Trending Topics:

Jeffrey Goldberg should come with a warning label

on 51 Comments

The resident anti-Semitism expert at Tablet, Yair Rosenberg, raised an important question in his recent attack on Phil Weiss and Mondoweiss. When, if ever, is it “news” and appropriate for a news organization to raise a person’s ethnicity or religion when announcing a hire? Rosenberg accused Phil Weiss of anti-Semitism for calling attention to the fact that the Atlantic magazine gave no hint of Jeffrey Goldberg’s Jewish Defense League/Israeli Defense Forces past, or his very unusual Jewish/Zionist identity when announcing his appointment as editor-in-chief. This two-part article will delve a little deeper into Jeffrey Goldberg’s Jewish identity and let readers decide for themselves whether that information might be a benefit in understanding Jeffrey Goldberg the journalist and editor.

To see what makes Jeffrey Goldberg different from every mainstream Jewish journalist, let’s compare him to another leading Jewish journalist, the Haaretz columnist and CNN commentator Peter Beinart.

They have the same profile. They are both centrist Democrats who have almost identical domestic policy positions. They both supported the Iraq war. They both take their Judaism seriously. The only difference seems to be that Goldberg is more hawkish on foreign policy questions and Israel.

In fact, the ideological difference between Jeffrey Goldberg and Peter Beinart is much greater than meets the eye. Take, for example  Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS), the Palestinian-led civil rights movement. At first you will notice the similarity between the two. Both Beinart and Goldberg, being Zionists, support the two-state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict and they oppose BDS. The BDS movement, in its stated policy or not, seem to favor a one-state democratic solution to the I/P conflict.

It is what happens next where the ideological divergence between Peter Beinart and Jeffrey Goldberg is most apparent. Consider this Goldberg tweet from last May:

The Facebook photograph is of a Norwegian ska/punk band called Razika at a demonstration. The young musicians are happy to advertise their support for boycotting Israel at a rally- “fri Palestina!” The word Jews is nowhere to be found.

Jeffrey Goldberg connects these young European women’s support of BDS to historical European anti-semitism. Goldberg’s tweet suggests that when he looks at these women they remind him of the Hitler Youth. Goldberg doesn’t believe these women could have come to their support for the Palestinian cause “honestly,” that is, on the basis of Israeli policies and practices. He believes it must be a result of Jew hatred– that they grew up reading Mein Kampf in their beds with a flashlight under the covers after the lights were out. 

Despite being considered by those who should know, as the best journalist in the country– or the best of “just under 500 people as the current and next generation stars to meet,” as the owner of the Atlantic put it, in announcing Goldberg’s hire—  I don’t think Jeffrey Goldberg reached his conclusion about these women’s Jew hatred by intrepid reporting, or having a deep source inside the Norwegian BDS campaign, for that matter. 

This is not Jeffrey Goldberg the Journalist tweeting; this is the Jewish advocate Jeffrey Goldberg speaking.

Let’s gather some more evidence of what Jeffrey Goldberg acting as a Jewish advocate is telling us.

Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate for president, supports BDS. That is not remarkable. That commitment is consistent with the rest of her politics. When Stein endorsed BDS last June, she cited US aid to “governments committing war crimes and massive human rights violations, including Israel and Saudi Arabia,” and described BDS as a “peaceful, nonviolent set of actions organized by civil society across the world aimed to end Israeli apartheid, occupation, war crimes, and systematic human rights abuses.”

Jeffrey Goldberg did not see the statement as a political action.

Goldberg reasons according to a simple syllogism 1. BDS hates Jews. 2. Jill Stein is Jewish 3. Jill Stein must be crazy in the head to support BDS.

As an aside, this is one of numerous examples where Jeffrey Goldberg treats those with Jewish identities he doesn’t favor as religions have historically treated their heretics. I will return to this Goldberg mindset in part two.

Here is yet another tweet of Goldberg with the same message. BDS is preoccupied with Jew hatred.

Now note how Peter Beinart speaks about the same BDS movement that according to Jeffrey Goldberg is all about Jew hatred. While he is also against it, he is open to other perspectives:

“… I oppose the BDS movement. But one can be a Zionist, and celebrate the miraculous rebirth of Jewish statehood in the land of Israel, yet also recognize why Palestinians—even Palestinians who don’t hate Jews—might see our blessing as their curse.

And what does Beinart think about the claim that the BDS movement is anti semitic?

“Equating anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism turns Palestinians into Amalekites. By denying that they might have any reason besides bigotry to dislike Zionism, it denies their historical experience and turns them into mere vessels for Jew-hatred. Thus, it does to Palestinians what anti-Semitism does to Jews. It dehumanizes them.

Palestinians didn’t become anti-Zionists because they needed a rationale for hating Jews and found the old ones outdated. They become anti-Zionists because their experience with Zionism was extremely rough.”

So Peter Beinart is saying: while he opposes the BDS movement, he has no reason to question the motives of the movement. He sees nothing inherently immoral about BDS. He understands BDS as a manifestation of the Palestinian encounter with a successful Zionist project. It  makes total sense from their perspective.

And Beinart goes even further than that. He says those who attach the anti-Semitic label to anti-Zionists are guilty of dehumanization of their very human targets, and that’s what anti semites did and do to Jews. Reread these lines:

“By denying that they might have any reason besides bigotry to dislike Zionism, it denies their historical experience and turns them into mere vessels for Jew-hatred. Thus, it does to Palestinians what anti-Semitism does to Jews. It dehumanizes them.”

Unless I am mistaken Peter Beinart is suggesting that Jeffrey Goldberg is the equivalent of an anti-Semite.

It is noteworthy that Goldberg sees vessels of Jew hatred in every corner. Consider what he did to Jimmy Carter’s 2006 book Palestine: Peace not Apartheid when he was reading it “carefully.”

“When you read it carefully, you realize that it is essentially a theologically based rant. The essential argument of his book is that Israel today plays the role the Pharisees played 2,000 years ago during the time of Christ. And the conclusion I came away with was that Jimmy Carter never got the memo that evangelical Christians are supposed to like the Jews now, and he’s still stuck in sort of an old mode of thinking.”

So Jimmy Carter too is reduced to a vessel of Jew hatred.

I don’t know if Ezra Klein read Carter’s book, or Thomas Friedman or JJ Goldberg or Peter Beinart or David Remnick or Glenn Greenwald or any other Jewish journalist in the country. But I suspect even after a careful reading they would come away with a different conclusion than it was a “theological based rant” about the Pharisees.

Ezra Klein stuck his neck out on this very question a few years ago when he accused Goldberg of “fearful tribalism” when it comes to leveling the anti-Semitism charge against intellectuals who criticize Israel:

Rolling that grenade against critics of the Israeli government’s actions might shut down debate, but it’s a dangerous strategy, as it cheapens the meaning of the term and tells a lot of people that they are not simply being critical of Israel’s actions, but that their beliefs actually set them against Jews. Friends are important, even if you disagree on some things.

It is safe to say Jeffrey Goldberg is out of the mainstream here. He sounds the alarm bells whenever he is talking about Jews and Israel. And you don’t have to read Goldberg very carefully to see it.

Look at what the Washingtonian said about Goldberg in its profile 3 years ago (“Washington’s Most Pugnacious Journalist”): when it came to Iran, Goldberg’s judgment could not be trusted.

Goldberg is perhaps best understood as a “never again” journalist. IS IT POSSIBLE TO THINK TOO MUCH ABOUT THE HOLOCAUST?, a Goldblog headline asked. His reply:

“No, the answer is no—it is not possible to think about the Holocaust too much.”

This mindset helps account for Goldberg’s fixation on whether Israel will launch an airstrike against Iran’s nuclear facilities…

Paul Starobin writes that even Goldberg admirer longtime Mid East negotiator Dennis Ross, and his friend Michael Oren, former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. and now in charge of “public diplomacy” in this Israeli government, acknowledge Goldberg kept on getting things wrong, about an area about which he is supposed to be a specialist on.

[I]n forecasting, on multiple occasions, a high degree of likelihood of an Israeli airstrike (which he doesn’t necessarily consider a good idea), Goldberg has exhibited a degree of certainty that perhaps no outsider can possess.

But that seemingly chastening experience didn’t stop Goldberg from writing in his Bloomberg View column last March that “I’m highly confident that Netanyahu isn’t bluffing—that he is in fact counting down to the day when he will authorize a strike against a half-dozen or more Iranian nuclear sites” and still again to predict in his column in July that Israeli leaders “may very well decide” to launch a strike before the American election on November 6.

Nope and nope. It could be that the only thing off is his timing. But he risks sounding like a broken record.

Starobin said that Jeffrey seems to be the worst journalist when it comes to Iran. Why? Because of his “fixation” with the Holocaust. I’m unsure what Phil Weiss did wrong, but Starobin has to be doing something much worse here.  He brings all this evidence that Jeffrey Goldberg’s usually balanced judgment eludes him when it comes to Iran. And he says it’s because Goldberg’s Holocaust “fixation” is not allowing him to be objective about Iran. Reading what Yair Rosenberg wrote about Phil Weiss, I would start preparing my defense to this charge if I were Paul Starobin:

“…..the insistence on publicly labeling individuals with their religious background in order to darkly impugn their motives and delegitimize their standing is textbook bigotry, and the classic recourse of the anti-Semite…. Normal people critique their political opponents on policy grounds. Racist people critique their political opponents based on their ethnic or religious backgrounds.”

In part 2  I will follow up on Starobin’s scoop and look at Jeffrey Goldberg’s more recent Iran writings and report if he was able to resolve his “fixation.”  

And finally, the young anti-Semitic scholar Yair Rosenberg deserves special praise for opening up for discussion a topic that has traditionally been seen as off limits, or “politically correct.”  We should applaud him for his courage and wisdom. To me at least, Yair Rosenberg is already ready to inherit Jeffrey Goldberg’s numinous mantle.

Yakov Hirsch

Yakov Hirsch is a professional poker player and a writer. His twitter handle is @Yakovhirsch and his articles are posted at

Other posts by .

Posted In:

51 Responses

  1. James North on October 25, 2016, 1:16 pm

    This is your best post yet. Keep it coming. The contrast between Goldberg and Beinart is brilliant.

    • Krauss on October 26, 2016, 3:39 am

      Doesn’t say much. Goldberg is an ethnocentric bigot. Beinart is a split personality, he has a humanist core but his ethnocentrism usually wins the day. The result is that while he would never be caught making overt racist remarks about Europeans/Palestinians like Goldberg, the bar to cross is so low as to make the comparison meaningless.

      In the end, Beinart still supports Israel. Despite the fact that he almost certainly knows – deep down – that the occupation is permanent and it is a de facto one big state now. He still clings to Zionism. That tells you what matters to him most, in the end.

    • Yakov Hirsch on October 26, 2016, 7:58 pm

      (((James North))) October 25, 2016, 1:16 pm
      This is your best post yet. Keep it coming. The contrast between Goldberg and Beinart is brilliant.

      Thanks James! I might be the only one, but Jeffrey Goldberg inspires me.

  2. annie on October 25, 2016, 2:05 pm

    great article yakov

    • Yakov Hirsch on October 26, 2016, 8:01 pm

      Annie Robbins October 25, 2016, 2:05 pm
      “great article yakov”

      Thanks Annie, but i have to be honest with you. I’m a little hurt about the “great” description.. Its not like you didn’t see someone else used the word “brilliant.”

  3. echinococcus on October 25, 2016, 2:58 pm

    The good cop here is by far the more dangerous.
    As usual, in fact.
    There isn’t that much of a difference. In fact, there is none as to their determination to save the Zionist entity from the impending catastrophe and keep all the loot.

    • Yakov Hirsch on October 26, 2016, 8:52 pm

      echinococcus October 25, 2016, 2:58 pm
      “The good cop here is by far the more dangerous.
      As usual, in fact.
      There isn’t that much of a difference.”

      I think the difference is Peter Beinart is trying to be a moral human being, and that just has no appeal to Jeffrey Goldberg. Jeffrey Goldberg approach to almost every human interaction is: Will this interaction be “good for the Jews or bad for the Jews,” and more importantly,”will this be good for Jeffrey Goldberg or not?

      • echinococcus on October 26, 2016, 10:52 pm


        Let’s not confuse petty “morals”, about stealing on the job or selfless commitment to the mission etc. with morals tout court.
        Whoever is facing the business end of Zionism doesn’t feel the difference between the honest one and the self-aggrandizing one.
        The corrupt one is usually easier to deal with.

  4. pabelmont on October 25, 2016, 3:41 pm

    YH: Terrific article, but it falls into the same trap that Phil did earlier. You write

    I don’t think Jeffrey Goldberg reached his conclusion about these women’s Jew hatred by intrepid reporting, or having a deep source inside the Norwegian BDS campaign, for that matter.

    This is not Jeffrey Goldberg the Journalist tweeting; this is the Jewish Jeffrey Goldberg speaking.

    Let’s gather some more evidence of what Jeffrey Goldberg acting as a Jewish leader is telling us.

    JG is not writing from a universal “Jewish” perspective, nor yet from the perspective of every Jew who was raised knowing about the holocaust (which is about 100% I should think). No! JG is writing from the perspective of someone raised in a particular sort of Jewish educational milieu, a strongly Zionist and strongly willing-to-see-antisemitism-under-every-rock Jewish education. (Non-Jews might have been raised in a similar educational milieu, but I rather doubt that many were.)

    YH contrasts JG and Peter Beinart (and I suppose by implication, contrasts JG and Phil Weiss). These comparisons show that it is not, not, not Jewishness per se (and universally) that “makes the man” who JG so clearly is, but a particular kind of education. That “kind” of education may be quite wide-spread but it is not universal, as PB and PW illustrate.

    We must, all of us, work hard, and harder, to find ways of condemning (or merely describing or accounting for the opinions of) folks like JG which do *NOT* attribute JG’s personal views to his being a Jew but rather attribute his views to his circumstances which — although perhaps occurring within various Jewish sub-communities — are *NOT* universal among Jews and hence are not “Jewish”.

    Let us suppose that there are racially Chinese Jews, racially Indian Jews, racially Ethiopian Jews, as well as racially European (or racially middle eastern) Jews. Does it make sense to say that JG has a “Jewish nose” if his nose does not look like the noses of the Chinese, Indian, or Ethiopian Jews?

    To change topic a bit, I saw this week a complaint (by a thin-skinned Jew or Zionist) that a non-Jew, who wrote such-and-such about Israel, was “using a well-known antisemitic trope” (I think this is the sense of what was said) and was therefore, and per se, an antisemitic statement. My response was: “Well, bozo, what was said may be well-known to you as an antisemitic trope, but [a] it may not have been well-known as such to the writer you criticize, so that it may not have been made with antisemitic intent; and [b] what he said may be true whatever its tropiness and therefore not made with antisemitic intent but merely with truth-telling intent. The complainer was trying to make all the world a captive of his/her own chip-on-shoulder you-repeat-what-I-have-come-to-regard-as-an-antisemitic-trope and it hurts my feelings and therefore I accuse you of intending to hurt my feelings, you dog, even though I have not inquired into your own education (w.r.t. antisemitism, for instance).

    • Yakov Hirsch on October 26, 2016, 8:36 pm

      pabelmont October 25, 2016, 3:41 pm
      “YH: Terrific article, but it falls into the same trap that Phil did earlier. ”
      Thanks for compliment!
      Please though in the future if you notice me falling into the same trap as Phil has, there is no need to publicize it like you’re doing here. I am trying to establish a reputation for myself and “falling into the same trap as Phil” will keep me here at Mondoweiss for life if not longer.
      Now about said trap.
      I totally agree with you and it has in fact been the focus of my writing.
      What you are describing is a culture. What i think of as “hasbara culture.” Take this tweet from Greenblatt of the ADL about Phil Weiss.(the guy who walks smilingly into every trap)

      It literally doesn’t mean anything. I would to love to hear Greenblatt explain this tweet in simple English, without the use of any “sacred” slogans. What exactly is Jeffrey Goldberg’s “faith,” and how exactly did Phil Weiss attack it? That is a typical product of hasbara culture. These words that Greenblatt is writing have been given a “sacredness,” an exemption from reason and logic in our culture. It allows him to spout them without him even thinking what the words actually mean. Same with this tweet.
      [email protected] via @Medium: “BDS is a modern version of an irrational hatred of the Jewish people.”

      Impossible to make sense of those words.

      Hasbara culture is ADL/Jeffrey Goldberg/Netanyahu et al. variety of Jewish ethnocentrism. And this culture is only able to exist because it has the exemption and protection of being thought of as Jewish.. But Goldberg also thinks his Jewish ethnocentrism isn’t only for Jews. Everyone should look at the world through JG eyes. Read his tweets. There is no more proselytizing “religion” in the world than hasbara culture, this toxic type of Jewish ethnocentricity.

      People will see this mindset with the unselfconscious “defense” of Elor azaria and the call for his pardon by politicians and the public, of our most morally enlightened ally. The “world” is in store for a shock after the Azaria verdict. And i don’t think it will stay off the front page of the NY Times. And hasbara culture going to be hard pressed to make sense of all the hasbara about the killing coming from Israel, and why Azaria doesn’t deserve prison. Every child the world over knows the man shooting the man on the ground is a bad man.
      An alternative reality has been cultivated by people like Jeffrey Goldberg due to their very specific Jewish identity. That tribal fantasy in Goldberg head is not a reflection of what is really going on in the world. Goldberg is basically wrong every single time he opens his mouth, or writes anything relating to Jewish issues. His whole “journalism” career has been to mold the world into the tribal fantasy in his head, and proselytize it by the sword, which in JG means his pen. He has been very effective. When he has gotten any resistance to his worldview he experiences it like he is a Warsaw Ghetto fighter. And he is representing every Jew in history who couldn’t defend themselves. Thats what he and his friends Jihads are all about. That why they try to ruin the lives of their political opponents. They experience them like Nazis.
      The second part of this article will show what happens to Goldberg’s Journalism when his childhood fantasies (below)about Nazis get focused on Iran.
      “EARLY IN THE spring of 1944, when I was quite a bit younger than I am now, I parachuted into Nazi-occupied Poland as the leader of a team of Brooklyn-born commandos. We landed in a field not far from the train tracks that fed Jews to the gas chambers of Auschwitz. My team laid explosive charges on the tracks, destroying them utterly, and then I moved quickly on foot to the death camp itself, where I found Josef Mengele, the Angel of Death, in bed. I shot him in the face, though not before lecturing him on his sins. Before I killed him, he cried like a little Nazi bitch.

      Then I woke up, ate a bowl of Rice Krispies, and walked to school—the Howard T. Herber Middle School—where a sixth-grade pogromist named Patrick Harrington and his Cossack associates pitched pennies at me in a game sometimes known as “Bend the Jew,” which ended, inevitably, with me being jumped for refusing to pick up the aforementioned pennies, and also for killing Jesus. It is in part because of young Mr. Harrington and his lieutenants that I would later join the Israeli army, and that, more recently, I found myself sitting beside Quentin Tarantino’s pool in the Hollywood Hills, listening in wonder as the writer and director of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction diagnosed what he saw as the essential, maddening flaw of every Holocaust movie ever made.

  5. inbound39 on October 25, 2016, 4:48 pm

    If anyone at all is in need of treatment it would howl out to many therapists that it is Goldberg in need of serious help. He exhibits the ingrained and hardwired trait of chronic denial of Zionist crimes against Palestinians which even those with the most limited sight could either hear or see. Those crimes are what create the immense dislike Palestinians have for Israeli’s and given any other community that was treated similarly to Palestinians the response would naturally be the same…a human response…..a fight for freedom.

  6. Walker on October 25, 2016, 5:53 pm

    “numinous mantle”. I love that.

    I remember hearing years ago Jeffrey Goldberg being interviewed by Terry Gross about his recent trip to Lebanon. Goldberg started talking about how most Lebanese were antisemitic. Gross was agreeing with him every step of the way despite the fact that she seems never to have been to Lebanon. Israel’s repeated assaults and occupations of Lebanon didn’t enter the picture. It sounded like a private kvetching session, not something that belonged on the public airwaves.

    • tokyobk on October 26, 2016, 12:46 am

      I havent checked what they asked, and I don’t disregard the context you mention at all, but the 2010 Pew study showed 98% of Lebanese with negative attitudes towards Jews.

      • echinococcus on October 26, 2016, 1:44 am

        At which point the real question is “what’s wrong with the 2%”? Haven’t they heard about the wars? Or haven’t they heard that the Zionists call themselves “Jews”?
        There is also a 2% that they may have heard of the presence of non-ZIonist Jews.

      • WH on October 26, 2016, 3:01 am

        I think one can strongly assume that most people in Israel’s neighbouring countries mean Zionist Israelis when they say ‘Jews’, as they may be the only Jews they have encountered, assuming they’ve met any at all. Accordingly, the poll shows that Palestinian Israelis have more positive attitudes towards Jews, despite their own disadvantaged status, because they are more likely to know Jews of different kinds and do not necessarily take them all as standing for Zionism.

      • Krauss on October 26, 2016, 3:37 am

        What do you think the favourability rating of muslims would be if you polled Israeli Jews? Do you think those two are completely independent? You’re as popular to your neighbours as you behave.

        It’s very soothing to indulge oneself into a fantasy of “nothing we do matters to how we are treated or perceived”. It’s also psychobabble fit for the neurotic, scared and paranoid.

      • oldgeezer on October 26, 2016, 8:06 am


        I would assume that by the context you are referring to the repeated occupations, violation of sovereignty, slaughter of civilians and destruction of property.

        People who are aware understand that Israel is not the same as Jews but when one is victimized by a state that calls itself the Jewish state, with leaders who claim to represent all Jews, with community leaders in foreign countries publicly claiming all of their comminity support Israel then such a large group of people holding such views is understandable. Wrong but understandable.

        Unfavourable views of arabs by Israelis is similarly a huge percentage. It wouldn’t take much of an increase to match the 98%.

        If Israel had been the victims and not the perps of a jalf century of soveriegnty violations and violations of human rights I have no doubt we would see the same figures.

        It can’t be written off as typical antisemitism in that context. The antipathy is not being created in a vacuum.

      • silamcuz on October 26, 2016, 10:00 am

        This is such a problematic statement to make. What does the personal prejudices of the Lebanese has anything to do with Palestine and Israel? Prejudices does not translate to institutional oppression or discrimination necessarily. While it could possibly be true that 98 percent of the Lebanese hold unfavorable views of Jews, it certainly does not mean they support or a complicit in any form of systemic discrimination against them. Jews are welcome in Lebanon just as much as a Christian or a Muslim, as long as they yield to the laws of the land. There are no official policies within Lebanon that specifically target Jews because of their religion, unlike in Israel or Trump’s vision of America where huge sectors of population are targeted for having the wrong type of identity, such as being Muslim, Arab etc.

      • tokyobk on October 26, 2016, 10:52 am

        As I said, I don’t know the exact questions.

        I see for example that 44% of Japanese are supposed to have negative feelings towards Jews and I just haven’t experienced that at all besides a certain type of book you find in convenience store comics (not taken seriously).

        My point was simply that it might not have been totally made up that Goldberg experienced the Lebanese as not particularly fond of Jews — thats what the survey says – and its Jews not Israelis. I do think we should give the Lebanese more credit for being aware of the world and its people.

        About Israelis I am sure there are numbers comparable in reverse, with some of the other numbers from around the ME. Half of Israelis want all Arabs expelled so that’s a pretty good indicator of how things go.

        Here is a MW story on it:

      • annie on October 26, 2016, 11:46 am

        the 2010 Pew study showed 98% of Lebanese with negative attitudes towards Jews.

        this reminds me of a little village i stayed in in southern lebanon. near the center of the town there was a place the israelis used to execute people of the village during the israeli occupation of lebanon. there was a plaque there with the names of those who had been executed — on that spot. i think around 15-20k lebanese were killed during that era, not to mention the 2006 invasion.

        if the only jews you’ve ever met are israeli or israeli occupation soldiers occupying your country and killing your citizens, not liking them would be a natural response. goldberg and gross referencing lebanese being anti semitic with no context or recognition of their experience under occupation is wrong, not to mention highly unprofessional.

      • Mooser on October 26, 2016, 12:01 pm

        “tokyobk”, pedestrian is one thing, but nobody likes to see a guy get down and crawl in the mud.

      • Keith on October 26, 2016, 2:01 pm

        ECHINOCOCCUS- “At which point the real question is “what’s wrong with the 2%”? “

        Hard to disagree. In view of what the “Jewish state” has done and is doing to the people of Lebanon with the support of organized American Jewry, how could it be otherwise? Rather than spending time checking poll data to feed his need for examples of anti-Semitism, perhaps Tokyobk should be more vocal about how Jewish Israeli foreign policy supported by organized American Jewry contributes to anti-Semitism. And that includes Israeli de facto support for Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Monarchies and their Islamist mercenary terrorists.

      • echinococcus on October 26, 2016, 2:41 pm


        Sometimes you come across as relatively sane, sometimes you don’t. As all of us, I suppose, but there is a limit. When were the Japanese occupied by Zionists calling themselves the Jewish state?

        “its Jews not Israelis” just shows you have no blinking idea of what the words mean in the Near East. Thanks to people like you, among others.

        You don’t listen enough.

      • tokyobk on October 26, 2016, 9:55 pm

        Echi —

        I am sure I do have inconsistencies but we also live in a time where people are expected to sign on to giant slates or live inside of big categories like “liberal” and “conservative” and I don’t do that. Also in the case of I/P.

        My point about Japan was actually that I am not sure what anti-Jewish attitudes means. I doubt 44% of Japanese have scary ideas about Jews, from my experience. So it is in fact very possible that many Lebanese were counted in the 98% have some biases against Jews but not what I would consider anti-semitism. Not sure how you missed that.

        Obviously Yahud can mean Israeli or Jew and again I wonder how Pew dealt with this.

        Keith — to your point it depends on how we define anti-semitism or other bigotry. I would say no amount of bombings done by some Muslims in the name of Islam justifies a hatred of all Muslims, or the belief that terror bombings are inherently Muslim or Islamic. So I reject the rationality of all bigotry because of its essentialist claims. People can and should be expected to differentiate, otherwise the idea that yelling at a woman wearing a headscarf in Paris is acceptable because of the actions of some Muslims there, which is a fairly despicable thought.

        I consider the accusation of the “need for anti-Semitism” to be a odious kind of claim and one quite popular on the kind of sites that you obviously read, since most of your comments here are bowdlerized retakes of their gripes. I have no need of antisemitism, I wish there was none, or as little possible on earth, or any other bigotry. I am not denying of course that anti-Semitism has been a powerful rhetorical tool in building Zionism, or that the Star of David on an IDF jet does claim to represent all Jews.

      • echinococcus on October 26, 2016, 10:46 pm


        Do me a favor and look up the word “context”.

      • Keith on October 27, 2016, 12:33 am

        TOKYOBK- “Keith — to your point it depends on how we define anti-semitism or other bigotry.”

        Talk about being willfully blind! The notion that when people who identify themselves as Jews attack their neighbors, that these victims of Israeli Jewish aggression have anti-Jewish attitudes is an example of “bigotry” is mind boggling! What chutzpah! It is hunky dory for Jews to lump all Gentiles together, however, if Israel’s victims don’t “differentiate” between Jews and Zionist Jews they are anti-Semitic bigots? And you have the audacity to call yourself a scholar? Armchair anti-Gentile Jewish chauvinist is more like it!

      • Keith on October 27, 2016, 12:52 am

        TOKYOBK- “I consider the accusation of the “need for anti-Semitism” to be a odious kind of claim and one quite popular on the kind of sites that you obviously read, since most of your comments here are bowdlerized retakes of their gripes.”

        You apparently are referring to something I said in a previous comment regarding Zionism’s need for PERCEIVED anti-Semitism. Nothing “odious” about the claim, rather obvious to those with their eyes open. Kind of sites I obviously read? CounterPunch? Mondoweiss? As I have indicated again and again, you are one of the more intellectually dishonest commenters on Mondoweiss. An Eliezer anti-Gentile chauvinist.

      • tokyobk on October 27, 2016, 1:43 am

        Echi- ok besides the context in which Yahud. literally, Jew might be used to mean Israeli? I get that.

        I think that would account for a lot of it and also, for the third time, I don’t know what they asked or what they consider to be anti-semetic.

        I do also think we should realistically assess these attitudes, including of Israelis.

        Majority minority tensions, to say the least, are one of the problems int he ME and its hardly just about Jews.

      • echinococcus on October 27, 2016, 2:35 am


        What makes it hard to discuss is the obsession with “anti-Jewish attitudes” (not anyone’s chief problem) and the fact that you don’t even try to define what you mean by “Jewish”.

        In the normal world, the one outside Zionism, it designates the followers of a religion. When you ask, say, an average Lebanese, making clear that you don’t mean the Jews but some People of the Book, of the Mûsawi, i.e. Mosaic persuasion in Europe, no invaders in occupied Palestine, perhaps part of the Neturei who came to support the resistance –of course you’ll get a different reaction than to the “Jews”, group who defines itself racially, and in the name of its racism occupied several countries, massacred one’s relatives over there, executed one’s friends over here, and are finishing the theft of Palestine by a genocide.

        Yes, you were alluding to some such possible difference when mentioning the survey questions but you didn’t define your own “Jewish”. In the normal world, a distinction that you ignore makes for all the context: religion or nationality / race / tribe, and the twain don’t mix except in Zionist mythology.

      • jon s on October 29, 2016, 12:27 pm

        I give the Lebanese credit for being grown-up , intelligent and educated, perfectly capable of making a distinction between Jews and Israelis if they so wish. If they fail to do so- I wouldn’t make excuses.
        You write about the” little village”(in one line ) or” town “(in the next line) in Lebanon where there was a place where ” the Israelis used to execute people”. When did this happen? Where?
        Who were executed: civilians? Armed fighters? Executed –how? Publicly? Firing squad? Hanging?
        “Used to ” implies that this occurred repeatedly. Every day? Once a week? Which IDF unit or units were involved?
        Do you have any more information?

      • annie on October 30, 2016, 3:18 pm

        When did this happen? Where?
        Who were executed: civilians? Armed fighters? Executed –how? Publicly? Firing squad? Hanging?
        “Used to ” implies that this occurred repeatedly. Every day? Once a week?

        it happened during the many years israel was occupying southern lebanon.

        i don’t remember the name of the town (i am terrible w/names — especially foreign ones) but i know how to get there (go east up into the hills above sidon). but even if i did know i wouldn’t say because my host asked me to not reveal the location of the village.

        i assume the people executed were lebanese resistance they deemed dangerous. maybe amal, i didn’t asked.

        they were shot. and since it was near the center of town off to the side of the road in a public place one could assume it was public. but i don’t know. but i’m fairly certain it was execution style. there was a plaque in arabic listing the names, dates, and circumstance.

        i doubt it happened every day or week because there were not dozens of names and they occupied the village for a long time, years. but it happened repeatedly and in the same location, at least according to the towns people.

    • Yakov Hirsch on October 26, 2016, 9:00 pm

      Walker October 25, 2016, 5:53 pm
      ““numinous mantle”. I love that.”

      Thanks walker. Important for me know that at least one other person enjoyed that as much as I did.

      • Mooser on October 27, 2016, 4:16 pm

        I’m confused. Will you win your bet or lose your bet?

        Goldberg, apparently, knows when to fold ’em, walk away and run. May he, somewhere in the darkness, break even.

  7. Citizen on October 26, 2016, 8:27 am

    Good article! Here’s a picture & a bit about that Norwegian girl band:

    Excerpt from the girls: “They say it’s “completely absurd” to think they’re Nazi or antisemitic. “We reject Nazism, fascism, antisemitism and violence”. They support boycotting Israel because “Israel is an occupying state that oppresses the Palestinian people and systematically violates human rights.”


  8. philweiss on October 26, 2016, 10:31 am

    I have to tweet this but it’s interesting that this is the first line of Temple Emanu-El’s bio for Jeffrey for event tomorrow night:
    “Jeffrey Goldberg, a native New Yorker, served in the Israeli Defense Forces and once convinced a PLO leader of the moral justification of Zionism.”
    That information is absent from the Atlantic announcement of Goldberg being new editor in chief.
    It’s like the old saw about what Arafat says in Arabic to Palestinians, and what he says to int’l audience.

    • Mooser on October 26, 2016, 11:59 am

      I don’t know what you guys are so upset about. Goldberg is simply using a little discretion, by trying to back slowly away with a “Who me, a Zionist?” before he moves to an anti-Zionist stance. You can’t blame a guy for trying to avoid embarrassment.

  9. RobertHenryEller on October 26, 2016, 1:56 pm

    Why should Jeffrey Goldberg come with a warning label?

    “Jeffrey Goldberg” IS a warning label.

  10. RobertHenryEller on October 26, 2016, 3:20 pm

    Goldberg does not support a two state solution. If he did, he would at least tolerate BDS. Goldberg’s support for a two state solution is about as credible as Netanyahu’s support for a two state solution.

    Goldberg and Netanyahu as just two zombie zionist psycho liars. When Israel destroys itself, and takes down much if not all of Judaism itself, and Jews are no longer safe anywhere. Goldberg will be standing there going, “How did I get this wrong?” I’ll tell you how you get it wrong, Goldberg: You put butt-kissing-for-access-and-self-stroking -status uber alles.

    I’ll bet President Obama reads what you’re really about loud and clear, and plays you for the tool you are, Goldberg.

    • echinococcus on October 26, 2016, 3:34 pm


      There is no contradiction. “Two state solution” means talk about talks for as long as it takes to complete the elimination of Palestinians, a definitive solution to the pesky problem of the owners.

      Facts are out there: it never meant anything else in practice.

      Sometimes, it’s hard to be sure that even the PA doesn’t share that definition.

    • Yakov Hirsch on October 26, 2016, 9:08 pm

      RobertHenryEller October 26, 2016, 3:20 pm

      Goldberg and Netanyahu as just two zombie zionist psycho liars. When Israel destroys itself, and takes down much if not all of Judaism itself, and Jews are no longer safe anywhere. Goldberg will be standing there going, “How did I get this wrong?

      I beg to differ about Goldberg’s reaction. There has not been and there will wont be, ” how did i get this wrong”. It will be the fault of everyone but Jeffrey. If only people listened to him. From the neo-Nazis to the crazy settlers there will always be someone else that needs to be held to account.

      • Mooser on October 29, 2016, 4:28 pm

        ” Goldberg will be standing there going, “How did I get this wrong?”

        Like an Urkel possessed by a dybbuk!

        Anyway, everything Jeffry Goldberg learned about politics, democracy and civil rights as a Zionist will now inform his work as editor of the Atlantic. Can’t wait for his article: “My Hamas Problem- and Yours”.

  11. RobertHenryEller on October 26, 2016, 3:22 pm

    You should replace your old, stock photo of the zaftik Goldberg with a newer photo of the now-svelt lizard Goldberg.

  12. michtom on October 26, 2016, 4:47 pm

    The core of Jewish ethics, AFAIC, comes from the Seder.

    It tells us that we should think of ourselves as having personally come out of slavery–a status that has one identifying with the oppressed; second, that no one is free until everyone is–and everyone is not just Jews, but, indeed EVERYONE; finally, that Jews have an obligation to work for that universal freedom.

    How one can be a Zionist and meet those criteria is beyond me.

  13. John Salisbury on October 26, 2016, 5:59 pm

    This guy will definitely be voting for Jill Stein in Nov.

    Anyone who doesn’t would be anti Semitic in his eyes.

    PS Go Jill !

  14. Kay24 on October 26, 2016, 9:44 pm

    Goldberg should have come with an expiration date – his pro Israel stance has clouded his judgement, and makes him a very, very biased journalist. Perhaps he should move to Israel and start a publication calling it the Zionist Journal, at least he will feel at home over there.

  15. JLewisDickerson on October 27, 2016, 1:45 am

    RE “Jeffrey Goldberg should come with a warning label”

    THIS MIGHT HAVE POTENTIAL: “Contents may settle. Product sold by weight, not volume.”


    Why does my cereal say “contents may settle”?
    Right on the top it says “Contents may settle. Product sold by weight not volume”.
    Is that bad? What happens if it settles? Doesn’t all cereal “settle”? I don’t get it.

    ● Best Answer: When the cereal settles, it appears that the package is half full( this is normal).
    But because many people think that they were robbed, they post these words on the box so you know that the content is there( the weight is the same) but it appears less because it “settled”.
    Some products settle when they get handled and shaken around during transport.
    jc · 7 years ago


    What does this political cartoon mean?
    its called the mayflower. its the ship of the name and the phrase “contents may settle’ are written. i need to know its meaning for school and how does it use humor in the form of words to make it funny.

    ● Best Answer: The Mayflower was the ship that brought the English pilgrims to North America or the United States before it became the United States. they settled here, so the phrase says “contents may settle” which means the contents of the ship the pilgrims may settle, which is what they did.
    Nate · 3 years ago

    P.S. HERE is the political cartoon featuring the Mayflower with a “contents may settle” notice/warning.
    source –

  16. JLewisDickerson on October 27, 2016, 3:56 am

    RE: “This is not Jeffrey Goldberg the Journalist tweeting; this is the Jewish advocate Jeffrey Goldberg speaking.
    Let’s gather some more evidence of what Jeffrey Goldberg acting as a Jewish advocate is telling us.”
    ~ Yakov Hirsch

    MY QUESTION: When Jeffrey Goldberg the Journalist morphs into Jeffrey Goldberg the Advocate, is it possible that he is actually an Israeli advocate (or, more specifically, a ‘right-wing Israeli advocate’) rather than a “Jewish advocate”?

  17. Talkback on October 27, 2016, 8:56 am

    Whenever a Jew claims that support for Palestinians or criticism of what Israel does to them is antisemitic I know that we are dealing with a Jewish supremacist who suffers from collective narcissism. And that is exactly what the racist Goldberg is because he claims that there cannot be any legitimate reason to criticize the nearly half a century long oppression and disenfranchisement of Nonjews as Nonjews. That he of all people calls others Nazis is due to the big plank in his eye which seems to have punctured his brain.

    • Mooser on October 29, 2016, 4:31 pm

      Perhaps Goldberg will explain in some future Atlantic editorial that a “two-states” solution would solve America’s problems.

Leave a Reply