Trending Topics:

Israeli politicians’ responses to Pittsburgh terror expose Zionism’s reactionary core

on 25 Comments

In the wake of the Pittsburgh white-supremacist’s terror attack on a synagogue, Israeli labor leader Avi Gabbay called “upon the Jews of the United States to immigrate more and more to Israel, because this is their home.”

This was an echo of Prime Minister Netanyahu, who in the wake of the 2015 Paris terror shootings, messaged “all the Jews of France”, indeed “all the Jews of Europe”: “the state of Israel is your home”. 

This is hardly the first time that the opposition leader Gabbay echoes Netanyahu so precisely and in such similar contexts. Last year, he approvingly cited Netanyahu’s words: “The left has forgotten what it means to be Jewish”. Gabbay was aware of the historical and racist context of Netanyahu’s original statement, which was caught on hot mic in 1997 (Netanyahu also said that the left “think that our security can be placed in the hands of Arabs”) – and Gabbay explicitly credited Netanayhu.

Gabbay’s statements on Pittsburgh were regarded as “tone-deaf” by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA), and even centrist lawmaker (and former Israeli Ambassador to US) Michael Oren felt a need to damage-control Gabbay’s words for being too nationalist:

“Avi Gabbay said things that should not be said because he simply does not understand. Through his words he adds insult to injury. The call to U.S. Jewry, especially after last night [massacre in Pittsburgh], deeply hurts their feelings and reduces their desire for Aliyah [emigration to Israel]. Gabbay does not understand anything about Israel’s relationship with the Diaspora.”

Michael Oren is an expert on saying things that should not be said. Earlier this year, he found ultimate proof that Ahed Tamimi’s family was not a “real family”, posting as evidence two photos of the family that he said were different when they were actually the same photo in a mirrored pairing: 

‘A boy of 12 takes a photo with a cast on the right arm, the next day with a cast on left arm. You tell me if it’s not funded and directed? The Tamimi family is part of the “Pallywood” industry, which sends children to confront IDF soldiers in order to cause PR damage to Israel, for money’. 

So if Michael Oren tells you you’ve gone too far, then you may really be in too deep.

Offensive statements “correcting” American Jews for their supposed naiveté and liberalism seem to regularly come from the Israeli Zionist left, as for example when former left leader Isaac Herzog (now head of Jewish Agency) called intermarriage, especially amongst US Jews, a “plague” this summer.

The calls to emigrate to Israel in the wake of anti-Semitic violence abroad appear to be intrinsic to Zionist thinking, and the whole notion of ‘assimilation’, be it through inter-marriage or otherwise, is regularly frowned upon (if not worse) by Zionists, who see this as weakness, since their solution is an exclusivist, isolationist one.

Zvia Greeenfield, a prominent leftist former Meretz lawmaker, wrote in Haaretz this week:

“The American Jewish minority still faces the question that has preoccupied the Diaspora since the French Revolution and the departure from the ghetto: Is it better for Jews to maintain a separate identity or to assimilate into local society? Recognizing that on the broader level (although perhaps not on an individual level) assimilation as a solution is an illusion that would sooner or later come to a violent end was what motivated Theodor Herzl to offer the Zionist solution – Jewish self-sovereignty. But the large American Jewish minority did not choose Herzl’s proposal, and today most of it chooses to assimilate into society at large and assume everything will be fine”.

Greenfield extolls the Zionist solution:

“In Israel, the country itself, with its difficult dilemmas and great successes, is the grand vision of the new Judaism. It provides the answer to the question of why it’s worth remaining Jews, and what it means to be a Jew in the post-halakhic era. Those who reject this answer remain with a question that has no resolution other than assimilation”. 

That’s an Israeli leftist talking! Greenfield has recently also written in Haaretz on why Israel should treat Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed Bin Salman with “kids gloves”, even if he dissolved Jamal Kashoggi’s body in acid, because “Mohammed”, as she calls him, will bring peace. 

This type of Israeli-Zionist condescending attitude appears to be a growing menace for many American Jews. Writing in The New Yorker, Bernard Avishai surveys other Israeli responses to the massacre, in his piece titled “In Pittsburgh, Naftali Bennett’s Presence Highlights the Debate Between Netanyahu’s Government and American Jews”. Covering the message by Education and Diaspora Minister Bennett, including his cryptic statement that “Jewish blood is not free,” Avishai writes:

“Bennett was no doubt sincere in his empathy and his outrage. But Bennett—the public figure, not the designated mourner—personifies one side, the most strident side, of a repressed debate between American Jews and Israelis that the Pittsburgh murders must inevitably surface. What causes anti-Semitism, and can American liberalism—can any liberalism—work against it?”

Bennett also exploited the massacre to demonize Palestinians. He did not connect the dots between the massacre, anti-Semitism and white nationalism (which is the obvious nature of the attack), but rather between the attacker and Palestinians:

“From Sderot, in Israel, to Pittsburgh, in Pennsylvania, the hand that fires missiles is the same hand that shoots worshippers. We will fight against the hatred of Jews and anti-Semitism wherever it raises its head, and we will prevail.”

As Adam Horowitz wrote on this site, the “Israeli government is exploiting the Pittsburgh murders to try to demonize Palestine solidarity”:

“The murderous rampage at the Tree of Life synagogue had absolutely nothing to do with the struggle for Palestinian rights. And anyone who is telling you there is is shamelessly trying to use the murder of 11 innocent people to further their own racist agenda to dehumanize Palestinians and justify their ongoing oppression by the state of Israel.”

Bennett had predictably brought up the Holocaust, in his ‘educating’ message to the American Jewish community:

“Nearly eighty years since Kristallnacht, when the Jews of Europe perished in the flames of their houses of worship, one thing is clear: anti-Semitism, Jew-hating, is not a distant memory”.

Bernard Avishai, considering it a statement lacking tact, noted the inherent condescension:

‘Bennett’s supposition that members of his audience thought of anti-Semitism as a “piece of history”—that they were in need of his corrective—suggests only how he’s underestimated them’…

Avishai notes how Nancy Bernstein, co-chair of the liberal-Zionist J Street Pittsburgh, said that Bennett’s appearance was a “blight” on otherwise moving proceedings.

So there’s even a dismay, also from Zionists themselves, about the way other Zionists exploit anti-Semitism in order to bolster their Zionist anti-Palestinian message. And about how other Zionists, particularly Israeli ones, use anti-Semitism to unfurl their better-knowing arrogance and obnoxious chauvinism of “we told you so.” Yet these critics (such as Avishai and Bernstein) still remain Zionists.

Although this arrogance comes from both right and left, many are still in the impression that there is an inclusivist Zionism, one that is truly liberal. But the very essence of Zionism is an isolationist one. Its very core is driving out of the “others” to make way for “us”, as Israeli historian Benny Morris notes:

“Transfer was inevitable and inbuilt in Zionism – because it sought to transform a land which was ‘Arab’ into a Jewish state and a Jewish state could not have arisen without a major displacement of Arab population”.

Adherents of this ideology are hardly the ones to provide an answer to violence resulting from racist-exclusivist extremists.

When Israeli leaders and pundits, from right and left, are supposedly “tactless” in their statements on anti-Semitism, it is not because they are making aberrant mistakes. They are simply making Freudian slips which result from the exclusivist-nationalist vein of Zionism, which relies upon anti-Semitism to bolster its message of “we told you so”. When that happens, there is often attempt to damage-control by other Zionists, who do not want these comments to damage the liberal image of Israel too much. After all, those naïve and erring diaspora Jews should be treated with some respect…

But in the end, this is what Zionism is about. It is a reaction to real liberalism, suggesting nationalist isolation as the only solution. And nationalist isolation is exactly what the Pittsburgh shooter was about.

Jonathan Ofir

Israeli musician, conductor and blogger / writer based in Denmark.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

25 Responses

  1. Mooser on November 3, 2018, 12:15 pm

    ” Israeli labor leader Avi Gabbay called “upon the Jews of the United States to immigrate more and more to Israel, because this is their home.”

    Do consult the “Nation-State” laws to see if your family’s Judaica collection qualifies you before selling your house and transferring your assets. Maybe you can show them your gardening supplies

    • Misterioso on November 5, 2018, 9:07 am

      @Mooser, et al.

      Once again, Professor Lawrence Davidson “nails it.”


      A Tale Of Two Massacres—An Analysis (5 November 2018) by Professor Lawrence Davidson

      “Part I—A Massacre of Jews”

      “On the morning of 28 October 2018 Robert Bowers walked into a suburban Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania synagogue filled with worshippers. He was armed with an assault rifle and several handguns. Bowers proceeded to kill eleven people and wound six. It was the deadliest attack on Jews in American history.

      “Bowers is a 46-year-old truck driver who lived alone in a small apartment in the Baldwin section of Pittsburgh. Though described by neighbors as ‘normal,’ Bowers was clearly a loner. ‘He kept to himself and neighbors never saw him with visitors.’ Posting an online picture of his three ‘glock’-brand handguns, he referred to them as ‘my glock family.’

      His social life may have been largely restricted to social media, and there he freely expressed himself. He found his comfort zone on a right wing web sight entitled Gab. Gab promotes a concept of unfettered free speech. In theory this might sound like an admirable aim, but in practice it can just turn into an arena to vent hatred, conspiracy theories and incitement of oneself and/or others to violence. Apparently, that was the environment that attracted Robert Bowers.

      Bowers used Gab to express classic anti-Semitic views. He wrote that ‘jews [sic] are the children of satan [sic],’ and asserted that President Trump’s mantra of ‘making America great again’ was impossible to realize as long as there is ‘a kike infestation.’ Bowers hated Jews first and foremost because they were Jews. But he also hated them for what they were allegedly doing to ‘his people’—driving ‘white Americans,’ and by extension ‘Western Civilization,’ to extinction.

      “Specifically, the Jews were doing this by helping to bring immigrants into the U.S. Though he claimed that he did not like Donald Trump, there seems little doubt that Trump’s rabid hostility to immigrants expressed in provocative language created the context for Bowers’ acting out as he did. Against this backdrop, Bowers became focused on the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS)—a not-for-profit group that aids refugees. Bowers convinced himself that the HIAS, ‘likes to bring invaders in that kill our people.’ The Pittsburgh Synagogue he attacked supported HIAS.

      It is worth repeating that Robert Bowers is an authentic anti-Semite. He hates Jews because they are Jews. That understood, he then went looking for alleged Jewish behaviors to rationalize acting out his hatred. I emphasize this point because there are Zionists who are now trying to conflate Bowers with an artificially manufactured category of alleged anti-Semites—people who are simply critical of Israel. For instance, following the Pittsburgh massacre the Israeli ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer, took the opportunity to equate real anti-Semites like Bowers with the ones the Zionists have simply manufactured. In a media interview he asserted that ‘to simply say that this [Bowers’s attack on Jews] … only comes on one side [the extreme right], is to not understand … the reality of anti-Semitism.’

      Dermer then asserted that ‘one of the big forces in college campuses today is anti-Semitism. And those anti-Semites are usually not neo-Nazis, on college campuses. They’re coming from the radical left.’ It is to be noted that this so-called anti-Semitism on the campuses is almost completely based on opposition to Israel’s own racist policies and practices. Describing such opposition as the same as the behavior of Robert Bowers is obscene.

      “Part II—A Massacre of Arab Muslims”

      “While anti-Semitism is very old, the sort of category-specific hatred it displays (in this case the category of all Jews) is not unique. Indeed, the same sort of irrational, violence-engendering hatred has been produced by homogeneous national groups that cultivate fear of stereotyped minority elements within their midst.

      “With this fact in mind we can identify another massacre similar to the one carried out by Robert Bowers. This one was perpetrated by the American-Israeli settler by the name of Baruch Goldstein.

      “On the morning of 25 February 1994 Baruch Goldstein walked into the mosque at the Tomb of the Patriarchs in the Palestinian West Bank town of Hebron. Like the synagogue in Pittsburgh some 24 years later, the mosque was full of worshippers. Goldstein was armed with an assault rifle and 140 rounds of ammunition. He proceeded to kill 29 people and injure over one 100 others.

      “Goldstein was an Zionist extremist and an active member of the anti-Arab Kach Party. Goldstein hated all Arab Muslims in much at the same way Bowers hated all Jews. His hatred was racially based and independent of the political or social behavior of any particular Arab Muslim individual. For instance, serving as a physician with the Israeli army and later in a civilian capacity, Goldstein ‘refused to treat Arabs, even Arab soldiers serving in the IDF [Israeli Army].’

      “Goldstein’s social circle was the Kach party, an ultra-nationalist orthodox religious organization founded by the American-Israeli Meir Kahane. The party’s doctrine called for the expulsion or subordination of all Arabs in Israel, including the Occupied Territories. There was an unquestioned assumption that all such people opposed the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. This assumption also justified the party’s advocating violence against Arabs and Muslims. Given this worldview, Baruch Goldstein, like Robert Bowers, saw a specific, racially and religiously defined group of people as a mortal threat—they were ‘invaders’ who would ‘kill our people.’ And here, both individuals acted in the same murderous way.

      “Part III—The Violent Culture”

      “The two men shared something else—cultures that encourage violence. In Bowers case it is culture that has always valued guns as a symbol of liberty and individual potency. As such, unrestricted access to guns is, presently, more valuable than the lives of citizens. Isolated within the ‘virtual’ social circle of Gab, and taking cues from President Trump’s anti-immigrant rants, Bowers, the anti-Semite, was simultaneously heavily armed and liberated from civil or moral inhibitions. The consequence was a massacre of Jews at prayer.

      Baruch Goldstein’s cultural milieu also engendered violence. His was a culture shaped by an ideology that convinced its adherents that they were in eternal danger from the non-Jewish world. This sense of danger focused Israelis on the Arab and Muslim minority caught within the borders of their expanding colonialist state. These unwanted residents, who dared to resist Israel’s racist pretensions, were consistently demonized. This milieu liberated Goldstein of his civil and moral inhibitions. His was also a culture where Israeli Jews are heavily armed. The consequence was a massacre of Arab Muslims at prayer.

      “Part IV—Conclusion”

      “No doubt Robert Bowers is a hero to some who knew him through Gab and through his turning racist theory into murderous practice. Baruch Goldstein is still a hero to the religious radicals he lived among. There are yearly pilgrimages to his well-kept gravesite.

      “Such people as Bowers and Goldstein are always with us. The question is, do we maintain a culture that empowers them? In both the case of Israel and the United States the answer at present appears to be yes—though there is a noticeable difference here.

      “In the case of Israel, given that the exclusionist ideology of Zionism is the very basis of national culture, the empowerment of racist hatred against Arabs and Muslims is almost inevitable.

      “In the case of the United States, there are still millions of citizens who stand against the racist and white nationalist sentiments that presently poison the culture. Back in the 1960s and 1970s, there was a national effort to humanize the nation’s laws and behavior within the public sphere. This was largely the product of the Civil Rights Movement. Today the U.S. is in the midst of a cultural civil war waged by those who would destroy that progress. In other words, here things are in flux and a culture infused with human and civil rights is still an option. Indeed, taking that option is the real way of ‘making America great again.'”

      Lawrence Davidson
      [email protected]


    • Misterioso on November 5, 2018, 11:41 am

      @Mooser et al

      Not on topic, but relevant in the grand scheme of things and hopefully, a bit of an escape from the insanity:

      During the years I lived in Egypt, I befriended and regularly “hung out” in a coffee shop with an elderly Jewish couple who regaled me with the history of Egypt’s Jews.

      Hence, I was most pleased to receive this article from a Canadian friend.

      “The Cairo Genizah Collection: a vivid glimpse into 1,000 years Egyptian Jewish life”
      By Dr. Mohamed Elmasry, The Canadian Charger, Oct. 17/18

      “A woman writes a beseeching letter to her husband who is away traveling on business:
      “’I appeal to you from the bottom of my heart not to go further, either by sea or land. I swear to the Lord that if you do this it will cause a quarrel between your son-in-law and your daughter who is pregnant. You will inflect pain upon her and perhaps she will suffer a miscarriage.’

      “A man whose work has taken him far from home pens these poignant words to his wife back in Cairo: ‘When I prepare something and put it on the fire, it does not turn out well because of my fatigue, preoccupations and worries. I think about you and your suffering and your loneliness and the loneliness of each of us. God knows how I eat, drink, and sleep.’ He adds;
      ‘I know I have talked too long in this letter about things for which shortness would be more fitting, but I speak to you about myself as if you were present, for consolation.’

      “These letters could have been written yesterday, reaching their beloved recipients almost at the speed of light from the senders’ smartphones, tablets or iPads. But they are actually about 1,000 years old.

      “The first was written in Hebrew and the second in Judeo-Arabic. Both of these ancient ‘hardcopy’ pieces of personal correspondence were on display in 1983 as part of the Cairo Genizah Exhibition, coordinated by the late Carmen Weinstein, head of the Egyptian Jewish community in Cairo.”

      Check it out and pass the link on to your Jewish friends.

  2. Mooser on November 3, 2018, 12:28 pm

    “Is it better for Jews to maintain a separate identity or to assimilate into local society?” “Greenfield”

    Oh, much better to resist assimilation! On Monday morning, I’m going down to the Federal Building and announcing I will no longer accept civil rights, Constitutional rights, police protection, contract law and access to courts from the US! They can’t assimilate me!

    Once again, I’ve got your assimilation for you, right here.
    Any other ethnic-religious minority else get one of those? Look how they single us out! Mercilessly forcing assimilation on us!

  3. bcg on November 3, 2018, 12:51 pm

    Avishai’s article in the New Yorker has some choice lines:

    What would protect all minorities—in the case of the Jewish state, Arab Muslims—would be the same secular and liberal principles that one fights for in the West. That’s why, ironically, Herzl’s ideal Jewish state, which he laid out in his novel “The Old New Land,” from 1902, looks much more like Squirrel Hill than like Bennett’s airless settlements.

  4. Kay24 on November 3, 2018, 2:18 pm

    Israeli leaders should be outraged at Trump’s reaction to this terrible massacre, and react negatively to him. He showed indifference, was disappointed that these events slowed the Republican momentum, and sides with white supremacists who are anti Jew.

    He gave them Jerusalem, so I guess he cannot do any wrong.

  5. Citizen on November 3, 2018, 4:06 pm

    Re “But in the end, this is what Zionism is about. It is a reaction to real liberalism, suggesting nationalist isolation as the only solution. And nationalist isolation is exactly what the Pittsburgh shooter was about.”

    Can you say, “Baruch Goldstein”?

  6. wondering jew on November 3, 2018, 4:06 pm

    The infusion of the issue of zionism into the week of mourning for Pittsburgh was inevitable, but unfortunate. the willingness or eagerness of netanyahu for a trump victory in 2016, the trump netanyahu bromance, combined with the trump culpability for the massacre in the eyes of many (including nonleftist observers from Jennifer Rubin, to max boot, to bret stephens to abe foxman), created a pressure on the president that could only be alleviated by countervailing voices and it was only israel that was able to provide counter voices.

    the issue of assimilation and zionism as an antidote or as an anachronism, is an issue for another time. the major essence of the moment is still the murder in pittsburgh and not the ideologies of jewish persistence.

  7. eljay on November 3, 2018, 9:01 pm

    … many are still in the impression that there is an inclusivist Zionism, one that is truly liberal. But the very essence of Zionism is an isolationist one. …

    Regardless of how much lipstick they slather on it, Zionism is about Jewish supremacism in/and a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” in as much as possible of Palestine. The only difference between hard-core Zionists and “liberal Zionists” is just how much “necessary evil” (of the sort they would not have others do unto them) Zionists should do unto others.

    • Maghlawatan on November 3, 2018, 11:39 pm

      The supremacism shtick is a feature of settler colonialism which elevates invaders over locals everywhere. It’s not specific to Israel.

      Zionism is a sick ideology because of its use of systemic state violence. Apartheid backed by state violence is an extension of supremacism.

      The ironic thing is that a more inclusive ideology could have created a relatively normal country. Marriages of Palestinians and Jews could have helped to dilute Israeli trauma. The Palestinians don’t run Israeli groupthink.

      Judaism can’t fix Israel. The problem is bigger than the tools available to the community. So much for supremacism.

  8. helen4yemen on November 4, 2018, 12:01 am

    I am an Arab and Zionists like Daniel Pipes or wolf Blitzer or Dershowitz do not bother me at all, in fact, they are honest about their agenda. It is the liberal Jews that make me very nervous. The liberal Jews say they want the natives and the invaders to live side by side in peace and harmony and build a wonderful future together. And that is the reason that I never stop quoting Jabotinsky’s “the Iron Wall”. He was brutally honest. He said that no indigenous people rolls over and just let the invaders invade his land. And if the Zionist state has celebrated its 70th or 100th years since the conquest, it simply means the invaders have overwhelming force to overwhelm the natives. Always remember when you celebrate your independence (not sure who you became independent from) that your presence on that land denies the indigenous people their independence. You can brag about your achievements but those achievements are the at the expense of the natives. The indigenous people of Palestine were never consulted by Balfour or Truman or whoever was aiding Jews in their conquest of Arab land.

    • helen4yemen on November 4, 2018, 10:21 am

      Dear Philip Weiss:

      Thank you for posting my comment, I believed that you would prevent it from posting. I signed up to comment at your blog two years ago but my total comments do not exceed 5 and the reason is because I feel that I do not want to waste time and energy composing a comment for it to just disappear. As I mentioned, I am an Arab and my heart is always bleeding because the Zionist dagger was planted on my heart the day I was born. Therefore, my comments may not be too pleasing to the Zionist ear but they are brutally honest. I would love to engage your readers in meaningful dialogue but only if I am allowed to proceed with my comments without feeling someone is looking over my shoulders checking every word and sentence. Why do my comments wait to be approved before they post? I think a voice like mine which is indigenous voice might be of interest to your readers. Therefore, will you allow me to comment without censorship?

      • Mooser on November 4, 2018, 11:45 am

        Every comment, every single comment by anybody, is first held in “moderation” before appearing on the page.

        Read the “About” page and perhaps your confidence in Mondo will be increased.

      • Paranam Kid on November 4, 2018, 12:46 pm

        @helen4yemen: I second that request. I understand your concern because sometimes a comment of mine does not make it either, and for no obvious reason – no hate speech, no ad hominem attacks, and I can assure you sometimes there is plenty of that on this site. Still, I think that once the moderator feels comfortable with you your comments will get through.

    • Paranam Kid on November 4, 2018, 12:52 pm

      @helen4yemen: the 1-state solution with EQUAL rights for ALL its citizens, i.e. incl. Palestinians, is now the only realistic solution available. Those who keep talking about the 2-state solution do so to keep the Palestinians in bondage forever and to keep covering Israel’s war crimes and crimes against humanity.

    • DaBakr on November 6, 2018, 1:11 am


      Hamas is basically honest about their goals as well. Abbas? He’s a liar and traitor to the arabs that don’t work for him. Netanyahu? He will try and maintain a status quo situation for as long as it’s tenable and as long as neither side is willing to negotiate an actual peace treaty.

    • Elizabeth Block on November 8, 2018, 11:24 pm

      Yes. Yes! Balfour actually said that the wishes of the people actually living in Palestine were of no interest to him.

  9. Ossinev on November 4, 2018, 1:03 pm

    Mondoweiss`s moderation principles can be found at:

    I am more than happy for my comments to be subject to moderation based on these principles which underpin the fact that M`Weiss is a responsible comments site . As Mooser has pointed out comments are not posted immediately as they are subject to moderation but this is not a form of censorship.

    Having said all that please do continue posting as your comments are not only of interest but are of great importance since as you say they represent the indigenous voice of the Palestinian people who have directly experienced the brutal colonisation of their land by foreigners who have no connection to the land.

    • helen4yemen on November 4, 2018, 1:10 pm

      Most, most certainly feel very grateful for your comment – certainly thank you.

      • Mooser on November 4, 2018, 2:11 pm

        I’m gonna stick my neck out and oar in (what a posture!) and say this: The home-made Mondo-exclusive commenting system and/or the Internet can ‘drop’ comments. (Happens to me all the time.) Please don’t assume it’s a moderation issue.

      • Maghlawatan on November 4, 2018, 3:53 pm


        All things in moderation including moderation except in Israel where moderation is self hatred under the fuckyou Torah yeshiva and nihilism Mikva philosophy of might is right unless we need the laws of war again at some time in the future philîosophy and Weltanschauung.

      • Keith on November 4, 2018, 5:37 pm

        MOOSER- “Please don’t assume it’s a moderation issue.”

        For many years I had no problem whatsoever. I still don’t when commenting on the political economy. A few other topics are causing me a problem. And you are saying it is because of a rogue internet?

  10. Mooser on November 4, 2018, 6:33 pm

    “Keith” it’s up to you. That’s all I’m saying. Given the choice, would you rather have a comment (usually the small ones, too) which gets lost now and then, or problems with the Moderators?

    • Keith on November 5, 2018, 2:24 pm

      MOOSER- ” Given the choice, would you rather have a comment (usually the small ones, too) which gets lost now and then, or problems with the Moderators?”

      Whoa partner! Let me see if I understand you correctly. When I submit a comment it then shows up with my name, date and time indicating that it is awaiting moderation and there is a URL for reference, and I can modify the comment. If, several hours later I enter the URL (which I have copied and pasted to a file), if the comment appears without the “awaiting moderation” notice that means it is accepted and posted. If, the comment appears with the “awaiting moderation” notice that means that it is still in moderation. But if the comment disappears, that means that there is a problem with the internet? The internet ate my homework? There are feral cookies roaming the internet? I am a conspiracy theorist for believing that the comment didn’t pass moderation? Moosey, once a comment appears with a URL awaiting moderation, if it disappears then it has not passed moderation. Period. Speaking of moderation policy, remember this?

      “Obviously this decision is a result of the recent flap over anti-Semitic comments posted from the Free Gaza Movement Twitter account. That incident has prompted a lot of soul searching inside the movement for Palestinian human rights, because it showed that a significant part of the community wants to talk about Israeli policy in the context of Jewish history and Jewish identity, and do so in a highly critical manner. Clearly a lot of people, including many in our community, want to have these conversations and regard them as necessary to resolving the Middle East conflict. We don’t. We are tired of serving as a platform for this discussion, including in the comment section, and don’t see the conversation as a productive one. From here on out, the Mondoweiss comment section will no longer serve as a forum to pillory Jewish culture and religion as the driving factors in Israeli and US policy.”

      What constitutes “pillorying” Jewish culture and religion is highly subjective as is what constitutes anti-Semitism. Sometimes it doesn’t take much. And I already self-censor so much that I should change my screen name to “vanilla.”

      • Mooser on November 6, 2018, 12:28 pm

        “Sometimes it doesn’t take much. And I already self-censor so much that I should change my screen name to “vanilla.””

        See? Moderation works! (Sorry, couldn’t resist)
        But don’t worry about the self-censoring. We can fill in the rest.

Leave a Reply