Jews would resent these things, but Jews won’t. So do you want to tell me what is wrong with Jews?

        But you keep pitching that idea of some kind of unified Jewishness, Shenfield, I wouldn’t want to interfere with your hustle.

    • American
      American
      September 23, 2014, 7:58 pm

      Good statement Hughes.

      • Stephen Shenfield
        Stephen Shenfield
        September 24, 2014, 5:27 pm

        Mooser: There is no logic in your reading the idea of “unified Jewishness” into what I said. You have a real talent for misconstruing what others say and trying to pick a fight on that basis. I didn’t say anything at all about how Jews feel. I agree that many Jews also resent these constraints or at least have mixed feelings about them. But many others feel protected by them and are willing to pay a price for that (delusory in my opinion) protection.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 25, 2014, 7:04 pm

        So Stephen, what percentage, what fraction, of Jews (not just those presently identifying as Jews, but all Jews, whether currently identifying as such or not) “feel protected” by those practices, and what percentage have rejected them?

        Remember we are talking all Jews, not just those currently identifying as Jews.

        Okay, I’ll waive that, and if we do, wouldn’t almost all the “currently identifying” be Reform or Secular Jews, who, I am pretty sure, reject most of those things.

        “Mooser: There is no logic in your reading the idea of “unified Jewishness” into what I said.”

        You know, you’re right! I’m sorry. I’m just getting real confused about who the Jews are, or is, or something.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      September 24, 2014, 6:10 pm

      The question is whether the bad behavior is inherently German, or Jewish, as opposed to ordinary (non-Jewish, non-German) kinds of bad behavior.

  20. wondering jew
    wondering jew
    September 23, 2014, 7:11 pm

    I agree with Roth and not with Goldberg.

    I don’t think MW has ever dealt seriously with the issue of antiSemitism either Arab antiSemitism or American antisemitism, Soviet antisemitism or leftist antisemitism. According to MW, antisemitism is something from the past across an ocean between 1939 to 1945 and any discussion of it in any other manifestation other than Nazi Germany is pro forma, short and not very deep. (This is not true for Marc Ellis, but it is true of the other writers.) If MW would study the issue of antisemitism in any depth its opinions would ring truer, as in, the result of real thought rather than knee jerk reactions.

    (Reading Leslie Fiedler’s “Fiedler on the Roof” and his essay on the two Holocausts. There are leftists and assimilationists who are willing to tackle the issue of antisemitism and assimilation with depth and honesty. But except for marc ellis that depth and honesty are seriously awol on MW. instead: facile and superficial is the rule here.)

    • just
      just
      September 23, 2014, 7:32 pm

      So why do you even bother? I am sure that there are plenty of other websites that will nurture you and your quest for “depth”.

      It seems that you want to remain part of the problem and never part of any solution.

      • Gene Shae
        Gene Shae
        September 23, 2014, 10:50 pm

        Yes. Evict him like a Palestinian. Silence him like Shalita. BDS him like a tin of Spanish olives

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 24, 2014, 6:27 pm

        “Yes. Evict him like a Palestinian. Silence him like Shalita. BDS him like a tin of Spanish olives”

        And pout, pout, pout, like a spoiled child over imagined slights. Don’t forget to do that, Gene Shae! Who threatened to “evict” “silence” (and by loss of livelihood, too) or “BDS”, Yonah?

        “just” made a simple suggestion that Yonah would be happier at a website where the “social fabric” might cover a bit more of his ass. Surely you, Gene Shae, are in favor of an intact “social fabric”, aren’t you?

        Ah Gene Shae, I understand, my brother. When a man’s been persecuted and oppressed all his life, and sees all the powers-that-be arrayed against him, he gets very quick to resent slights or even imagine them, and challenge people, and demand his perquisites! A lot of people might think you are obnoxious, but we know, you and I, Gene Shae. It’s the deep hole persecution has torn in our soul what does it.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      September 23, 2014, 9:00 pm

      Yonah, we get it, we get it, people have been mean to the Jews, killed a whole lot of us, and now we Jews get to kill as many people as we want. And take whatever we want.

      Sure, Yonah, anti-Semitism and the Holocaust were awful, some of the worst things that ever happened to mankind. But look, it’s alright to be sad about it, but just think, you are getting all the rewards, sort of like your parents were killed in a plane crash and you came into a big settlement! We get Israel, and get to be citizens of our countries, and a power in all the capitals of the world!
      Why not think of it that way, since you do, and quit all the phony me-so-persecuted crap.

      Don’t you have both American and “Israeli” citizenship? And Israel is always making more room for you. I can’t imagine what you have to be anything but triumphant about, and neither can you, apparently.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        September 23, 2014, 10:01 pm

        mw is as deep as mooser on the topic of history.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        September 23, 2014, 10:02 pm

        with the exception of marc ellis.

      • eljay
        eljay
        September 24, 2014, 8:07 am

        >> y.f.: mw is as deep as mooser on the topic of history.

        Instead of just sloughing off Mooser’s comment, perhaps you could address his comment and explain why the persecution of Jews justifies not the consistent application of justice and accountability, but Jewish terrorism, the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their homes and lands, and the creation of an unapologetically oppressive, colonialist, expansionist and supremacist “Jewish State” of (Greater) Israel.

        As you have previously noted, I’m a stupid person, so I could undoubtedly benefit from your explanation of why acts of injustice and immorality are acceptable when Jews commit them, but not when non-Jews commit them.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 24, 2014, 11:12 am

        “with the exception of marc ellis.”

        Marc Ellis? He learned everything he knows from Christian Liberation theology. Wait a minute, maybe it was Christian Reconstructionist theology.

        Not that I care, of course, It’s time we stole something back from the Gentiles. Well, besides their women, I guess.

        Yonah, I gotta ask: Is that a real caftan, or is that a Sears caftan?

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 24, 2014, 11:56 am

        “mw is as deep as mooser on the topic of history.”

        Yonah you should sue MW, for “delegitimizing the Holocaust”! Since you’ll want this important litigation to be a “class action suit”, you can include me as a defendant, too. Everybody says I have lots.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        September 24, 2014, 3:10 pm

        eljay- I read an essay by leslie fiedler recently which showed me evidence of deep thinking regarding antisemitism by someone who was an assimilationist. He spoke in depth on the issue. he did not use it to justify anything. but he was a thinker and he thought deep thoughts. Mondoweiss on the issue of antisemitism has shown no evidence of depth. jump into this side of the pool here and you’ll end up paralyzed like Krauthammer.

        No, I was making no comment on the issue as it relates to zionism. it certainly plays a role in the mind of jews who read the news from around the world. and depth rather than shallowness is something to be commended.

        the interplay of jew hatred (my preferred alternative to the tricky word antisemitism) and the conflict between indigenous and colonialists (with ancient ties) is a very complex one and is misused constantly and abused frequently. attempting to separate all the threads and wires of the issue would require a book that i am not capable of writing. but certainly it is a deep issue and the shallowness here is discouraging.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        September 24, 2014, 3:12 pm

        eljay- when was the last time i referred to you as stupid?

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 24, 2014, 4:18 pm

        “eljay- when was the last time i referred to you as stupid?”

        Why don’t you check your archive, Yonah? You access by clicking your name above any comment.
        And then you can wonder at what on earth those thousands of words you wrote are all about, besides trying to weave some kind of tangled web out of the whole cloth with a rusty IB Singer sewing machine.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 24, 2014, 6:58 pm

        “jump into this side of the pool here and you’ll end up paralyzed like Krauthammer”

        Gosh Yonah, what a cute, humane sense of humor you have. But wouldn’t it be more apropos to say, “jump into the pool of Zionist thought on anti-Semitism and you’ll end up paralysed like Krauthammer?” That way you don’t have to make fun of somebody’s physical disability.

      • eljay
        eljay
        September 24, 2014, 9:45 pm

        >>y.f. @ September 24, 2014, 3:10 pm

        I appreciate that you replied, but your reply says nothing to me other than you defend Zio-supremacism by labelling it “complex” and by granting to Zio-supremacists “ancient ties” to Palestine.

        >> y.f.: when was the last time i referred to you as stupid

        You may not have used those exact words, but let’s not pretend that you consider me to be either intelligent or profound. ;-)

      • eljay
        eljay
        September 24, 2014, 10:02 pm

        >> eljay: I appreciate that you replied, but your reply says nothing to me other than you defend Zio-supremacism by labelling it “complex” and by granting to Zio-supremacists “ancient ties” to Palestine.

        Correction: … your reply says nothing to me other than you defend Zio-supremacism by granting to Zio-supremacists “ancient ties” to Palestine.

        (After re-reading your post, I realized that the word “complex” referred to something other than just Zio-supremacism.)

    • American
      American
      September 23, 2014, 10:53 pm

      What exactly yonah —do you want to discuss about anti semitism?
      What can possibly be said or fought over that hasnt already?

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 24, 2014, 11:17 am

        “What can possibly be said or fought over that hasnt already?”

        Huh? What kind of sorry stuff is this? What more to be said about anti-Semitism? Well, how about this: When the America treats the Jews as well as it treats Africans, Latinos, Asians and Native Americans….oh, whoops, thought I was at JRC for a minute.

    • annie
      annie
      September 24, 2014, 12:28 am

      yonah, you wrote anti semitism 8 times in that one comment.

      speaking of history, do you think, since the advent of zionism, what you refer to as ‘arab anti semitism’ has increased or decreased in the arab world? and if so why?

      and hypothetically speaking, if a black man and a white man were neighbors on friendly terms for 2 decades and then the white man killed the black man’s wife*, if the black man then hated the white man, would you attribute the black man’s hatred on his own (alleged) racism?

      *the white man was a cop in his day job and burst into the wrong house in a drug raid and blew up a family where the wife was visiting.

      btw, we (this site) are talking, primarily, about current events, not history. i understand you have an obsession with anti semitism (shared by many pro israel folks) but wrt current events, AND the history of the nakba, zionism being an ethnic colonialist state which stole the vast majority of land from the palestinian people, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out ‘arab anti semitism’ is not the primary cause of this conflict.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 24, 2014, 11:46 am

        ” i understand you have an obsession with anti semitism”

        I’ve got an obsession myself! Does everybody know you can “grip” the bottom right-hand corner of the comment box, with your cursor, cursor changes to diagonal arrow, and you can open, expand the comment box to a much larger size? Plenty of room to see your entire comment!! Just found this out by accident.

        Hey, it’s not “edit”, but it’s something. Try it, and see if you don’t like a larger comment box to type in. It really doesn’t matter to me, of course, my motto is “keep it crisp”. I’m a jist guy, a nubster. No prolixity for this proletarian. I may be dumb, but I’m never redundant.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 24, 2014, 11:49 am

        Of course, a larger comment box doesn’t help me get my italics tags straight.
        Naturally, I blame the anti-Semantics who didn’t include an “edit” function.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        September 24, 2014, 3:16 pm

        annie- only a shallow person would refer to relations between jews and arabs as friendly previous to zionism. no, arab antisemitism is not the cause of the conflict and many would abuse the topic of arab jew hatred for the purposes of diverting attention from primary issues. but to propose that because it is not a main cause that depth and seriousness on this issue would add to the gravitas of this site is not falsehood but truth. this site is shallow on many issues of jewish history. you’ve read the cliff notes and you’re an expert.

        simplifying is easy. gravitas is difficult. this site has no gravitas on the issue of judaism and jewish history.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 24, 2014, 3:35 pm

        “Gravitas is difficult. this site has no gravitas on the issue of judaism and jewish history.”

        That’s what I keep on telling them, Yonah. I had high hopes for the re-design, too, but Annie informed me the budget did not run into the kind of figures needed for some really classy Judaica, C’mon, gravitas with no Judaica? That’s like a bagel with no cream cheese!

        Hey Yonah, Mondoweiss does capitalize the “J” in “Jewish”, tho. That’s more than you do.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 24, 2014, 4:31 pm

        Oh, Yonah, I might as well tell you the entire story. I submitted a brilliant redesign proposal for Mondoweiss, in which the entire site is an illuminated, inter-active Passover Haggadah! With “Pour down your wrath on the peoples that do not know Thee…and destroy them from under Your Heaven” flashing red at the top of every page! Cool, huh?

        It was rejected. Probably anti-semioticism. That’s what always turns people against me.

    • seanmcbride
      seanmcbride
      September 24, 2014, 4:38 pm

      yonah fredman,

      What’s cool is that Jewish groups never express negative opinions about non-Jewish groups (ethnic groups, religions, nations, etc.). And certainly not Jewish Zionist groups. Non-Jews could learn a great from that inspiring model.

      In fact, one would have to characterize the tone of Jewish Zionists towards Muslims, Christians, Brits, Germans, the French, Arabs, Persians, Turks, etc. as highly respectful and diplomatic.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 25, 2014, 7:10 pm

        “In fact, one would have to characterize the tone of Jewish Zionists towards Muslims, Christians, Brits, Germans, the French, Arabs, Persians, Turks, etc. as highly respectful and diplomatic.”

        Noblesse oblige especially when its administration is tempered with a true aristocratic graciousness, is a beautiful thing to see in action, huh?

  21. eGuard
    eGuard
    September 24, 2014, 1:18 am

    Ken Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, is the son of a Holocaust survivor, but Jeffrey Goldberg …

    What’s the “but” about? Is there a hint of privilege that disallows opposing Roth?

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      September 24, 2014, 12:06 pm

      I wish somebody would tell me what “diddy-wah-diddy” means, but nobody ever has. (Apparently, if I have to ask, I’ll never know, but let it go…) But I’d be just as happy to know what the limits of the term “holocaust survivor” and it’s issue (“Son of…” Granchild of…” etc) are these days.

      One could, with very little effort, and a big potential reward, expand the term to cover every Jewish person born by oh, 1945, or ’48 and of course, the “Sons of” and so on.

      I mean, a line of printed T-shirts could go, stuff like ” and all I got was this lousy T-shirt….” or “Spoiled Grandchild of…” or maybe a pair “I’m a….” and “I’m with the…”.

      All made from organic hemp fibers. I’ve got a lot of it on hand right now.

      • American
        American
        September 24, 2014, 12:31 pm

        ”one could, with very little effort, and a big potential reward, expand the term to cover every Jewish person born by oh, 1945, or ’48 and of course, the “Sons of” and so on. – “”…Mooser

        Believe it or not that is exactly what Israel just did.
        They had been after Germany to pay them more for childhood victims or descendents trauma . I recently read that they had reached an agreement and that for payment purposes and to ascertain the total amount to be paid it would be based on European Jews ‘born after 1937’ or thereabout.
        The Holocaust group changed the definition of survivor long ago from Jews who actually survived the camps to any Jews who emigrated from or fled from or hid out in any of the Nazi occupied countries.
        I didnt save the news article you can probably goggle it.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        September 25, 2014, 7:15 pm

        “Believe it or not that is exactly what Israel just did”

        No doubt an Israeli company got the T-shirt concession. Another great idea shot to hell.

Leave a Reply