Trending Topics:

Why does Bill Maher get to run anti-Semitic jokes with Bari Weiss, when Ilhan Omar can’t say a word about Israel?

Media Analysis
on 69 Comments

New York Times staff editor Bari Weiss is on a hell of a roll these days, having just published a book called “How to Fight anti-Semitism”. Weiss’s own paper, the New York Times, judges the book to be “a brave book”, because Weiss is ostensibly walking into perilous intellectual territory:

Should she have to fear ostracism or damage to her journalistic reputation for pointing out that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, while theoretically distinguishable, have long merged into a single ugly phenomenon?

Presenting Zionist apologists like Weiss as being in danger is laughable. She is representing a privileged mainstream view, one that is applied by the conservative left as well as the right in attempt to moderate voices that are starting to challenge Zionism. That’s the view of those who try to silence Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib, that’s the view of those who try to discredit Jeremy Corbyn in UK. The new voices who break through the orthodoxy are currently in the minority, but Weiss is now trying to portray herself as a representative of an oppressed and persecuted minority:

I meet such people in every Jewish community I speak to. They tend to wait until late in the evening, after the crowd has thinned out or after they’ve had a few glasses of wine, to make their confession. But the confession is always the same: I’m in the closet. It’s not their sexuality or gender expression they are closeting. It is their Jewishness and their Zionism.

So now, the poor Bari Weiss was interviewed by Bill Maher on HBO – you know, giving a voice to those who have none, as it were.

And here’s the big irony. This 8 minute interview is supposed to be about anti-Semitism – and yet, Bill Maher is repeatedly making anti-Semitic jokes, to which both Bari Weiss, the audience and the other guests laugh.

After Weiss speaks about the historical traces of anti-Semitism (referring to the killing of Jesus), Maher says:

Well, I am no expert on Judaism, although I try never to pay retail. 

This is a big moment. Everyone is laughing, the audience, the guests, including Weiss, there’s clapping – it goes on for more than 10 seconds. Weiss disturbs it with a little remark:

You’re going to get into trouble for that…

But it’s clearly not a condemnation – she keeps on laughing, she’s clearly not suggesting that she herself would condemn him, but that others might. And Maher dismisses it completely:

Oh, like I could give a fuck. Oh, like this week would be different.

So it’s not really a big deal. Let’s remember that as we move on.

Immediately after, Maher promotes the talk about supposed anti-Semitism on the left, and Weiss picks it up to call Jeremy Corbyn an anti-Semite, flat out:

Just look at the [UK] Labour party which is run by an anti-Semite, Jeremy Corbyn. 

At this point there is one person clapping in the audience. Weiss stops herself from continuing, turns around and says “thank you” to that person. Bill Maher uses this to make his next anti-Semitic remark:

One Jew, isn’t that great, one Jew.

You see, without knowing the person, Maher suggests that a mark of being Jewish, is to trash Jeremy Corbyn with false and McCarthyite accusations of being an anti-Semite, since he has pro-Palestinian leanings and challenges in some way the Zionist orthodoxy. Maher is thus suggesting that the disgusting bigotry presented by Weiss is a trait common to all Jews (the many Jews who support Corbyn must be the ‘wrong kind of Jews’), and if you cheer this bigotry, you must be a Jew.

Maher repeated that ‘Jew’ theme later on. The context here, on which I will expand, was Maher’s reciting of false anti-Palestinian trash which was supposed to serve as a history lesson, to which Weiss kept nodding:

Let’s not forget, that first of all, 97% of the West Bank was on the table in the 90’s, in the Oslo Accords, and they [the Palestinians] did not take the deal. Also the West Bank was controlled by Jordan for 19 years – where is the Palestinian state then? These are things you don’t hear in the American media.

Well, this is a seriously flawed account. This is incitement. And although Maher says we don’t hear it in the American media, it’s coming from Bill Maher on HBO, which is American media. First of all, the Oslo accords of 1993 and 1995 didn’t lay 97% of the West Bank on the table. They were not final territorial peace agreements, they were only interim agreements which eventually, in the course of 5 years were meant to lead to an actual peace and territorial negotiation. And the Palestinians did “take the deal”. In fact, they recognized Israel by treaty already in 1993, and they went with this deal in hope that it would lead to a sovereign Palestine, even though Rabin assured Israel in 1995 that it would lead to “less than a state”. In the meanwhile, the West Bank was carved up into areas A, B, and C, where Israel controlled most of the West Bank fully with Area C, which covered over 60% of it and encircled the Palestinian enclaves (Areas B under joint control, urban areas A under Palestinian Authority control). But Israel did not ratify the prescribed withdrawals, and the freeze of the Oslo Accords came to serve as a blueprint for Israel’s further expansion, with massive ethnic cleansing in area C and now talks of annexing it, coming in different forms from both the government as well the opposition.

I don’t know where Maher gets that 97% number. Maybe from the “Clinton Parameters” of 2000. But even Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, with the famous “generous offer” of 2000, did not actually offer more than 77% of the West Bank for the first 6 to 20 years, since he insisted on retaining control of the Jordan Valley for that period, and with that prospective 10% addition at some point, it would have added up to 86%. In the end, it would have been a set of Bantustans, something that even Barak’s Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben Ami admits he would have rejected were he Palestinian.

But Bill Maher doesn’t seem to know that history so well, maybe because they don’t talk about it that much in American media. Nonetheless, it’s completely safe for him to twist it like that, blame it on the Palestinians as if he was some Ehud Barak going “no partner for peace”, and Bari Weiss nods.

So, after all this awful background, the anti-Semitic joke. Several people are now clapping to Maher’s anti-Palestinian incitement. Maher is pleased:

Alright, now we have 5 Jews.

Weiss giggles.

Once again, per Maher, if you are anti-Palestinian, you must be Jewish.

You see, Bari Weiss doesn’t have a problem with this, she goes along with it. She can’t even see the anti-Semitism reeking from Maher, because it serves her purposes.

But when it doesn’t serve her purposes, Weiss bends over backwards to address an anti-Semitic motive to critique of Israel. Like what she did against Ilhan Omar, charging Omar of “anti-Semitic slander” for a 2012 Facebook post that related to Israel’s Gaza onslaught, where Omar wrote that “Israel hypnotizes the world”. Weiss invented a whole new myth to accommodate her charge – the “myth of Jewish hypnosis” – even though Omar was speaking about Israel, not Jews.

When it suits them, these pundits, like Bari Weiss, like Forward editor Batya Ungar-Sargon, make the connection between Jews and Israel in no-time, accusing the critics of anti-Semitism, accusing them by association of using “anti-Semitic tropes” and what not. But when the nerve of the talk is supportive of Zionism, even when it is rabid Zionist, bigoted and false propaganda, the anti-Semitic tropes just pass by with a laugh, one by one.  

We can be sure that Bari Weiss is not going to write an article titled “Bill Maher and the myth of Jewish sleaziness and bigotry”. That’s not going to happen, because Maher was supportive of Weiss and her advocacy. Weiss is being celebrated in the mainstream media and given a prime position as staff editor in the New York Times – top of the world, right? And she still has the nerve to portray herself as a persecuted person. The sad irony is that Bari Weiss can’t recognize anti-Semitism, even though she’s written a whole book on it. And even if she does sniff it, she won’t call it out, not when it serves her Zionist, anti-Palestinian purposes. Because in the end, Weiss is not on about anti-Semitism – she’s just using the old trick in order to protect Zionism. Oh, I forgot – she’s a liberal, because she opposes Netanyahu…

H/t Ofer Neiman

Jonathan Ofir

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

Other posts by .

Posted In:

69 Responses

  1. edwardm on September 20, 2019, 10:42 am

    WRT the %”offers” over the years. Nice collection of maps here demonstrating that it’s always the SAME offer. The west bank minus anything that makes having a viable state possible including water and arable land. Quite aside from that, it’s not much of an offer – something that ISN”T yours in the first place – is it? But intellectual dishonesty is a trademark of both the people in this article. Along with cowardice,hubris, stupidity and pretentiousness.

    From the link:
    1. Israel has, and has only ever had for the past 40 years, one plan for the Occupied Territories. The plan is to control permanently the whole West Bank, but to avoid annexing the people who live there (and who would simply vote Zionist control over them out of existence if they ever enjoyed equal rights) by forcing them to leave or – for the really stubborn ones – by confining them in impoverished reservations and calling this “Palestine”.

    The key to creating these impoverished reservations is that Israel must directly annex those parts of the West Bank that – if relinquished to the Palestinians – would make their state a viable concern. In practical terms, that means:
    severing Arab East Jerusalem entirely from the Palestinians of the rest of the West Bank (because East Jerusalem is the economic powerhouse of the Occupied Territories, generating more than one-third of GDP, and is the key to economic viability for a Palestinian state). You do this by building a “Jerusalem envelope” or ring of settlements around the eastern edge of Arab East Jerusalem – like Gilo, Har Homa, East Tapiyot, Ramat Eshkol, and more than a dozen others – so that when you magnanimously declare you will settle for annexing “only” the settlement blocs you also happen to be entirely severing East Jerusalem from the rest of the West Bank. You didn’t really think the location of the major settlement blocs was decided by chance, did you?)
    annexing the Jordan Valley, which ensures the West Bank has no land border with the outside world, leaving it entirely dependent on Israeli largesse. (And seeing as the Jordan Valley is the breadbasket of the West Bank, annexing it also leaves the Palestinian reservations entirely dependent on Israel even for food).
    annexing those parts of the West Bank that control the Palestinians’ water supply (you do this by building major Israeli settlements – like Ariel in the northern West Bank – on key points for dominating the West Bank acquifer, so that when you magnanimously declare you will settle for annexing “only” the settlement blocs you also happen to be annexing the water supply they control; you didn’t really think the location of the major settlement blocs was decided by chance, did you?
    annexing those parts of the West Bank that allow the Palestinians meaningful territorial contiguity (you do this by building major Israeli settlements – like the largely empty but super-sized Maale Adumim, which extends from East Jerusalem almost to Jericho – at the narrow point of the central West Bank, so that when you magnanimously declare you will settle for annexing “only” the settlement blocs you also happen to be cutting the West Bank in two; you didn’t really think the location of the major settlement blocs was decided by chance, did you?)
    What this all looks like on the ground was first mapped out immediately after the Occupation began, with the Allon Plan of 1967 (click all maps to enlarge):

    • Misterioso on September 21, 2019, 11:02 am

      @edwardm, et al

      Bill Maher is a bought and paid for Zionist lackey. I utterly detest him. He either knows nothing about the conflict and the horrors it has inflicted on the indigenous Palestinians or as is most likely, he just doesn’t give a damn.

      As for Bari Weiss, the “Zionist Princess,” she has led a life of privilege and pro-“Israel” indoctrination. Obviously, she doesn’t care about and chooses to ignore the long suffering, illegally dispossessed and viciously occupied Palestinians who have been under the boot of fascistic/racist Zionists for over 71 years.

      Bearing in mind the monstrous crimes the Nazis committed against European Jews, the hypocrisy of Maher and Weiss is overwhelming.

      • Lillian Rosengarten on September 21, 2019, 2:04 pm

        Dear Jonathan,
        Thank you for writing this. I completely agree. Completely makes me sick.

      • Lillian Rosengarten on September 21, 2019, 2:37 pm

        What is hard to believe , the reoccurrence of the Nazi diabolical hatred of Jews has already occurred in the Zionist diabolical hatred of Palestinians. What has been done to Palestinians, so real and evident , has been avoided and masked with the help of Zionist lies and manipulation. Unbelievable to me, for I am a German Jew who sees clearly the destruction and insanity of Zionism .

      • echinococcus on September 21, 2019, 5:04 pm

        “He either knows nothing about the conflict and the horrors it has inflicted on the indigenous Palestinians or as is most likely, he just doesn’t give a damn”

        Wrong on both. He knows it very well and he is keenly interested… in making sure he continues to make oodles of money over the bodies of the victims.

      • Misterioso on September 26, 2019, 10:21 am

        @echinococcus, et al

        “Bari Weiss’s Unasked Questions”

        September 23, 2019, Jewish Currents, by Judith Butler
        Discussed in this essay: “How to Fight Anti-Semitism,” by Bari Weiss. Crown, 2019.

        “ONE YEAR AGO THIS OCTOBER, a white nationalist opened fire at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh’s tight-knit Jewish neighborhood, Squirrel Hill. He killed 11 people and wounded six more in the deadliest recorded antisemitic attack in United States history. In the aftermath of the tragedy, the New York Times opinion editor and writer Bari Weiss, who grew up in Squirrel Hill, insightfully linked the killing of Jews with violence against migrants. The shooter, she explained, carried out his attack the weekend of the synagogue’s ‘Refugee Shabbat’ because—invoking a popular white nationalist conspiracy theory—he blamed Jews for the entry of immigrants into the US. Weiss was right to find a ‘heartbreaking coincidence’ in the fact that Jews were that very week reading from the Torah about the importance of ‘welcoming the stranger’ and offering an ‘open door’ to outsiders. Her mournful and resolute op-ed ended on a note of ethical imperative: Jewish communities must keep their tents open, as ‘this is the true source of our longevity and resilience.’

        “The essay struck a chord with me, as it surely did with many progressive Jewish readers. It came to mind when I agreed to review How to Fight Anti-Semitism, Weiss’s first book, which was prompted by the events in Pittsburgh. I share both Weiss’s concern about rising antisemitism and her understanding that Judaism’s core ethics are tied to the ‘open tent’ and ‘the welcoming of the stranger.’ At the same time, I knew I would not agree with all of what the author had to say. Weiss has characterized positions critical of Israel as biased and fraudulent; as a student at Columbia University, she helped lead an effort to bring complaints against Middle Eastern studies professors who held critical views of Israel for allegedly creating a hostile environment for Jews on campus. (After review, the university found the complaints to be almost entirely unfounded.) I wondered, then, how she would account for antisemitism, and whether she would be able to distinguish between its very real and threatening forms and legitimate critiques of the State of Israel—critiques that should properly be part of any democratic public sphere and which have spuriously been labeled antisemitic in an effort to suppress them.

        “Weiss’s book turned out to be both passionate and disappointing. She repeats her urgent pleas for the reader to wake up and avert a recurrence of a nightmarish history. At the same time, she does not take up the issues that make the matter so vexed for those who oppose both antisemitism and the unjust policies of the Israeli state. To do that, she would have had to provide a history of antisemitism, and account for the relatively recent emergence of the view that to criticize Israel is itself antisemitic. To fight antisemitism we have to know what it is, how best to identify its forms, and how to devise strategies for rooting it out. The book falters precisely because it refuses to do so. Instead, it elides a number of ethical and historical questions, suggesting that we are meant to feel enraged opposition to antisemitism at the expense of understanding it.”

  2. Boomer on September 20, 2019, 10:53 am

    Thanks for the analysis; it must have been tedious to do, but worthwhile. This sort of thing is so common in American life that one hardly notices it, unless it is pointed out. It shows that the human mind is smart enough to manage without effort the contortions demanded by Newspeak taboos. Much as one can negotiate the drive to the office each day with some less-than-fully conscious part of the mind. Of course, the key factor is that there are different rules for different people.

  3. Donald on September 20, 2019, 12:37 pm

    I think I have heard that 97 percent claim made, probably about Taba. It’s been a long time since I read about that–people used to argue against the myths propounded about how Arafat was totally at fault for turning down a generous offer yada,yada, yada. But people don’t talk as much about that anymore and I’ve forgotten some of the details about who said what. What you generally hear now is that the Palestinians were given generous peace offers three times (or some such number) and turned them all down. The details don’t even matter. It’s a trope. The moral is supposed to be that if Palestinians suffer, it’s all their own fault.

  4. Donald on September 20, 2019, 12:44 pm

    Bari Weiss is antisemitic in one of the ways that Trump is–that is, she thinks a good Jew is one that supports Israel. Trump presumably learned this from his ambassador to Israel (and bankruptcy lawyer) David Friedman, who said that JStreet people are worse than kapos.

    A reviewer at Slate was a bit gentler about it than I just was, but he observed that Bari echoes Trump in that fashion.

  5. bcg on September 20, 2019, 1:48 pm

    Around 4:40 Maher says “The Jews, 70 years ago, said: let’s share it [the land].” And that’s the mainstream trope: the Jews just came back to their ancestral homeland and wanted to live in peace among the natives, but no, they were met with rabid anti-Semitism!

    The first part of Ben White’s “Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide” examines the motives of Israel’s founders – here are some gems from the book (references and links are provided):

    “If there are other inhabitants there, they must be transferred to some other place. We must take over the land” – Menahem Ussishkin, chairman of the JNF, 1930

    ” ‘Disappearing’ the Arabs lay at the heart of the Zionist dream, and was also a necessary condition of its realization” – Tom Segev, historian

    “We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from the people inhabiting it” – Moshe Sharrett, Israel’s second prime minister.

    • Misterioso on September 21, 2019, 9:42 am

      @bcg, et al

      More reality:
      The mistreatment of Palestinians by Jewish settlers caused Jewish philosopher Ahad Ha’am (nee, Asher Ginsberg) great distress. In 1891 he wrote: “They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, unscrupulously deprive them of their rights, insult them without cause, and even boast of such deeds; and none opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination.” (Ha’am, Ahad, by Am Sheideweg, Berlin 1923, vol.1, p.107; quoted by Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch, p. 24)

      Ha’am concluded that this aggressive behaviour on the part of Jews stemmed from anger“…towards those who remind them that there is still another people in the land of Israel that have been living there and does not intend to leave.” (Hans Kohn, Zionism Reconsidered, Michael Selzer, ed. London: 1970, p. 195; quoted by Nur Masalha, Expulsion of the Palestinians…, p. 7)

      Theodor Herzl’s diaries not only confirm that the Zionists’ 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 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.”

      Israel Zangwill, the influential Anglo-Jewish essayist and Zionist first believed that the Palestinians would simply “fold their tents and slip away.” It was Zangwill who first voiced the lie that Palestine was a “land without a people, waiting for a people without a land.” (Zangwill, Israel, “The Return to Palestine”, New Liberal Review 11, Dec. 1901 p 627, quoted by David Hirst, p. 19)

      In 1905, Zangwill contradicted himself during a talk in Manchester when he observed that Palestine was “already twice as thickly populated as the United States…. [W]e must be prepared to either drive out by the sword the [Arab] tribes in possession as our forefathers did or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population….” (Zangwill, Speeches, p. 210, quoted by Nur Masalah , Expulsion of the Palestinians…., 1992, p. 10)

      In the February 1919 issue of the League of Nations Journal, Zangwill proposed that the Palestinians “should be gradually transplanted” in Arab countries and at a public meeting in the same year he remarked that “many [Palestinians] are semi-nomad, they have given nothing to Palestine and are not entitled to the rules of democracy.” (Jewish Chronicle, Dec. 12 1919, quoted by Masalha, Expulsion…, p.14)

      In 1920, Zangwill proposed in The Voice of Jerusalem, that there should be an “‘Arab exodus’…based on ‘race redistribution’ or a ‘trek like that of the Boers from Cape Colony,’ which he advocated as ‘literally the only way out of the difficulty of creating a Jewish State in Palestine.’” He continued: “We cannot allow the Arabs to block so valuable a piece of historic reconstruction….To fold their tents and silently steal away is their proverbial habit: let them exemplify it now.” (Zangwill, The Voice of Jerusalem, p. 103, quoted by Masalha, EOTP pp. 13- 14)

      In 1918, Ben-Gurion described the future borders of the Jewish state as: “to the north, the Litani River; to the northeast, the Wadi’Owja, twenty miles south of Damascus; the southern border will be mobile and pushed into the Sinai at least up to Wadi al-`Arish; and to the east, the Syrian Desert, including the furthest edge of Transjordan.” (Teveth, Ben-Gurion and the Palestinian Arabs, pp. 34-34; cited by Masalah, Expulsion…, p. 87)

      In 1930 (when Jews privately owned only about four per cent of Palestine), Arthur Ruppin, a pivotal figure in political Zionism wrote that displacement of Arab farmers was inevitable because “land is the most necessary thing for our establishing roots in Palestine. Since there are hardly any more arable unsettled lands in Palestine, we are bound in each case of the purchase of land and its settlement to remove the peasants who cultivated the land so far, both owners of the land and tenants.” (Rashid Khalidi, in Blaming the Victims)

      In 1930, Britain’s Shaw Commission concluded: “The plain facts of the case are that there is no further land available which can be occupied by new immigrants without displacing the present population.” (Palestine Royal Commission Report, July 1937, Cmd. 5479, p. 176; cited by Alan George, JPS, #30, Winter, 1979, p. 91.)

      This situation caused the Shaw Commission to propose placing “limits on Zionist land purchases and on immigration to Palestine.” (Quigley, Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice, 1990, p. 19)

      The views of the Shaw Commission were echoed by John Chancellor, Britain’s high commissioner for Palestine. In a memorandum to Colonial Secretary, Lord Passfield, dated 17 January 1930, he called for a complete suspension of Jewish immigration and land purchase to protect Arab agriculture, pointing out that “all cultivable land was occupied; that no cultivable land now in possession of the indigenous population could be sold to Jews without creating a class of landless Arab cultivators.”

      In May 1939, the British government issued the MacDonald White Paper, which in accordance with the Mandate, ruled out any possibility of a Jewish state, and declared Great Britain “could not have intended Palestine should be converted into a Jewish state against the will of the Arab population of the country.” It called for a Palestinian state in which Jews and Arabs would govern jointly based on a constitution to be drafted by their representatives and those of Britain. The constitution would safeguard the “Jewish National Home” in Palestine and if good relations developed between Jews and Arabs, the country would be granted independence in ten years. Land sales to Jews were to be restricted and the annual level of Jewish immigration was to be limited to 15,000 for five years, following which, Palestinian Arab acquiescence would be required.

    • jon s on September 21, 2019, 1:41 pm

      You can’t abbreviate Ahad Ha’am and call him “Ha’am”. Doesn’t work. And yes, he was one of the first Zionists to sound a warning regarding Jewish -Arab relations. You forgot to mention that he was an important Zionist leader and thinker, and one who actually immigrated himself, lived here and died here.

      Zangwill started out as an assimilationist, became a Zionist, and left the Zionist movement in 1905 in the aftermath of the Uganda debate and became a “territorialist”. He admitted to having been wrong regarding the “land without a people…” quote. Incidentally, at the time he was quoting Lord Shaftesbury, who was himself quoting the Rev. Dr. Alexander Keith, a Christin

      • annie on September 22, 2019, 2:05 am

        jon, isn’t Ha’am a surname? why can’t one refer to him like that? why is it considered and abbreviation?

      • jon s on September 22, 2019, 3:54 am

        Ahad Ha’am was the nom de plume of Asher Z. Ginsberg (1856-1927) , a significant figure in Zionist history , critic and rival of Herzl. “Ahad Ha’am ” means “one of the people” so abbreviating it to “Ha’am ” (“people?”) doesn’t work and is not used.

      • eljay on September 22, 2019, 8:51 am

        || annie: jon, isn’t Ha’am a surname? why can’t one refer to him like that? … ||

        According to Wiki, “ahad ha’am” means “one of the people”. So in this case at least it seems that “ha’am” is an integral part of a pretentious title Mr. Ginsberg bestowed upon himself. Kinda like “Mr. T.”   ;-)

  6. Liz on September 20, 2019, 1:50 pm

    This is just great, as was Phil’s piece about Weiss. It’s amazing how the right take the language of the left, appropriate it to fit their agenda, and then blame the left. I hope we continue to see Weiss fall from her privileged position.

  7. Mooser on September 20, 2019, 2:05 pm

    “and if you cheer this bigotry, you must be a Jew.”

    You can hear the sound of matzoh crumbling…

  8. DaBakr on September 20, 2019, 2:24 pm

    If Ofir is that clueless about the ground rules for jew jokes as being exactly like the ground rules for the ‘n’ word. Blacks can use the word in their vernacular while anybody not black can not. There are some exceptions where entertainers, celebrities and a few others are ‘allowed’ occasional usage but only on a casual , jokey level.
    For jews is the same thing with the exception that many specific Jewish slurs are condemned a bit less then the completely loaded ‘n’ word.
    So, Omar can say what she wants but will face harsh scrutiny for slurs against jews and Israel (yes, they are connected) just as she cries about ‘Islamo phobic’ Americans and Israelis even though both nations are bastions of religious freedom and tolerance for its Muslim citizens. Now, if she wants to talk about Jewish rights in the Arab/Muslim ME im sure she is an expert

    • youcantbeserious on September 20, 2019, 6:47 pm

      When you impose a meta narrative on black people in the USA you come across as a genocidal maniac. Is that your intent? Having trouble expressing yourself in English? No excuse. Thanks for the example though – you bots always reveal yourselves for what you are.

      • Mooser on September 20, 2019, 8:23 pm

        “When you impose a meta narrative on black people in the USA you come across as a genocidal maniac. Is that your intent?”

        That’s the way the matzoh crumbles – into a half-baked cracker.

      • DaBakr on September 21, 2019, 2:45 am


        Do tell the “Meta narrative” being imposed on black folks in regards to the current public usage by those other then black folks of the ‘n’ word. Also how it is genocidal in nature

    • youcantbeserious on September 20, 2019, 8:25 pm

      It is a good thing Zionists are so predictable with their genocidal rage and predilections. Conflating Arab and Muslim. Erasing Arab Jews. Erasing Arab Christians. Pathologizing and essentializing all Muslims as though they operate in the same manner. Keep the examples coming. You may think they are innocuous. They expose your violence.

    • youcantbeserious on September 20, 2019, 8:38 pm

      And for potato’s sake – you can’t help yourselves. Erasing all Arab critical thinking from atheists to agnostics to deists. Keep at the conflation though. Genocide is your game, and it a horrific and ugly one at that.

    • youcantbeserious on September 20, 2019, 9:14 pm

      Oh, and the bots use of “blacks” – is the converse to that whites – hahahahaha – the attempt at cultural criticism is so junky and yes, once again, an example of genocidal intent. A whole bot machinery and they can’t even figure out how to operate in English. Are these the best propagandists? We know they are good at torture, assault, ethnic cleansing and cultural appropriation – which they need a lot of help with. Attempts at cultural criticism will, however, be their downfall – hahahahahahahahahaha

    • eljay on September 20, 2019, 10:29 pm

      || @Daa: … Omar can say what she wants but will face harsh scrutiny for slurs against jews [sic] and Israel (yes, they are connected) … ||

      Zionists certainly have done their anti-Semitic best to ensure that Jews and Israel are connected.

      • jon s on September 21, 2019, 1:27 pm

        Misterioso once again recycles his comments.
        “each citizen carries an appropriate identity card” -wrong.
        All citizens and residents carry the same ID card, regardless of ethnicity.

      • Mooser on September 22, 2019, 4:44 pm

        “All citizens and residents carry the same ID card, regardless of ethnicity.” “Jon s”

        The problem isn’t the ID card, it’s what is on the ID card. Please don’t pilpul. You are re-cycling your prevarications.

    • Misterioso on September 21, 2019, 9:59 am


      “…even though both nations are bastions of religious freedom and tolerance for its Muslim citizens.”


      “Israel,” i.e., west of the green line, has been governed under an apartheid system since its inception:

      Hendrik Verwoerd, then prime minister of South Africa and the architect of South Africa’s apartheid policies, 1961: “Israel, like South Africa, is an apartheid state.” (Rand Daily Mail, November 23, 1961)

      Jacobus Johannes Fouché, South African Minister of Defence during the apartheid era, compared the two states and said that Israel also practiced apartheid. (Gideon Shimoni (1980). Jews and Zionism: The South African Experience 1910-1967. Cape Town: Oxford UP. pp. 310–336. ISBN 0195701798.

      “Former Foreign Ministry director-general invokes South Africa comparisons. ‘Joint Israel-West Bank’ reality is an apartheid state”
      EXCERPT: “Similarities between the ‘original apartheid’ as it was practiced in South Africa and the situation in ISRAEL [my emphasis] and the West Bank today ‘scream to the heavens,’ added [Alon] Liel, who was Israel’s ambassador in Pretoria from 1992 to 1994. There can be little doubt that the suffering of Palestinians is not less intense than that of blacks during apartheid-era South Africa, he asserted.” (Times of Israel, February 21, 2013)

      Video: Israeli TV Host Implores Israelis: Wake Up and Smell the Apartheid

      In its 2015 Country Report on Human Rights Practices for Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, issued in 2016, the U.S. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor acknowledges the “institutional and societal discrimination against Arab citizens of Israel.” (U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor)

      “Construction, Not Destruction”
      “While Israeli Arabs constitute 20 percent of the population, Arab communities’ jurisdictions occupy just 2.5 percent of the state’s land area, and the process of approving new construction in Arab towns takes decades.” (Haaretz Editorial, April 4, 2017)

      One example of apartheid within Israel:
      “Jewish town won’t let Arab build home on his own land ”
      Excerpt: “Aadel Suad first came to the planning and construction committee of the Misgav Local Council in 1997. Suad, an educator, was seeking a construction permit to build a home on a plot of land he owns in the community of Mitzpeh Kamon. The reply he got, from a senior official on the committee, was a memorable one. ‘Don’t waste your time,’ he reportedly told Suad. ‘We’ll keep you waiting for 30 years.’” (Haaretz, 14 December 2009)

      Adi Ophir, professor of philosophy, Tel Aviv University: “…the adoption of the political forms of an ethnocentric and racist nation-state in general, are turning Israel into the most dangerous place in the world for the humanity and morality of the Jewish community, for the continuity of Jewish cultures and perhaps for Jewish existence itself.” (1998 issue of “Theory and Criticism,” published in Israel)

      Ilan Pappe, professor of political science at Haifa University: “[Israel’s] political system [is] exclusionary, a pro forma democracy – going through the motions of democratic rule but essentially being akin to apartheid or Herenvolk (‘master race’) democracy.” (“Jerusalem Report,” Feb. 14/2000)

      Ronnie Kasrils, a key player in the struggle against the former South African apartheid regime, minister for intelligence and a devout Jew: “The Palestinian minority in Israel has for decades been denied basic equality in health, education, housing and land possession, solely because it is not Jewish. The fact that this minority is allowed to vote hardly redresses the rampant injustice in all other basic human rights. They are excluded from the very definition of the ‘Jewish state’, and have virtually no influence on the laws, or political, social and economic policies. Hence, their similarity to the black South Africans [under apartheid].” (The Guardian, 25 May 2005)

      Shlomo Gazit, retired IDF Major General: “[Israel’s] legal system that enforces the law in a discriminatory way on the basis of national identity, is actually maintaining an apartheid regime.” (Haaretz, July 19, 2011)

      “Israel” is the only country in the world that differentiates between citizenship and nationality, i.e., “Israeli” nationality does not exist, only Jews and non-Jews, and each citizen carries an appropriate identity card. While the implications of this absurdity for discrimination and racism against non-Jews are obvious, it has been upheld by Israel’s Supreme Court.

      The effect of Israel’s blatantly racist “Citizenship Law” and more than fifty other restrictions Arab citizens have to endure is well expressed by writer and Knesset member, Ahmed Tibi, “…dutifully defining the state [of Israel] as ‘Jewish and democratic,’ ignores the fact that in practice ‘democratic’ refers to Jews, and the Arabs are nothing more than citizens without citizenship.” (Ma’ariv, 1.6.2005)

      Also, for the record, eminent Jewish Israeli journalist Bradley Burston aptly sums up the horrors Israel inflicts on Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem:

      “Occupation is Slavery”
      “In the name of occupation, generation after generation of Palestinians have been treated as property. They can be moved at will, shackled at will, tortured at will, have their families separated at will. They can be denied the right to vote, to own property, to meet or speak to family and friends. They can be hounded or even shot dead by their masters, who claim their position by biblical right, and also use them to build and work on the plantations the toilers cannot themselves ever hope to own. The masters dehumanize them, call them by the names of beasts.” (Haaretz, Feb. 26/13)

  9. Stephen Shenfield on September 20, 2019, 3:00 pm

    What this very clearly illustrates is that the ONLY kind of “anti-Semitism’ that Zionists are against is anti-Zionism. They accept and share traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes. That is, they themselves are anti-Semites — anti-Semites who use the accusation of anti-Semitism as a weapon against their opponents. And they are quite aware of this. Bari Weiss is joking when she says: ‘You’re going to get into trouble for that” because she knows full well that Zionists do not get into trouble (in the West, anyway) for their real anti-Semitism. It is they who get other people into trouble for “anti-Semitism” that is usually not real. The cynicism is mind-blowing.

  10. annie on September 20, 2019, 3:16 pm

    excellent article jonathan

  11. youcantbeserious on September 20, 2019, 3:45 pm

    Thank you Jonathan. You perfectly expose Weiss’ inconsistencies. What bonds Weiss and Maher is love of ethnic cleansing and the associated hilarity they believe can be found in it. What’s also incredibly troubling about Weiss is that while she should recognize and call out insidious Antisemitism, her preference is to suppress her own voice when that Antisemitism supports her Zionist ideology. Her silence is a combination of wanting to serve particular interests and deflect blame onto those who actually fight racism. There is also an element of having her identity tied to Antisemitism – that’s a much longer discussion though, which has been addressed by those who expose Zionism for what it is but now a new set of critical voices are needed because there is a resurgence of Antisemites who support Israel. As frightening as that is.

  12. Blake on September 20, 2019, 4:03 pm

    Hasbara and victim playing from beginning to end. Here is an excerpt:

    “During my sophomore year, I took a lecture course on the history of the Middle East. One day, on a subway ride downtown, I ran into a classmate from the course who I’d met in a literature seminar the year before. We were friendly. She confessed that she had a question. You’re a reasonable liberal, she said. So how can you be a Zionist? How can you support a racist ideology?
    This student was in no way an anti-Semite. She was a California WASP who had known little about the region before enrolling in this introductory course. It was being taught by a then-untenured professor named Joseph Massad, a man who had declared that “The Jews are not a nation” and “The Jewish state is a racist state that does not have a right to exist.” Massad made clear that one of the ideological planks of being a good progressive was to be an anti-Zionist. To believe that a state that accounts for less than 1 percent of the land mass of the Middle East is at the root of that region’s problems. To believe that one flawed state of all the flawed states in the world—a world including Syria and North Korea and China and Russia—did not deserve to fix its flaws but had to be wiped off the map.
    By the time I got to college, in 2003, this view of Israel—not as the culmination of two thousand years of Jewish yearning, or as the repatriation of an indigenous people, or even as a safe haven for the Jewish people, but as the last bastion of white colonialism in the Middle East—had conquered departments across campus that had embraced postmodern, postcolonial theory. Nowhere, however, was the demonization of Israel and of Israeli Jews more aggressively pursued than in the school’s Middle Eastern studies department.
    In 2004, Hamid Dabashi, then the head of the Middle Eastern studies department, wrote a piece for the Egyptian Al-Ahram Weekly. “Half a century of systematic maiming and murdering of another people has left its deep marks on the faces of these people,” he wrote of Israeli Jews. “The way they talk, the way they walk, the way they handle objects, the way they greet each other, the way they look at the world. There is an endemic prevarication to this machinery, a vulgarity of character that is bone-deep and structural to the skeletal vertebrae of its culture.” Dabashi has referred to Zionists as “master thieves” and “laughing hyaenas” [sic]. In May 2018 he posted on Facebook: “Every dirty treacherous ugly and pernicious happening in the world just wait for a few days and the ugly name of ‘Israel’ will pup” [sic].”

    • RoHa on September 21, 2019, 1:16 am

      “this view of Israel—not as the culmination of two thousand years of Jewish yearning, or as the repatriation of an indigenous people, or even as a safe haven for the Jewish people, but as the last bastion of white colonialism in the Middle East—had conquered departments across campus that had embraced postmodern, postcolonial theory.”

      One does not need to subscribe to the congregation of geriatric shoe manufacturers that is postmodern theory in order to hold this sort of view of Israel. One simply has to observe the facts on the ground.

  13. youcantbeserious on September 20, 2019, 4:17 pm

    Not surprisingly, the bots are working overtime as they expose how little they know about cultural presentations in the USA, or the multiple comedy scenes. There are no ground rules for racism – that’s a fun one to laugh at. Zio bots have no idea how race is defined in the USA or how comedy develops. In great comedy there are nuances of satire that expose stereotypes and highlight hypocrisy. Neither Maher or Weiss understand these nuances, nor do the Zio bots. Funny how Zios imagine they can create meta narratives for black people in the USA. The other troubling phenomena in the USA – one the Zios love and support – is that hatred of Jews has been used to supplant hatred and violence against Black and Indigenous people. Not because those who pretend to fight hatred against Jews actually care to stop the hatred, they instead use it as a cudgel to silence anti-racist voices and movements. There are, thankfully, enough people who actually fight Antisemitism and all forms hate, discrimination and inequality.

  14. Keith on September 20, 2019, 5:20 pm

    JONATHAN OFIR- “She can’t even see the anti-Semitism reeking from Maher, because it serves her purposes.”

    Comments which serve the purpose of Jewish Zionism in no way express irrational Jew hatred, hence, are not examples of traditional anti-Semitism. Your attempt to label Maher’s comment as an anti-Semitic trope is but a variant of Zionist use of the charge of anti-Semitic tropes. You and others who attempt to label Jewish Zionists as the true anti-Semites only feed into the pervasive propaganda concerning pervasive anti-Semitism. It is both not true and a piss-poor strategy. Both Maher and Barri Weiss are members of the imperial elite with power and privilege. And the notion that this propagandistic duo is somehow heroic and brave in perpetuating Jewish myth-history regarding eternal anti-Semitism is but another example Jewish Zionist elites ludicrously claiming victimhood. And Maher’s use of Jewish self-deprecating humor is intended to show he is a member of the tribe, hence, is an example of tribal humor which would be considered unacceptable coming from a non-Jew. And “trope” is a pernicious label used to shut down discussion via labeling. Something is either true or not true, rational of irrational, logical or illogical. And Bill Maher and Barri Weiss are Jewish Zionist media propagandists, Maher obnoxiously so, and that is no trope!

    • Stephen Shenfield on September 23, 2019, 8:45 pm

      Well, of course Zionists are not anti-Semites of the traditional kind, because Zionism is a new thing — only a century or so old. It’s a new-fangled variety. Call it self-deprecating if you like. I feel it’s sicker than that.

  15. wondering jew on September 20, 2019, 5:38 pm

    interesting to read ofir’s reaction.

    bari Weiss is interesting as well. when one appears on bill maher, one is either bucking the bronco or along for the ride and Weiss showed up to go along for the ride and so this particular complaint against her is shall we say, so much fluff.

    Jeremy corbyn is an interesting character as well. I won’t get into fisticuffs over corbyn, but ofir’s description “he has pro-Palestinian leanings and challenges in some way the Zionist orthodoxy” is designed to incite. it is silly writing.

    maher’s pro Israel stance is more nuanced than Roseanne barr’s , but not much more.

    I haven’t read Weiss’s book, but the premise leads her to a place that is very different from peter beinart’s activism (vis a vis Israel) and I’m on beinart’s side and not hers. then again: a deep understanding of history needs a serious study of the phenomenon of judeophobia and the history of assimilation that is the history of the jews of the last hundred and thirty years (particularly in North America) naturally prefers to mix into a culture that still maintains remnants of the past and survival requires a type of “ignorance is bliss” attitude towards the cultural remnants. Israel is a totally different equation or mix of dynamics and if not for the endless war involved in the exile of (1948 and the occupation since 1967) it would be possible to have grown past the cultural remnant problem. unfortunately this history is not something that can be separated from Israel’s essence or reality.

  16. Kay24 on September 20, 2019, 6:11 pm

    Maher has proven he is a true zionist by consistently blaming the real victims, the Palestinians, every time he gets his chance. I was quite surprised at what he said that day, but most probably he will get a pass, as he is one of their devoted servants. He is also anti Muslim, which must get their stamp of approval. The day he mentions the occupation, and land grabs, as the root of this problem, will be the day we should all be impressed.

    • Citizen on September 26, 2019, 7:37 am

      Agreed. He’s also heavily anti-Christian, most especially towards Roman Catholicism. He was reared as such sans mention of his Jewish side, which he’s on record as greatly resenting.

  17. Mel on September 20, 2019, 8:23 pm

    Yes, you covered it well. Maybe Maher thinks he can be anti Semitic because he had a joke in his standup act about being “half Jewish and half Catholic, so he brings a lawyer to confession.” Even though he made a point on his show one evening to say “I’m not Jewish…why do people think I’m Jewish?” Because you have a joke in your act saying you’re half Jewish? Because your mother was Jewish? Just a guess. He was obviously hoping to stave off some of the hate mail. Just like he thinks he can make cringe-worthy black jokes since he’s dated a couple of African American women. And why he feels he can call out all Muslims to keep their terrorists in line. He likes to think this is all just being “edgy”… when in actuality it’s what he thinks he can get away with and still keep his job. Muslims aren’t his big demographic. And he knows he can get away with anti Semitic or borderline Anti Semitic stuff as long as it’s not anti Israel or anti Zionism. He tries to present himself as a progressive and an independent, when in actuality he’s basically a mouthpiece for his bosses and the Democratic Party. He hasn’t had on Cornel West since he badmouthed Hillary after Trump won the election. He has on mostly Never Trump Republicans and centrist journalists, politicians, and celebrities. Michael Moore just happens to be an old friend, and has him on to pull in viewers occasionally. Those who know Bill personally, are also aware he truly dislikes fat people (not looking out for them with tough love)…and he doesn’t have a whole lot of use for women either. He’s basically not at all the guy he wants us to think he is…and it’s becoming more and more apparent.

  18. gamal on September 20, 2019, 8:56 pm

    Bari Weiss like Mary Ann Sieghart, Melanie Phillips, Jane Corbin….Martha Gellhorn was no slouch when it came to Zionism I remember reading her Mad Hatter article about the newly expelled Palestinians in the ’70’s or 60’s perhaps and called their recollections of the nakba mad, irrational lies….I was a little kid and even i could tell she was lying while poking around their camp and treating them with an affected disdain, dismissive, that sort of shit passes as class in some places, it’s a pose i suppose, women with poise and rhetorical elegance well Ahed Tamimi and Arundhati Roy would be my picks, we can all agree on Patti Smith.

  19. johneill on September 20, 2019, 10:28 pm

    antisemites and zionists agree: jews belong in israel

  20. unverified__26c51237 on September 21, 2019, 8:20 am

    hey mondos— both are Jewish!!! SOS. duh…

    Neal H. Hurwitz NY NY Medellin Israel

    Do not support Likud but you guys sorta suck.

  21. Elizabeth Block on September 21, 2019, 8:26 am

    Bari Weiss brave?
    Some years ago I got into a discussion on email with someone – may have been Steven Rosen – who said that a number of professors had gotten fired, or had suffered in their academic careers, because of their SUPPORT of Israel. I asked, Like who? Name a few. He said he couldn’t think of any offhand but I should check the website CampusWatch, which I did, and which is devoted to exposing anything any professor said that is insufficiently supportive of Israel. I asked a couple of people in a position to know, like Norman Finkelstein, whether there were any such academics. No, there aren’t.

    And: I found a quote from Arthur Balfour saying “We do not intend to make even a pretence of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants [sic] of the land.”

    As for the Jews saying, 70 years ago, that they would share the land, that’s a laugh, and not a funny one.

    • Jonathan Ofir on September 21, 2019, 5:46 pm

      Elizabeth Block, I believe your Balfour citing is a paraphrase on this:

      In 1919 Balfour responded to Lord Curzon, that “in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country …. The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land”. (In Geoffrey Lewis, Balfour and Weizmann, 2009).

      – cited in my piece

  22. JaapBo on September 21, 2019, 8:38 am

    Good article.

    Regarding the 2nd and 3rd example: they confuse Jews and Zionists. Zionists have always been fine with this. It’s one of the ways in which they frame criticism of Israel as antisemitism. Zionists confuse this all the time, and they say it’s not antisemitic if it supports Zionism, and is antisemitic if it is critical of Zionism. Double standard!

  23. bcg on September 21, 2019, 1:10 pm

    By the way – here’s a nice analysis/takedown of Bari Weiss from The Intercept, 2017:

    “The NY Times’s Newest Op-Ed Hire, Bari Weiss, Embodies its Worst Failings — and its Lack of Viewpoint Diversity…In her short tenure, Weiss (pictured, right) has given the paper exactly what it apparently wanted when it hired her. She has churned out a series of trite, shallow, cheap attacks on already-marginalized left-wing targets that have made her a heroine in the insular neocon and right-wing intelligentsia precincts in which she, Stephens, and so many other NYT op-ed writers reside.”

  24. youcantbeserious on September 21, 2019, 5:27 pm

    As Weiss and Maher seek thrills, they continue to push and engage in a new form – much of it recycled – of Holocaust denial and revisionism.
    The rightwing British establishment that promotes Nazism – UKIP et al – and the most horrific tropes about Jews and globalism are not in Weiss and Maher’s view the actual Antisemites. That these groups are directly linked to the same ideologies of the Europeans who practiced horror against Jews is of little interest to Weiss and Maher. Similarly, Republicans in the USA who engage in the same Antisemitism and connect with European groups and parties that rejoice in Nazism (including the AfD) are of no real interest to Maher and Weiss. Weiss and Maher want to shift the attack and revise the history of violent Antisemitism to specifically and mostly include people who are opposed to the horror practiced by the Israeli state. While requiring a longer and more nuanced discussion, what’s most frightening about Weiss’ approach is that shifting the blame of historical and current Antisemitism onto those who engage in human rights activities works to minimize and erase the actual atrocities the Nazis committed. Weiss is, partially unwittingly, engaging in a newly revived form of Holocaust denial.

  25. Jackdaw on September 22, 2019, 5:37 am


    Because Bill Maher supports the Jewish State of Israel, while Rep. Ilhan Omar wants to end the Jewish State altogether.


    • youcantbeserious on September 22, 2019, 11:44 am

      Bill Maher supports oppression, torture, profiting from and through terror, ethnic cleansing, demonizing the innocent, and smearing human rights advocates with false and manufactured accusations. Along with those who murder Jews, including the Pittsburgh ‘Tree of Life – Or L’Simcha’ massacre, Maher pushes horrendous tropes about Jews and money. I would hardly call that a support of Israel or of anything Jewish.
      Your comment is written in a way that attempts to incline those who read what you have to say to feel sorry for you. But you are not really looking for pity, are you?

      • Jackdaw on September 23, 2019, 12:44 am

        You people also should consider that Maher is a comedian, and was going for a laugh.

        Rep. Omar is utterly humorless and is going to try and destroy the Jewish State of Israel.

        Mondoweiss is as humorless as it is souless. Phil wouldn’t know a joke from a pie in the face.

        Mooser, is the exception. He’s as funny as cramps.

    • echinococcus on September 22, 2019, 2:14 pm

      The Jack*, again, giving the game away, confirming in his own words that it has nothing to do with “Antisemitism” (of an either racist or religious kind) but entirely about opposition to a malignant political construct.

      Who recruits these? If I were the Zionist propaganda minister, I’d pay such types to keep their trap shut.

    • youcantbeserious on September 23, 2019, 8:34 am

      Maher is no comedian and has never been funny. He is a propagandist. Maher polices language and pushes hatred, not for hate’s sake, but so that actual physical people can be oppressed and violated. And while there is a thrill in that for him and those who follow him, there is also lots of money to be made through associated security and mercenary corporations. People associated with those corporations pay Maher his bloated salary. Maher would rather who he deems the expendable be brown or already on the list of the those who should be eliminated (or experimented on for profit), but if Jews are also killed while he continues to spout his idiocy for money he doesn’t care at all.

    • youcantbeserious on September 23, 2019, 3:06 pm

      The majority of current Republicans, and for that matter the majority of people in the USA who champion Israeli military actions or ‘security’ activities, regularly make or link to Antisemitic statements. No country or people representing a country, including Israel, should have impunity. When acts of horror are committed, well, they have to be called out as acts of horror.

  26. CigarGod on September 22, 2019, 11:28 am

    My gosh, the childish parroting of those two.
    One would think they would have improved on it somewhere in adulthood; but that warm, atta boy pat on the head from their teacher must really locked them into their hypnotic trance.

  27. youcantbeserious on September 22, 2019, 2:33 pm

    Maher is a Samantha Power lite. He’s always looking to be dipped in butter. Maher’s impulse and obsession is to be a standard bearer of political correctness. As a gatekeeper he defends what cannot be said and does so as viciously as possible. Even so, he bumbles along and mostly spouts racist foolery. His is a public style mash up of Regis Philbin, Howard Stern and Don Imus. Maher doesn’t care about Israel. He makes money from pleasing his bosses who profit from empire.

    • annie on September 22, 2019, 7:09 pm

      except samantha power doesn’t have a show on HBO, not sure how much cultural influence she has.

      • youcantbeserious on September 22, 2019, 9:03 pm

        You’re absolutely right. I was over extending her cultural reach potential. I had seen much too many print references to Power in headlines and reviews this past week.

  28. JustJessetr on September 23, 2019, 1:47 pm

    I don’t think anyone here really appreciates standup comedy. It’s kind of sad.

    • youcantbeserious on September 23, 2019, 3:00 pm

      When it challenges perceptions and skewers hierarchies of power, pushing physical and language barriers and boundaries, stand up can be amazing. Maher’s use of language is always a snooze fest. He always policies what can be said. Maher is caught up in political correctness. Anything that challenges social norms is off limits. There is no element of comedy or any stand up happening when he opens his mouth. He is a stenographer for and a regurgitator of power and the big business interests that make money from war and impoverishing workers.

    • Jackdaw on September 24, 2019, 12:47 am

      Jonathan has accidentally pulled away the curtain and revealed what Mondoweiss really is; a dayroom for the terminally joyless.

      • eljay on September 24, 2019, 8:00 am

        || Jackdaw: Jonathan has accidentally pulled away the curtain and revealed what Mondoweiss really is; a dayroom for the terminally joyless. ||

        And yet this is where you come to find the joy you lack. Ouch.  :-(

        Kidding! You and your amusing comments really brighten up the place.  :-)

  29. Dan From Away on September 26, 2019, 4:55 pm

    Ah, yes, a book about “fighting” antisemitism. Important word that. One “fights” an opponent or a war, but not a disease or “thought virus”. Rational people seek to abolish diseases, not to fight them. The difference in the two terms goes to the choice of weapons/tactics to be used and the end-game of the combatants. For Zionists it would be a manifest travesty if anti-Jewish bias/antisemitism were actually abolished. Why? Because the entire Zionist enterprise is anchored on the belief (yes, it is only a belief) in Herzl’s infamous “Conclusion” which is that antisemitism is universal, ever-expanding and untreatable. For committed Zionists this is an immutable truth. In short, all Others are beneath contempt and beyond redemption which explains why Zionism invests nothing in real intellectual, scholastic or cultural engagement with secular society.

    If antisemitism were abolished there would be no need for a Jewish state. If antisemitism were abolished all hasbarists would would have to find real jobs. If, on the other hand, one merely “fights” antisemitism, then it is kept alive so as to be able to attack and use it endlessly. Political Zionism is therefore assured of full employment for Zionist apologists as well as protecting the idea that Israel is indispensable as a safe haven for oppressed Jewish people now and in the future. “Fighting” anti-Jewish bias/antisemitism also reinforces Zionism’s embrace of the Spartan notion of eternal war, which usefully reinforces Israeli militarism and its bunker mentality.

    Want to “fight” anti-Jewish bias/antisemitism? Applaud the pathologies of Bari Weiss, Bill Maher and organized Zionism. Want to abolish anti-Jewish bias/antisemitism? Begin by publicly rejecting Herzl’s xenophobic “Conclusion” and recanting the massive insult to all Others that it fuels.

    • RoHa on September 26, 2019, 8:03 pm

      Well said.

    • Sibiriak on September 26, 2019, 9:09 pm
    • gamal on September 27, 2019, 1:33 am

      “Want to abolish anti-Jewish bias/antisemitism?”

      Apparently some book launch has been cancelled, possibly because of inherent bias/antisemitism or just the wrong narrative

      “Bad News for Labour
      Antisemitism, the Party and Public Belief
      Greg Philo, Mike Berry, Justin Schlosberg, Antony Lerman, David Miller”

      “Bad News for Labour examines the impact of this coverage on public beliefs about the Party. It replaces media hype with the rigorous analysis of evidence. The authors draw on carefully compiled research to reveal surprising findings in this guide to the reality behind the headlines.”

      • oldgeezer on September 27, 2019, 10:15 pm


        Yes! And labelled as a/s.

        Who doesn’t know that scholarly analysis of actual facts is an a/s act? Really!

        zionists need to learn that when truth runs counter to your narrative and beliefs then the truth is not the one in the wrong.

Leave a Reply