Trending Topics:

When conservatives supported Palestine

on 23 Comments

Given the recent tendency of the right to transform deep-rooted anxieties about immigration and radical Islam into major political talking points, one would logically wonder if the West has always viewed Islam as a source of civilizational conflict? Perspectives on recent military endeavors in the Middle East and North Africa certainly serve to support this idea. Many now view the War on Terror as merely another episode in a saga of perpetual civilizational clash between the West and Islam; a manifestation of deep-seated conflict dating back to the time of the Crusades and continuing violently into the present. Themes of this existential struggle have become burrowed deep within neoconservative lore, and in some cases have even found a home in establishment Republican politics. For many mainstream American conservatives, the current territorial conflict between Israel and Palestine is yet another revision of this civilizational schism; a brooding conflict between the world’s only Jewish-majority state, seen as upholding distinctly Western and democratic values in the Near East, and an occupied, Arab territory; seen as a rogue Islamic state.

Although the contemporary Republican Party is now viewed as largely synonymous with staunch Zionism, the American conservative movement once featured a decidedly pro-Arab faction. From the late 1940s and well into the heart of the 1960s, Arab nationalism was a mainstay within many right wing circles, and numerous mainstream conservative figureheads were explicitly pro-Palestine. Right-wing book publishing powerhouse Regnery Publishing — now best known for featuring the works of authors such as Sarah Palin, Michelle Malkin, and Newt Gingrich — was in fact once a major intellectual outlet that championed the Palestinian plight. Publishing titles such as “What Price Israel?” a controversial anti-Zionist work by Alfred Lilienthal, and “They Are Human Too,” a photographic collection of Palestinian refugees by Per Olow Anderson — Regnery brooded the roots of Palestinian nationalism in the United States.

While many now assert that Regnery’s founder Henry Regnery bore a particularly odd affinity for the Palestinian cause, his views on Zionism were actually mainstream among most post-WWII conservative circles. For instance, in 1957 the conservative magazine National Review drew criticism from political philosopher Leo Strauss after they published an article that referred to Israel as a racist state. Authored by Guy Ponce de Leon, the article asserted that, when compared to their contemporaries, the United States was in fact actually ahead of the times with regard to racial justice. Furthermore, De Leon stated that “Jews, themselves the victims of the most notorious racial discrimination of modern times, did not hesitate to create the first racist state in history.” Perhaps foreshadowing future rhetoric on the debate, Strauss responded by asserting that conservatives should support Israel, a country he viewed as a critical component of a greater Western identity. Strauss argued that Israel was essentially an outpost of the West, promoting democratic ideals and educating its populous about the fundamental values of the Occident. While some of the ideas originally iterated by Strauss were eventually adopted by right wing Zionists in the proceeding decades, his arguments at the time fell on mostly deaf ears.

A strong degree of conservative opposition to Zionism also came from within the Old Right political circles of the Republican Party. An informal designation referring to a loose collection of right-wing political thinkers who favored a non-interventionist, anti-imperialist foreign policy that was at odds with the establishment Republican ideology of global democracy, the Old Right came to oppose Zionism on uniquely ideological grounds. Many within the Old Right were fiercely opposed to any extension of American geopolitical power and the foreign aid that would accompany it, consequently resenting American’s endorsement of Israel as a mere extension of Western geopolitical imperial power. The conservatives of the Old Right, which would eventually grow into the modern paleoconservatism movement, favored an “America First” foreign policy that rejected internationalism in favor of an increased focus on domestic concerns. This sentiment became increasingly common among certain members of the Republican Party who shunned the hawkish anti-communist policy advocated by establishment conservatives such as Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley. These conservatives saw the advocation of Zionism as playing a part in sowing unrest in the Middle East, consequently creating a destabilized region that would permanently entangle the American military in foreign affairs. Take for example the case put forth by the late Libertarian economist Murray Rothbard, himself an American descendant of Eastern European Jewish immigrants, who described Zionism as an “an ideology of conquest,” responsible for dispossessing a pre-existing Arab population. Despite the rise of interventionist, anti-communist war hawks within the Republican Party of the mid-20th century, many Old Right conservative thinkers like Rothbard continued to espouse a non-interventionist foreign policy.

Meanwhile the National Review’s most prominent foreign policy expert, James Burnham, was also a vocal critic of Israel. Burnham, who had long established himself as a key intellectual voice in the American conservative movement, saw Israel as a fundamental strategic liability to American geopolitical interests. Often cited as an early ideological predecessor to the neoconservative movement, Burnham’s opposition to Zionism came not from the non-interventionist viewpoint of the Old Right, but rather as a product of lingering concerns over maintaining American geopolitical power in the Middle East. Many conservatives believed that Israel’s mistreatment of its Muslim minority could alienate regional Arab powers, who they saw as potential Cold War allies. Burnham’s argument — that Israel’s presence would disrupt relations with oil-bearing countries — quickly became one of the premier mainstream conservative anti-Zionist arguments of the era.

In addition to worries over Zionism’s geopolitical ramifications, another issue worried conservatives of this time period — the young Jewish nation’s affection for the socialist cause.

The Roots of Labor Zionism

American conservatives of the early Cold War era were principally anti-Communist. The era of America’s second Red Scare was marked by extensive paranoia of potential communist subversion. Led by Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy and the House Committee on Un-American Activities, hundreds of Americans were accused of being either communists or communist sympathizers. By contrast, as post-war America was adopting a rabidly anti-communist stance, the young state of Israel was deeply influenced by socialist theory.

In the decades preceding the creation of Israel, most Zionist circles in the Jewish diaspora were dominated by left-wing theorists. Russian Jews, who represented the largest contingent of immigrants of the Second Aliyah, were deeply impacted by early socialist thought. Influenced by the ideology of Russian-Jewish intellectuals such as Ber Borochov and Nachman Syrkin, these early immigrants synthesized class struggle with Zionism, viewing the formation of the state of Israel by the Jewish proletariat as the only effective means of ushering class revolution. This ideology came to be known as Labor Zionism, and it rapidly became an influential intellectual component of the Zionist movement. New Jewish settlers, who were largely devoid of established communities, rapidly settled Palestine in the form of rural kibbutzim and moshavim; cooperative, self-sustaining agricultural communities that fused Zionism with socialist theory. Consequently, Labor Zionism became the predominant ideology of pre-independence Israel, largely dominating the doctrine of early Zionist trade unions and paramilitary groups. The influence of Labor Zionism continued well into the creation of the state of Israel and numerous early figureheads such as David Ben-Gurion and Golda Meir espoused the ideology.

How Conservatives Came to Love Israel

By the end of the Cold War conservative attitudes towards Israel began to transform dramatically, coinciding with changes in Republican ideology, Israeli politics, and the Jewish diaspora in the United States.

The evolution of conservative’s perspectives towards Israel corresponded greatly with the rapidly increasing influence of the Religious Right of the Republican Party. Socially conservative and opting for literal and dispensationalist interpretations of the Bible, this evangelical political faction no longer saw Israel as a purely political entity. Rather, many fundamentalist Christians came to view Israel as a nation possessing a special relationship with God, consequently leading to hawkish evangelical support of the Jewish state. Furthermore, a significant portion of the community adopted the belief of Christian Zionism, viewing the congregation of Jews in Israel as a prerequisite to the Second Coming of Christ. Others opted for an even stricter Biblical interpretation; with televangelist Jerry Falwell once declaring that, “to stand against Israel is to stand against God. We believe that history and scripture prove that God deals with nations in relation to how they deal with Israel”.

Unsurprisingly as the influence of Evangelicals on the GOP grew through the 1990s, so did support for Israel. In 1993, 6.9 percent of House Republicans identified as evangelical; by 2015 that number had reached 36 percent. Support for Israel has remained particularly prominent among this group, with one report from Pew Research indicating that white evangelicals are twice as likely (82 percent) as U.S. Jews (40 percent) to believe God gave Israel to the Jewish people.

The rise of the Israeli right-wing Likud party from the 1990s to the present has also helped garner Israeli support among key Republican politicians. Many Republicans have grown to see right-wing Israeli politicians such as Benjamin Netanyahu as ideological counterparts. In fact, one study from the University of Maryland found that Netanyahu was revered as highly as Ronald Reagan among many American conservative circles. As Israel shifted right politically and Republican policies grew more sympathetic to the Jewish state, many donors in the Diaspora followed suit. Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, for example, began to throw his financial support behind Republican politicians, who he felt better ensured Israel’s continued security. Adelson, who was by far Trump’s largest campaign donor during the 2016 election, declared that he had left the Democratic Party due to “a visceral anti-Israel movement among rank-and-file Democrats”. Adelson, who has otherwise spouted mostly liberal political positions, has become increasingly supportive of the Republican Party due to its strongly pro-Israel stance, recently pledging $25 million to a super PAC intending to maintain a Republican majority in the senate. Indeed many Republican and Democrat politicians alike continue to be deeply politically influenced by their financial relationships with Israeli special interest groups such as AIPAC.

American Zionism and the Rise of Neoconservatism

Republican support for Israel garnered another large boost with the further resurgence of neoconservatism in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Neoconservatives, who were themselves advocating aggressive military intervention in Muslim-majority countries, quickly began to see Israel as both an ideological and fundamental ally in the battle against radical Islam. Indeed, the neoconservative movement that dominated the foreign policy of the second Bush administration actually had roots in the anti-Stalinist left. Many of its adherents were in fact former leftists who had moved over to the conservative camp in response to the alleged anti-Semitic sentiments and dovish foreign policy of the American New Left. As a broad, social justice oriented political movement in the 1960s and 1970s, the New Left denounced Israel as an extension of western colonialism. Many leftist Zionists thus became disillusioned with the counterculture of American leftism, consequently opting to move further right on the political spectrum. Accordingly, a number of prominent Jewish public intellectuals made the jump from the anti-Stalinist left towards neoconservatism. Many of these figures, such as Sidney Hook, Irving Kristol, and Norman Podhoretz, were originally members of the New York Intellectuals, a group of left-leaning writers and political critics who had often advocated for Marxist theory. Consequently, many of the organizations and publications that these men had once been key contributors of began to slowly align with the neoconservative movement. For example, the American Jewish Committee produced the magazine Commentary, which was only rapidly transformed under the editorship of Podhoretz. Originally known for its strong liberal coverage of social issues, Podhoretz rebranded Commentary into the intellectual outlet of the neoconservative movement.

Appropriately, many early neoconservatives were indeed Democrats who began to develop hawkish and pro-Israel foreign policy views in stark contrast to the outspoken anti-war views of George McGovern and the Democratic Party. Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson of Washington was a prominent example. A member of the Democratic Party, Scoop Jackson was a strong supporter of the Vietnam War and a fervent advocate for the state of Israel. Jackson supported increased foreign aid to the Israeli government, and many of his viewpoints have been cited as influencing future neoconservative thinkers such as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, both of whom originally served as aides under Jackson. Wolfowitz and Perle would later go on to accumulate considerable geopolitical influence, serving in various positions representing the United States at the international level.

New York senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was another example of an early neoconservative Democrat. A staunch Zionist and lifelong Democrat, Moynihan eventually served as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations under Richard Nixon, where he fiercely supported Israel. Moynihan’s brief career as Ambassador was highlighted by his fierce opposition to UN Resolution 3379, which declared Zionism as a form of racism. In an impassioned speech opposing the resolution, Moynihan condemned the comparison of Zionism to racist ideology, a defining political move that won him considerable praise from his American constituents.

As George McGovern and anti-war leftists gained control of the Democratic Party in the 1970s, many of the aforementioned intellectuals threw their weight behind Henry “Scoop” Jackson’s unsuccessful presidential primary runs in 1972 and 1976. Many of the early neoconservatives were dissatisfied with McGovern’s dubious policy towards Israel and by the end of the decade, had become staunch supporters of Ronald Reagan. Neoconservative influence was apparent within the reliably anti-communist Reagan administration where Jeane Kirkpatrick, an international hardliner and steadfast supporter of Israel, served as Ambassador to the United Nations. Indeed the neoconservative movement began to transcend party, influencing both of the major political entities in America. The defining characteristic of the movement was not a consistent domestic political ideology, but rather the encouragement of an aggressive foreign policy and an ardent support of the Israeli state.

Gradually gaining political influence all the way through the 1990s, the influence of neo-conservatism eventually peaked during the administration of George W. Bush, where a number of neoconservative political advisors played a pivotal role in shaping American foreign policy.

The Future of Partisan Politics and Israel

As sympathy towards Israel continues to diminish among a younger constituency of voters, it remains to be seen how establishment Republican attitudes towards Israel will evolve. A 2017 survey by Lifeway Research found that an ever decreasing amount of young evangelicals hold a positive view of Israel, with only 58 percent of evangelicals aged 18 to 34 supporting the state, in contrast to 70 percent of those over 50. Furthermore, the rise of Donald Trump has seen at least a partial resurgence in the non-interventionist, paleoconservatism of the Old Right, an ideology which many of Trump’s key supporters espouse. Paleoconservatism, with its emphasis on populist rhetoric and “America First” foreign policy, materialized in the current White House via adviser Steve Bannon, and the return of this ideological demographic could spell trouble for neoconservative foes. Additionally, Israel’s popularity also seems to be decreasing among young American Jews, with the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reporting that just 40 percent of those between the ages of 18 and 34 were comfortable with the idea of a Jewish state.

While President Trump’s decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem demonstrates that support for Israel continues to be a critical component of Republican politics, its continued status as an element of American conservatism cannot be assumed. As the historical transformation of conservative attitude towards the Israeli-Palestinian crisis has shown, American foreign policy is generally both opportunistic and pragmatic. By extension, American conservatism is a fundamentally reactionary ideology which Israel — currently viewed by the American political establishment as a Western ally — happens to benefit from. As conservative attitudes towards the Jewish nation begin to shift, how long will Israel be viewed as part of this in-group? There are no safe bets in this field.

Brandon Jetter

Brandon Jetter is a freelance journalist and undergraduate political science student at the University of California, Davis. He writes on issues related to international relations, global politics, and the Assyrian and Armenian diaspora communities.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

23 Responses

  1. Citizen on September 21, 2018, 11:39 am

    Good summary on the topic and its trajectory

  2. wdr on September 22, 2018, 3:28 am

    I think that this largely very accurate analysis misses the main point, that anti-semitism once came from the racialist far right, and now comes overwhelmingly from the anti-Zionist far left and their Arab supporters- as this website obviously shows on a daily basis- while Israel has become something like the homeland of the mind to many conservatives around the world, as Mr Jetter says. This reversal of anti-semitism was predicted by Herzl and other early Zionists, once the Jews established a normal state with a normal social structure, and were no longer perceived by conservatives as stateless parasites, exploiters, and subversives.

    • annie on September 22, 2018, 7:15 am

      anti-semitism once came from the racialist far right, and now comes overwhelmingly from the anti-Zionist far left

      which is the purpose of this new fake definition of antisemitism. when you lay with dogs, you get fleas. this won’t end well.

      • Joshua Laskin on September 22, 2018, 9:29 am

        For young Brits, observing this meshuggaas; the very concept of “antisemitism,” becomes clearly meaningless. Jews are their allies; and, Zionist-Jews, are their enemies. What could be simpler? Anti-Zionism, is the new, Anti-‘the-System.’

      • annie on September 23, 2018, 10:42 am

        the very concept of “antisemitism,” becomes clearly meaningless

        when everyone is an anti semite no one is an antisemite.

        Anti-Zionism, is the new, Anti-‘the-System.’

        the kids are cool.

      • MHughes976 on September 23, 2018, 12:50 pm

        The formula that ‘when everyone is an X no one is’ does not seem generally valid. ‘Everyone is overweight’ doesn’t mean that no one is. ‘Everyone admires Donald Trump’ wouldn’t mean that no one does. That a certain prejudice has become universal, perhaps even among its victims, doesn’t mean that it influences no one.
        If wdr thinks that people who based their prejudice purely on ancestry were the anti-Semites of old and that anti-Zs are the anti-Semites of now (s)he might reflect that these two things to which (s)he applies the same name must be rather different because the sentiment of now is not, on this showing, based on an almost obviously absurd ground, ie people and things in the past,, but on the possibly rational ground of behaviour in the present. Furthermore of behaviour whose harsh side is obvious and undeniable and therefore invites moral questioning.

      • Mooser on September 23, 2018, 1:55 pm

        “the kids are cool.”

        And why would young Jewish people (especially post 2009) want projected on to them the conflicts, bigotries, and social restrictions imposed by Zionism? Why be a matzoh stuck in a cracker-barrel?

      • RoHa on September 23, 2018, 9:43 pm

        Annie, everyone is an anti-Semite.

      • RoHa on September 23, 2018, 10:14 pm

        “If wdr thinks …”

        I doubt that wdr does, much. His/her/[…] comment looked more like a knee-jerk response.

        And even it wasn’t, mere logic will probably not move her/him/[…].

    • Misterioso on September 22, 2018, 11:37 am


      “This reversal of anti-semitism was predicted by Herzl and other early Zionists, once the Jews established a normal state with a normal social structure, and were no longer perceived by conservatives as stateless parasites, exploiters, and subversives.”

      In fact, Herzl viewed anti-Semitism as an unintended ally of his Zionist agenda:
      “Anti-Semitism has grown and continues to grow – and so do I.” (Herzl, The Complete Diaries, Vol. 1, p. 7, quoted by David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch, p. 160)

      However, as other prominent Jews correctly predicted, in the long run, Zionism would prove to be a disaster for Palestine’s native Arab inhabitants (not that Herzl and his cohorts cared** see below) and a curse for Jews:

      On June 4, 2009, the Israeli daily Haaretz published an editorial by mainstream liberal politician and long time Knesset member Shulamit Aloni in which she quotes a letter Lord Rothschild sent in 1902 to Herzl. In the letter, Rothschild explained why he could not support a Jewish state in Palestine. He wrote that he “should view with horror the establishment of a Jewish colony pure and simple; such a colony would be Imperium Imperio; it would be a Ghetto with the prejudice of the Ghetto; it would be a small petty Jewish state, orthodox and illiberal, excluding the Gentile and the Christian.”

      Then Secretary of State for India and the British cabinet’s only Jewish member, Lord Edwin Montagu’s response to Prime Minister Lloyd George following issuance of the illegal 1917 Balfour Declaration: “All my life I have been trying to get out of the ghetto. You want to force me back there.”

      Henry Morgenthau Sr., renowned Jewish American and former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, 1919: “Zionism is the most stupendous fallacy in Jewish history….The very fervour of my feeling for the oppressed of every race and every land, especially for the Jews, those of my own blood and faith, to whom I am bound by every tender tie, impels me to fight with all the greater force against this scheme, which my intelligence tells me can only lead them deeper into the mire of the past, while it professes to be leading them to the heights. Zionism is… a retrogression into the blackest error, and not progress toward the light.” (Quoted by Frank Epp, Whose Land is Palestine?, p. 261)

      Asked to sign a petition supporting settlement of Jews in Palestine, Sigmund Freud declined: “I cannot…I do not think that Palestine could ever become a Jewish state….It would have seemed more sensible to me to establish a Jewish homeland on a less historically-burdened land….I can raise no sympathy at all for the misdirected piety which transforms a piece of a Herodian wall into a national relic, thereby offending the feelings of the natives.” (Letter to Dr. Chaim Koffler Keren HaYassod, Vienna: 2/26/30)

      In 1939, Albert Einstein wrote: “There could be no greater calamity than a permanent discord between us and the Arab people. Despite the great wrong that has been done us, we must strive for a just and lasting compromise with the Arab people…. Let us recall that in former times no people lived in greater friendship with us than the ancestors of these Arabs.” (Einstein and Zionism by Banesh Hoffmann, in General Relativity and Gravitation, eds G. Shaviv and J. Rosen, Wiley, 1975, p. 242)

      Lessing J. Rosenwald, president of the American Council for Judaism, 1944: “The concept of a racial state – the Hitlerian concept- is repugnant to the civilized world, as witness the fearful global war in which we are involved. . . , I urge that we do nothing to set us back on the road to the past. To project at this time the creation of a Jewish state or commonwealth is to launch a singular innovation in world affairs which might well have incalculable consequences.”

      **Herzl’s diaries not only confirm that his objective was the establishment of a “Jewish state” in Palestine, but that it would be an expansionist state. In the year of his death, 1904, he described its borders as being “…in the north the mountains facing Cappadocia [Turkey], in the south, the Suez Canal [Egypt] in the east, the Euphrates [Iraq].” (Theodor Herzl, The Complete Diaries, 11 p. 711)

      Even more revealing as to how Herzl and his fellow Zionists intended to deal with Palestinians is the “Charter for Zionist Colonization of Palestine and Syria” which he drafted sometime between the summer of 1901 and early 1902. Much to his disappointment, however, he was denied the opportunity to present it to the Ottoman Sultanate. Article Vl of the charter called for Istanbul to grant the Zionists, in the form of the Jewish-Ottoman Land Company (JOLC), “complete autonomy, guaranteed by the Ottoman Empire” while Article III gave them in effect, the right to deport the native population to other areas of the empire. Article 111 “[pertained] to the Palestinian and other Arab owners and inhabitants of the three categories of land to be purchased/owned by the JOLC – the large and small private landholdings, the Sultan’s state domain, and the land for which there is no title.”

      In true 19th century racist colonialist fashion, Herzl also contended that his “Jewish state” would protect Europe and its “superior” culture from the “uncivilized” East. “We should there [in Palestine] form a portion of the rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism.” (Theodor Herzl, Judenstaat, The Jewish State, 1896, p. 26)

      • Nathan on September 22, 2018, 4:45 pm

        Misterioso – Thanks for passing on to us these quotes for the tenth or eleventh time. You might want to edit them for the next time because there might some contradicting predictions. For example, one quote tells us that Rothschild predicted that “it would be a small petty Jewish state”; whereas Herzl predicted that “it would be an expansionist state”. I don’t know if your English is tip-top, but I can promise you that these two statements are “tartei de-satrei” (the Talmudic expression for “two things that contradict each other”).

        You mentioned that the Balfour Declaration is “illegal”. Perhaps, you can explain to me what can possibly be illegal about a declaration. You could argue that the declaration should have been broken up into a few sentences (instead of one very long and complicated sentence) – but, still, there is nothing illegal about “viewing with favour” (or even in (disfavour”). Maybe for next time you should mention the “famous” (or “infamous”) declaration, and then you could add in my name that we adamantly demand the re-phrasing of its cumbersome wording!

        It’s a wonder that you continue to include Freud’s prediction in your list of predictions. Freud’s view that “I do not think that Palestine could ever become a Jewish state” was apparently incorrect. I believe that it’s already common knowledge that a Jewish state came into being (about seventy years ago). Just like for you, it took a while for me, too, to hear the news that a Jewish state came into being in Palestine (and like you, it took me a long while to get used to the idea that a Freudian prediction might be incorrect). Thanks.

      • Talkback on September 22, 2018, 6:22 pm

        Nathan: “Perhaps, you can explain to me what can possibly be illegal about a declaration.”

        It’s like promising you that I’m going to give you your neighbours’ car and then hold a gun to his head. Now this might be totally legal in your Kahane continuum, but is is most certainly not in real democracies.

        Nathan: “… a Jewish state came into being in Palestine …”

        It didn’t “came into being”. You seem to be in complete denial that it was enforced upon the native population through war and expulsion. It was nothing else than the institutionalization of Jewish terrorism.

    • Mooser on September 22, 2018, 4:14 pm

      “I think that this largely very accurate analysis misses the main point, that anti-semitism once came from the racialist far right,”

      But the Zionists have those folks well in hand. They have made them see that Neo-Nazis needn’t be antisemitic.

      • amigo on September 22, 2018, 5:36 pm

        “Misterioso – Thanks for passing on to us these quotes for the tenth or eleventh time”nathan.

        Nathan , you treat stupidity as of it is a virtue .Is it intentional.

        Just like a typical zionist–you think this is all about you.Misterioso is not re posting articles for your benefit.Like me , he could care less what you think.He is making sure the uninformed casual reader does not fall prey to your lies and hasbara.

      • Mooser on September 23, 2018, 12:38 pm

        “Just like a typical zionist–you think this is all about you.”

        Well, “amigo” look at it from “Nathan’s” POV: The owner of the site is named Phil Weiss, and he identifies as Jewish.
        That gives “Nathan” at least 50% ownership stake in the site.

    • RoHa on September 22, 2018, 11:18 pm

      The main point is that American conservatives once supported justice and decency, as well as geo-political good sense.

      Nothing to do with your whining about “anti-semitism”.

    • Talkback on September 23, 2018, 6:49 am

      wdr: “I think that this largely very accurate analysis misses the main point, that anti-semitism once came from the racialist far right, and now comes overwhelmingly from the anti-Zionist far left and their Arab supporters- as this website obviously shows on a daily basis-”

      What happens on her on a daily base is the baseless accusation of antisemitism like your comment obviously shows.

      Israel is a right extremist state. There is no difference between Israel and the “racialist far right”. Israel epitomizes the “racialist far right”. Every criticism can only come from a position that is left from it.

  3. Nathan on September 23, 2018, 9:15 am

    So, what you’re saying, Amigo, is that Misterioso repeats his list of quotes as a type of propaganda ploy. That’s interesting. Still, even if one is a soldier in the propaganda war, trying to catch the attention of the casual reader, nevertheless it would be a nice idea to present quotes that don’t contradict one another. Even the casual reader of the website might be an intelligent person. A prediction that the Jewish state will be a “petty state” and another prediction that the Jewish state will be an “expansionist state” can’t both be right. It’s as if Misterioso didn’t read that which he shares with us. Well, maybe in the propaganda sphere, there is a different type of logic. See, for example, that Talkback rejects my statement that “a Jewish state came into being”. Since the state “was enforced upon the native population”, so goes his logic, it didn’t come into being. Was that also a propaganda ploy for the casual (and apparently unintelligent) reader? I think that it’s obvious that Israel has come into being, and even an anti-Israel activist is probably aware of this reality.

    Is the nastiness of the reactions to any non-anti-Israel comment also part of the propaganda war? In a face-to-face debate, very often when you don’t have a good argument, you raise your voice and lose your temper. Therefore I always interpreted the nastiness and the name-calling on this website as an indication that an anti-Israel person doesn’t really have a good argument. Now, I’ll have to re-consider the issue. Since you claim that there are propaganda considerations behind some of the comments, perhaps the rudeness and the nastiness are tools of the propaganda trade.

    • Maghlawatan on September 23, 2018, 10:16 am


      Zionists live in an alternate reality where justice is hatred and violence is peace.
      Hasbara is bullshit.
      Anyone spouting the memes deserves ridicule. Judaism is way better than hasbara.

    • annie on September 23, 2018, 10:32 am

      amigo: Misterioso is not re posting articles for your benefit.Like me , he could care less what you think.

      nathan: So, what you’re saying, Amigo, is that Misterioso repeats his list of quotes as a type of propaganda ploy.

      nathan, you’re right about one thing, Even the casual reader of the website might be an intelligent person.

      on a separate note, it’s very common for people to hold conflicting views. ie if Rothschild and Herzl views about the outcome of the size of the state contradicted each other it’s ok. just try to follow along.

    • Mooser on September 23, 2018, 1:44 pm

      ” Since you claim that there are propaganda considerations behind some of the comments, “

      What are you “Nathan”, a child? It never occurred to you that “Israel”, like any other ‘nation’ would be on the receiving end of propaganda?
      So what is Zionism’s plan to deal with it? Constant kvetching?

      “perhaps the rudeness and the nastiness are tools of the propaganda trade.”

      Maybe, but don’t you try it, “Nathan” you’ll get deleted in a heartbeat.

  4. Ossinev on September 23, 2018, 1:58 pm

    Credit where credit is due (unless it is a “propoganda ploy” as per your thesis) – you don`t use the terms Anti – Semitic, or Anti -Semitism when referring to critics of Israel or Zionism on this blog unless I have missed a chapter ?

    ” A prediction that the Jewish state will be a “petty state” and another prediction that the Jewish state will be an “expansionist state” can’t both be right”

    You seemed to have constructed a supposedly pivotal contradiction from thin air to support your frankly obscure argument – so suggest you revisit. There were Zionists like Herzl who dreamt of and seriously considered the insane possibility of creating a Greater Israel as outlined by the man himself in Misterioso`s comments – with borders abutting Turkey in the North , the Suez Canal in the West and the Euphrates in the East. Bear in mind also that this was long long before F16`s tank warfare machines,German submarines
    AIPAC and the $4 billion annual defence (sic) bung (or equivalent in todays money ) from the good old puppet US. Now any sane individual would recognise that this was a seriously bonkers idea which indicates a seriously bonkers mentality. There were also Zionists like those quoted by M who condemned the very idea of a Jewish”state” in Palestine never mind a Jewish Empire in the Middle East.

    BTW What you describe as “name calling ” or “nastiness ” or “rudeness” is not an alternative to providing logical researched arguments. It`s what`s known as good old fashioned “banter” which is a feature of blogs of this type. For example if you were to say that you favoured a Jewish Empire as outlined by Herzl I would describe you as being as bonkers as him. It`s all part of the rough and tumble of the MW blog.

    Now if you were to accuse me of being Anti – Semitic as opposed to being Anti – Israel or Anti – Zionist then I might get a teensy bit nasty and use some choice names. ERGO my opening comment.

  5. amigo on September 23, 2018, 5:07 pm

    “So, what you’re saying, Amigo, is that Misterioso repeats his list of quotes as a type of propaganda ploy. That’s interesting. ” nathan

    Well , you would be in the best position to recognise propaganda ploys .

    There are 2 ways to put out a fire , One is to smother it and the second is to suck all the air out of the room but this room is pretty large and getting larger, faster than you can suck.

    When you spend some of your time coming up with realistic ways to end this “conflict” , instead of your endless triumphalist bragging , you might gain some modicum of respect.

    Until then you remain just another thread jacker and offer nothing of any value.

Leave a Reply