Trending Topics:

Israeli journalist Derfner succinctly analyzes the anti-Semitism vs. anti-Zionism debate

US Politics
on 44 Comments

Larry Derfner, the veteran and outstanding Israeli journalist, got straight to the point the other day. In an online discussion, Derfner said simply:

“The overlap between Western anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is a fraction of that between Zionism and Islamophobia.”

Eighteen words that say it all. Derfner would not deny that the feverish hate swamps of the far right include Judeophobes who as a consequence also hate Israel. But their numbers are small compared to the self-professed Zionists who spend much of their time attacking “Islam.”

Larry Derfner is no extremist, and he certainly would not agree with everything published at this site. But he is a man of courage, who in 2011 lost his job as a columnist at the Jerusalem Post because he spoke out for Palestinians.

He has recently started contributing to Haaretz. Under the headline “The Reluctant Boycotter: Why This Liberal Zionist Now Supports BDS,” he wrote:

“I don’t feel comfortable advocating a boycott of my own country, but a few years ago, after it became clear to me that neither the Israeli peace camp nor the White House was going to end the occupation, the choice came down to supporting the boycott or supporting the status quo forever, and I chose the former.”

Derfner may well be breaking Israeli law by calling for boycott.

I just started subscribing to the online edition of Haaretz, so I don’t miss any of Derfner, or of Amira Haas and Gideon Levy, two other moral giants in Israel. (Haaretz struggles in a media landscape dominated by the gambling billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who gives away for free his propagandistic tabloid Israel Hayom [Today].)

And every time I read Haaretz, I marvel that you can find reports and opinions there that you will rarely see in the New York Times.

James North
About James North

Other posts by .


Posted In:

44 Responses

  1. pabelmont
    pabelmont
    April 10, 2016, 10:30 am

    I like that he cuts through the question — by ignoring it — of whether Zionism is today’s version of Judaism and, therefore, a “religion” (as opposed to a nationalist political movement) with ther often-stated consequence that anti-Zionism is, precisely, anti-semitism. He ignores this silliness.

    And of course looking at numbers (or percentages), he says that the percent of antisemites among anti-Zionists is small and the number of anti-Muslims among Zionists is large. Let’s all remember that.

    • annie
      annie
      April 10, 2016, 12:54 pm

      ignoring it — of whether Zionism is today’s version of Judaism and, therefore, a “religion”

      to ignore something implies one is aware of it. not everyone agrees the idea of zionism being a religion or today’s version of judaism is pertinent to bds or at the core of that discussion.

      • Lillian Rosengarten
        Lillian Rosengarten
        April 11, 2016, 12:26 pm

        Does not say it all for me. These words desperately need deeper exploration . Too many words, , Islamophobia, western anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are only the tip of the iceberg. However Derfner is courageous for he has “broken the silence” where dissent is not tolerated.I stand with him and look forward to his future writing.

      • annie
        annie
        April 11, 2016, 12:44 pm

        Derfner is courageous for he has “broken the silence” where dissent is not tolerated.

        i agree lillian. i think he’s breaks terrain in his environment. when he wrote

        Palestinians, like every nation living under hostile rule, have the right to fight back, that their terrorism, especially in the face of a rejectionist Israeli government, is justified

        it was radical in the israeli press (and cost him his job). albeit, it wasn’t radical from where i am coming from and he still referenced palestinian resistance as terrorism, but to mainsteam israelis it was radical. even as he stated “many of us believe [it] and the rest suspect” http://mondoweiss.net/2011/08/read-the-post-for-which-derfner-was-fired-the-awful-necessary-truth-about-palestinian-terror/ so the thought itself wasn’t radical it was the admission or public recognition.

        i think what i meant was more akin to the ideal of zionism being a religion, something jonathan ofir wrote about here recently. in our email exchange when he sent us the article i recall mentioning maybe it was the nationalism in jewish nationalism that was the religion, as jewishness can be secular (albeit many believe it can’t be). anyway, back to my point, i do think defner got to the heart of the matter he was focusing on — the eighteen words. because the other conversation — as ofir so deftly demonstrated — is very contentious and not one in the mainstream discourse (yes it deserves discussion — airing out) so that is why i don’t think he (necessarily) ignored it. plus, the idea of judaism merging with zionism is a contentious one. and it’s a leap that’s required to claim anti zionism equals anti semitism.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        April 11, 2016, 12:48 pm

        Do you believe that it’s justified when a Palestinian suicide bomber blows up Israeli children, Annie? Yes or no, please.

      • annie
        annie
        April 11, 2016, 1:25 pm

        setting little traps hops, your specialty. i already addressed that (see “minions”), stop treating mondoweiss like some endless loop/repetitions of the same arguments http://mondoweiss.net/2012/03/we-are-not-your-problem/

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        April 11, 2016, 2:04 pm

        Hophmi,

        Is suicide a necessary condition? Yes or no. If not, explain exactly why you wrote nonsense. If yes…

      • YoniFalic
        YoniFalic
        April 11, 2016, 2:19 pm

        Was it legal for the Eastern European resistance to attack German colonists in Eastern Europe during WW2?

        The Nuremberg Tribunal decided that such attacks were not crimes.

      • talknic
        talknic
        April 11, 2016, 8:37 pm

        @ hophmi April 11, 2016, 12:48 pm

        “Do you believe that it’s justified when a Palestinian suicide bomber blows up Israeli children”

        If it was their intent to blow up Israeli children, certainly not. Best you lobby the idiotic Israeli government and the stupid Zionist Federation to stop encouraging and arming illegal settlers because there is bound to be collateral in a war zone

      • straightline
        straightline
        April 12, 2016, 7:44 am

        Avraham Burg:

        “Israel, having ceased to care about the children of the Palestinians, should not be surprised when they come washed in hatred and blow themselves up in the centres of Israeli escapism. They consign themselves to Allah in our places of recreation, because their own lives are torture. They spill their own blood in our restaurants in order to ruin our appetites, because they have children and parents at home who are hungry and humiliated.”

        But you knew that, didn’t you Hophmi? You’ve been told it many, many times. What amazes me is that so many of them are not “washed in hatred” but manage, despite all of the provocations, to turn the other cheek. Perhaps we should ask the Christian-Zionists, which side Christ would be on.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        April 12, 2016, 9:39 am

        hophmi: “Do you believe that it’s justified when a Palestinian suicide bomber blows up Israeli children”.

        Is anything justified what Jews did to Palestinians and their children since 1948?

    • Keith
      Keith
      April 10, 2016, 3:03 pm

      PABELMONT- “And of course looking at numbers (or percentages), he says that the percent of antisemites among anti-Zionists is small and the number of anti-Muslims among Zionists is large. Let’s all remember that.”

      Absolutely! I would also suggest that the percent of anti-Semites among anti-Zionists is also smaller – perhaps much smaller – than the number of anti-Gentiles among Zionists. Irrational perceptions of anti-Semitism is common among Zionists, and indicates a belief in irrational Jew-hatred as intrinsic to non-Jews. This belief that Gentiles are the eternal enemy of Jews motivates much Zionist thought and action. One has only to observe some of our Zionist commenters to observe this phenomenon on full display.

      • ritzl
        ritzl
        April 10, 2016, 3:32 pm

        Agree.

        And just as a thought exercise, I wonder how that affects Sanders, not because of any Zionist affinity, but simply as an encultured Jew in America.

        Is his background thought process something like, “My upbringing tells me most of you have always hated me, hate me now, and/or will almost certainly hate me sometime in the future, but VOTE FOR ME anyway!”(?) If not (and I do think it is a “not”), it would be interesting to know how he got past that.

      • Abern
        Abern
        April 11, 2016, 4:39 pm

        “Irrational perceptions of anti-Semitism is common among Zionists, and indicates a belief in irrational Jew-hatred as intrinsic to non-Jews.”

        It is cult conditioning. Only trust the in-group, all others are impure and out to get you. Controlling how you dress, controlling who you can marry, controlling what you can eat…

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        April 12, 2016, 12:35 pm

        “This belief that Gentiles are the eternal enemy of Jews motivates much Zionist thought and action. One has only to observe some of our Zionist commenters to observe this phenomenon on full display.”

        Antisemite trope #115. This is Keith’s old and tired line that he trots out to smear people with whom he disagrees; you see, the problem is that most Jews hate Gentiles.

        Since he’s clearly referring to me here, I do not believe that Gentiles are the “eternal enemy” of the Jews, and I do not believe that Zionists are motivated by that belief. I believe that Jews are motivated by historical experience, pure and simple. Some religious Jews who have internalized historical antisemitic tropes of Jews being an eternal enemy of Christians may reverse the trope and say that Gentiles are an eternal enemy of Jews, but Zionists like Theodore Herzl were principally motivated by a desire to escape European anti-Jewish hatred, and that’s the long and short of it.

        It’s really a classic antisemitic trope – you invert antisemitism by claiming that it’s really Jews who have attacked Gentiles, and not the other way around. Keith does this all the time; you talk about persecution that Jews have experienced, and he goes into old canards about peasants suffering at the hands of Jewish financiers.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        April 12, 2016, 7:20 pm

        “Some religious Jews who have internalized historical antisemitic tropes of Jews being an eternal enemy of Christians may reverse the trope and say that Gentiles are an eternal enemy of Jews,” “Hophmi”

        Oh, so that’s what all that “internalized historical antisemitic tropes” does, makes you an insular, xenophobic Jew. Sure, okay.

        Gosh, “Hophmi” those “internalized historical antisemitic tropes of Jews” sure is some versatile stuff! Is this the same internalized historical antisemitic tropes which make Phil so friendly (nod-nod, wink-wink, do I take thee) to Gentiles, and so disparaging of Israel? That’s the way it’s worked in every comment from you up till now Here’s a sample:

        “It is quite common for people who belong to minorities that have long histories of persecution to internalize that persecution and to regurgitate it. Phil does that often, in my view, because he is uncomfortable with who he is. He has trouble embracing the idea of Jewish political consciousness unless it is identical to radical political consciousness. – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/profile/hophmi/?keyword=internal%25#sthash.0hJqhZUP.dpuf

        “Because there are a lot of anti-Zionists who want just that – they think in terms of John Lennon’s Imagine. That’s putting it generously. I suspect that many of them have simply internalized centuries of anti-Jewish invective – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/profile/hophmi/?keyword=internal%25#sthash.0hJqhZUP.dpuf

        So which is it, “Hoph”? Insular Goy hating Jew, or Gentile-loving apostate?

        Are you ever going to stop with that “internalized antisemitism” BS, “Hophmi”?

  2. hophmi
    hophmi
    April 10, 2016, 10:50 am

    “Eighteen words that say it all. ”

    A. Nonsense.

    B. Seems like you’re perfectly OK with whataboutery when it serves your purposes.

    • amigo
      amigo
      April 10, 2016, 12:41 pm

      “B. Seems like you’re perfectly OK with whataboutery when it serves your purposes.” hopknee

      Whataboutery is your stock in trade hoppy. Without it , you —well , wouldn,t be hoppy.

      Btw , did you have any comments on the subject matter at hand ??. Another member of the tribe has flown the coop and joined BDS.

      Ouch.

    • annie
      annie
      April 10, 2016, 12:45 pm

      “The overlap between Western anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is a fraction of that between Zionism and Islamophobia.”

      hops definition of whataboutery is what he doesn’t want examined. navel gaze at the sliver of overlap we’re directed to look at non stop, but you’re perfectly OK, when it serves your purposes, to turn your eyes from the industry of racist hacks fueling islamophobia. uh huh.

      edit: amigo, i just saw your comment. hops has deemed “the subject matter at hand” — as whataboutery!

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        April 10, 2016, 2:06 pm

        Yeah, you’re right, Annie, it’s totally not whataboutery to answer charges of anti-Semitism in anti-Zionism by claiming that Zionists are Islamophobic or that Islamophobia is a more serious problem. Totally not whataboutery. #lookoverthere

      • annie
        annie
        April 11, 2016, 1:46 pm

        it’s totally not whataboutery to answer charges of anti-Semitism in anti-Zionism by claiming that Zionists are Islamophobic

        hops, just cuz you hang w/the absolutist crowd (anti-Semitism = anti-Zionism) doesn’t mean your opposition is also absolutist i say that because nobody claimed “Zionists are Islamophobic” — albeit — clearly and obviously many are.

        but to get back to what is and is not whataboutery — if we ran into eachother on the street and you were wearing red pants and i told you that red pants symbolized racism and therefore you were a racist it would not be ‘whataboutery’, if, in your response to me, you noted i was wearing red pants. that’s not a diversion, it’s pertinent to the conversation.

        plus, the obsession over the ad hominem meme crutch that ” anti-Semitism = anti-Zionism” is radically well funded and making its way into all sorts of legislation as well as constantly hammered in the press. it is the #numero uno response from apartheid supporters to BDS, a perfectly rational effective non violent response to occupation. but just because you have a hammer, doesn’t mean you can control the response to that argument. maybe you should look up the definition of whataboutery.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        April 11, 2016, 2:07 pm

        (Annie, could you mean ‘absolutist’ and not “absolutionist”?
        Probably spel-chek making up your mind for you. “Absolution”, of course, is forgiveness. Haven’t noticed “Hops” offering much of that.)

      • annie
        annie
        April 11, 2016, 7:05 pm

        thank you mooser. yes, of course. fixed! but i looked up the definition and i still think i got the wrong word.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        April 11, 2016, 8:10 pm

        “i still think i got the wrong word.”

        Eh, there might be a better one but ‘absolutist’ will do.

      • hophmi
        hophmi
        April 12, 2016, 12:41 pm

        “hops, just cuz you hang w/the absolutist crowd (anti-Semitism = anti-Zionism) doesn’t mean your opposition is also absolutist i say that because nobody claimed “Zionists are Islamophobic” — albeit — clearly and obviously many are.”

        I don’t hand with the absolutist crowd. That’s your deal; you’re the one who tends to view the world in black and white.

        “if we ran into eachother on the street and you were wearing red pants and i told you that red pants symbolized racism and therefore you were a racist it would not be ‘whataboutery’, if, in your response to me, you noted i was wearing red pants. that’s not a diversion, it’s pertinent to the conversation.”

        Do you understand how analogies work? This is not a matter of red pants. This is the equivalent of me telling you that your house is on fire and you reacting by telling me that the real problem is that there are forest fires in California.

        This is a version of an endemic problem here – the denial that antisemitism is a serious problem. You’ve frequently denied it in the French context. Others, like Keith, blame Jews for antisemitism. Here, your response is to react by talking about Islamophobia. That’s not a response. That’s the definition of whataboutery. It’s part of the anti-semitic atmosphere at Mondoweiss that reflects that antisemitism that is endemic to the BDS movement.

      • annie
        annie
        April 12, 2016, 2:57 pm

        This is not a matter of red pants. This is the equivalent of me telling you that your house is on fire and you reacting by telling me that the real problem is that there are forest fires in California.

        actually that’s not a bad analogy. when forrest fires are raging all around and we are directed to focus on one persons home burning it’s not whataboutery to tell someone they are missing the forrest for the trees. here at mondoweiss we cover fires in california (islamophobia) — because it’s real. you don’t set the stage for what gets discussed here and the topic of this article begins with a premise.

        i know i know, you wish it started with the home burning, but alas, it doesn’t. it begins with the forrest burning.

        I don’t hand with the absolutist crowd.

        you’re myopic. the continued focus on and obsession with anti semitism while islamophobia runs rampant (just imagine if a presidential candidate was advocating no jewish immigration!) is all consuming. we’re a very jew friendly country, obviously. just take a few breaths and realize that in this article (scroll up) the focus is here:

        “The overlap between Western anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is a fraction of that between Zionism and Islamophobia.”

        this is where it begins. we get that you don’t want to discuss the raging fire all around vs one house. sorry, you’ll have to stand down.

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        April 12, 2016, 3:40 pm

        Annie Robbins: “thank you mooser. yes, of course. fixed! but i looked up the definition and i still think i got the wrong word.”

        Hi Annie, I’m not a nativer speaker, but do you mean “categorical”?

      • annie
        annie
        April 12, 2016, 7:26 pm

        thanks for the help talkback — re categorical — perhaps and somewhat. it’s as if an obsession is at the center of the universe or like the draw of a magnet that everything then therefore gravitates towards – to the exclusion of all other ideas. (sort of like , when all you have is a hammer everything becomes a nail). and if we don’t talk about it in the prescribed fashion we’re endemic/diseased. but when you try to discuss what causes may be at the root of it you’re cornered in (don’t mention/discuss “a belief in irrational Jew-hatred as intrinsic to non-Jews” even tho we know this sentiment exists it’s merely an “Antisemite trope” and somehow morphs into an accusation of “the problem is that most Jews hate Gentiles” — which no one stated — and “Jews who have attacked Gentiles”) so if the flavor of the day is the “new anti semitism” or whatever version — we’re already boxed in. outside of those prescribed borders it’s no go land. doesn’t matter if it’s the topic of the article — that’s still whataboutery. there’s so much invested (online, financially, in every way imaginable) to keep the focus on the persecution of jews – that the very act of not focusing on that or looking at racism outside of the paradigm is itself anti semitic. it’s absolute. that’s what i meant by absolutist. but that’s not the definition of absolutist.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        April 12, 2016, 3:51 pm

        “This is a version of an endemic problem here – the denial that antisemitism is a serious problem.”

        “Hophmi” if antisemitism is “a serious problem” why don’t you tell us all the harm antisemitism causes??? and then we can look at the numbers, the numbers killed, the numbers discriminated against, the economic consequences, there’s lots of ways to measure these things, and see just how “serious” a problem antisemitism is!

        Wait, let me guess, the main result of antisemitism is that it becomes “internalized” and gives rise to self-haters like Phil Weiss. Is that it?

        “It’s part of the anti-semitic atmosphere at Mondoweiss”

        Haven’t noticed you holding your breath. You seem quite content to inhale it. And support it, with ‘hits’ UPVs, and money.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        April 12, 2016, 5:27 pm

        ” This is the equivalent of me telling you that your house is on fire”

        At which point Annie (as anybody would)) turns around and takes a look, and her house is, most visibly, not on fire. You keep on screaming “Your house in on fire with antisemitism”, but it never is.

        After that happens a couple times, it’s only natural to wonder why you keep on turning in false alarms, “Hophmi”.

      • ritzl
        ritzl
        April 13, 2016, 2:52 am

        Something about notes and beams…

      • Talkback
        Talkback
        April 13, 2016, 11:09 am

        @ Annie,

        oh, that’s called a “Catch-22”. Not to accept the shmock’s definition of antisemitism makes you an antisemite according to the same definition. Lol.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        April 13, 2016, 12:45 pm

        “Not to accept the shmock’s definition of antisemitism makes you an antisemite according to the same definition. Lol.”

        Bong! You have rung the bell, and are entitled to cigar, coco-nut, or stuffed moose. Put very well.

        BTW, it works really well. On one memorable occasion, I was able to prove to my wife that she was an antisemite, using the reasoning noted above!
        But after that my shrink got my medication properly balanced, and I stopped having paranoid hallucinations.

      • annie
        annie
        April 13, 2016, 1:50 pm

        ha! thank you talkback.

    • bryan
      bryan
      April 10, 2016, 3:49 pm

      Hophmi – ““Eighteen words that say it all. ” Nonsense.”

      Yes – but by my reckoning it was only 16 words – which makes it an even more succinct statement of reality – but please don’t believe everything you read on the internet.

    • Stephen Shenfield
      Stephen Shenfield
      April 10, 2016, 7:18 pm

      ritzl: As an example, let me explain how my mother “got over that.” One day she went to the synagogue and heard our rabbi say that “Gentiles have always hated us.” On hearing this she became aware of a discrepancy between what the rabbi said and what she knew from her own experience: “I have Gentile friends who do not hate me, therefore Gentiles do not always hate us, therefore the rabbi is telling an untruth and inciting hatred.” Then she stopped going to the synagogue and broke off relations with the rabbi. The technical terms for this are empiricism (relying on experience) and logical thinking.

      • ritzl
        ritzl
        April 11, 2016, 1:35 am

        Thanks Stephen. Great uplifting story. And it seems she passed that ability on to you.

        I suppose the answer to the question of what triggers that empiricism (or not) is as varied as the number of people on the planet. In that sense it’s almost a metaphysical unknowable.

        Bernie Sanders, First Jewish Presidential Candidate with a Shot at Winning, seems to have had the same epiphany somewhere along the way. I was curious about how he came to that point (maybe at birth??) as confirming insight into the man, the candidate, and the leader.

        Cheers.

  3. MHughes976
    MHughes976
    April 10, 2016, 4:59 pm

    I really doubt that the feverish hate swamps of the Far Right generate much support, in any sense we’d recognise, for Palestinian rights. I admit to having little knowledge of the dinosaurs who live there.

    • Laurent Weppe
      Laurent Weppe
      April 10, 2016, 5:52 pm

      It’s not that the swamp generates support, it’s that its denizen used to (and some still do today) pretend they supported Palestinian Rights: it was an attempt to disguise hatred as lofty principles.

      It’s not done as often anymore because Islamophobia is the new black, but also because -notably in Western Europe- pro-Palestinian activists have grown cautious over the years: they know the impostors are still lurking and have become much better at defending themselves against entryism: pulling a Rassinier is much harder today than it was back in the day.

      • MHughes976
        MHughes976
        April 11, 2016, 2:49 pm

        I maybe approached the outlying line of mangroves before you get to the swamp when I was reading comments on an article by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown in the now defunct Independent about the Brussels bombs drawing attention to Western misdeeds and mistakes as cause, not of course as reason, for those dire events. The angry remarks about the culture from which the bombers came were disconcerting from what I would have thought was a fairly liberal readership. No doubt you can find worse, really swampy stuff elsewhere.
        In these frames of mind there seems to be very little emotional room even for a nod, let alone a firm statement, in support of Palestinian rights. Others may know better – has there really been a serious pretence of such support from contemporary far-right organisations?

  4. Laurent Weppe
    Laurent Weppe
    April 10, 2016, 5:48 pm

    “The overlap between Western anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is a fraction of that between Zionism and Islamophobia.”

    Not only that, but the two are quite intricately linked: the overlap between Western anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism used to be much larger than it is today because for a few decades after the end of WWII, Jews remained the prime target of the bigoted fraction of the white bourgeoisie. It’s only when racism against migrants from the Middle-East and Africa grew to become a political issue starting the late 70s that the balance started to switch.
    In fact, I wouldn’t hesitate to say that the ratio of far-rightists judeophobes hasn’t changed much: it’s just that them, the subjugation of Muslim immigrants takes priority over the extermination of Jews nowadays. In other words, White antisemitism hasn’t disappeared, it just temporarily converted to Zionism.

    And that’s something that should be remembered by those foolish enough to think they can safely ride the islamophobic tiger: when bashing migrants of Muslim descent became politically expedient, white racists threw their “Natural Allies in the Struggle against Global Jewry” under the bus without shame nor remorse: there is no doubt whatsoever that the day it becomes expedient to do so, white racists will turn on their “Natural Allies in the Struggle against Global Islamization” with cold savagery.

  5. yourstruly
    yourstruly
    April 10, 2016, 6:41 pm

    Besides, what generates anti-Semitism today is Israel’s occupation of Palestine, along with the U.S. multiple wars on Islamic nations that won’t kow-tow to U.S. dictates. If only the above violations of international law were abandoned, anti-Semitism would be reduced to a size that could be flushed down a toilet. And what need (er, excuse) then for a safe haven for “endangered” world Jewry?

  6. tokyobk
    tokyobk
    April 13, 2016, 1:56 am

    I don’t think its the far-right with which most Zionists associate anti-Semitism these days, its the far-left.

    • Shmuel
      Shmuel
      April 13, 2016, 2:30 am

      I don’t think its the far-right with which most Zionists associate anti-Semitism these days, its the far-left.

      How could it be otherwise, when the very definition of anti-Semitism has been changed to suit a Zionist/pro-Israel agenda? The only criterion that really seems to matter is support for Israel. This has not escaped those on the far-right seeking “respectability”. All they need to do is visit Israel and make a few pro-Israel statements and they get the coveted Jewish stamp of approval (see e.g. Gianfranco Fini, the BNP, Heinz-Christian Strache [work in progress], not to mention some of the most unsavoury characters on the Christian right in the US). For some reason, the idea of Jewish approval (as undeserved as it may be) opening the doors to political power doesn’t seem to dispel their anti-Semitic prejudices.

      When BDS is the bogeyman and Islamophobia is the ticket to acceptance, the far-right will always get a pass to hate Jews, and the far-left (even when staunchly anti-racist) will be put in the stocks.

Leave a Reply