Trending Topics:

Anti-Zionist Jews are like Jews who reversed circumcision to fit in with ‘cool group’ — Bari Weiss

Media Analysis
on 142 Comments

Bari Weiss has been everywhere lately promoting her book that says that criticizing Israel too much is dangerous anti-Semitism, and oh by the way, white nationalism is also a threat to Jews.

I listened to the New York Times opinion editor’s Sept. 15 appearance at the 92d Street Y over the weekend. In it Bari Weiss likened anti-Zionist Jews who support the boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign against Israel (BDS) to Jews who had surgery to reverse their circumcisions, just so they can fit in with the cool goyim.

“What do you think about Jews who support BDS?” Jake Tapper asked. Weiss:

I will give you a historical example that I have been thinking a lot about. Around the time of the Maccabees and the Hanukkah story [160 BCE]… the Jewish boys, teenagers young men were so desperate to fit into the surrounding society and they wanted to pass off as non Jews in the gymnasium where you obviously exercised in the nude, so they actually underwent an ancient surgery to undo their circumcisions… [laughter] This is real, it’s really real and the details are– The reason I bring that up, is that the desire to be a part of the cool group and the desire to be a part of the group that you always thought was your home, and the deep psychological discomfort of realizing it might not be, is very powerful.

Look at what happened in Stalin’s Russia. There was the anti fascist committee… It was Stalin’s p.r. group that was made up of Jews… Lenin had the same thing… They were determined to prove that they were loyal Bolsheviks… They write about, we need to prove that we are loyal members of the Bolshevik party and in order to do that… we need to go harder against the rabbis and against our coreligionists and especially against the Zionists to show that we are loyal members…

So this is something with a very, very long history. And frankly when I look at Jews who support the BDS movement, I feel sympathy because I understand emotionally what is driving that. It’s a deep, deep desire to feel a part of a tribe.

Weiss urges Jews to love Jewish “particularism,” our special role in history. We should be proud that we had “radical ideas” that changed the world. We invented the idea that people shouldn’t be slaves, and that “human life is sacred.”

And our specialness is “frankly why we drive people crazy still,” she said.

The political thrust of Weiss’s presentation is that BDS is a form of “anti-semitic conspiracy theory,” that singles out Israel and Jewish power for condemnation. If progressives were fair, they would be worried about other far-worse actors, from Saudi Arabia to China.

The idea that the energy on the left is not inordinately, crazily focused on this tiny local conflict is ridiculous… I think that the obsessive focus on this is evidence of an antisemitic conspiracy theory. I’ll tell you why. The very idea that peace in the Middle East runs through the Israeli Palestinian conflict and not through say Sunnis and Shiites is a lie.

Weiss then mentioned all the UN Human Rights Council resolutions against Israel, none against China, just a few against North Korea, a slave state.

Tell me how that’s not evidence of a conspiracy theory against the Jewish state. [On Face the Nation, Rep. Ilhan Omar] didn’t talk about the Uighurs, she didn’t talk about probably the greatest democratic movement in the 21st century… Hong Kong… She talked about the BDS movement and… Omar Barghouti, the founder of that movement, has said, No Palestinian will ever accept a Jewish state, period. Again I just don’t understand how that is anything other than anti-semitism. If the Jews are a people, and peoples have a right to a nation state, then why do only the Jews not have a right to it?

This sort of talk is hugely helpful to a Zionist cause that is flagging in liberal circles. The young Jewish anti-occupation group IfNotNow reports, “We’re hearing many stories of Rosh Hashanah sermons blaming the rise of antisemitism on ‘the left’ and praising @bariweiss’ book on antisemitism.” (Weiss agrees: she’s hearing of “so many of these sermons, from members of communities in Mexico City, Manhattan, Dallas, DC, Detroit, and more.”)

Stephen Lurie attended one such synagogue, and the rabbi started sermonizing from Bari Weiss’s book and segueing to AIPAC. Lurie posted at Medium that his rabbi moved on from a few comments on the threat of white nationalism to anti-Zionism. That’s what he really wanted to talk about.

Instead, he had to move on to what he said, word-for-word, was the “the more dangerous antisemitism” of the left. For the next twenty or so minutes, we heard plenty of specific threats hiding under a “veil of progressivism,” although they could all have been verbalized as “people of color”. There was the obligatory Farrakhan quote, criticism for the Women’s March, and instances of anti-Zionism on college campuses. The largest segment was reserved for the Jewish people’s greatest contemporary threat, I suppose: a professor at Oberlin (who was fired for social media posts in 2016). This catalog naturally led into the more familiar territory of how anti-Zionism is antisemitism, and segued into the crescendo, the High Holiday call to action. What we must do to fight antisemitism? Don’t try to persuade antisemites, he said, call it out. Rally our allies, he said. Support Israel. “Join AIPAC.”

Lurie took action.

I walked out.

If in other years, I could deflect the insinuation I was a self-hating Jew for being critical of Israel — for the sake of the rest of the service — in 2019, it was the last nail. In a hall full of hundreds of Jews experiencing a new generation of antisemitic violence and fear of it, I could not sit in my synagogue and hear the rabbi who bar mitzvah’d me tell me that I was the one at fault for it. I had to leave, as a proud Jew and proud leftist, clearly unwelcome in his analysis. More importantly, I walked out during the sermon yesterday because his analysis, spread far and wide this High Holidays, is historically irresponsible, morally repugnant, and it will prevail unless we do something about it…

If we don’t figure out how to contest ideology in public, the leaders of Jewish institutions will continue to mislead our families and communities en masse, preventing them from identifying the real threats in front of us and the real allies beside us.

(A year ago during the High Holidays I did a post about all the rabbis celebrating AIPAC, the rightwing Israel lobby, from the altar.)

IfNotNow recommends Talia Lavin’s review of Bari Weiss’s book in the Nation, where Lavin says that Weiss’s rhetorical achievement is packaging rightwing ideas as liberal ones.

For someone who is just 35, Weiss sounds an awful lot like an old fashioned cold warrior, and her anticommunism has the stale smell of a House Un-American Activities Committee hearing room about it…

Ultimately, Weiss’s sole gift as a thinker is her ability to smuggle right-wing talking points into the perspective of a self-described “reasonable liberal.” (As proof of this status, at one point she cites someone telling her in college that she’s “a reasonable liberal.”) Yet the arguments her book endorses are hardly reasonable. Rather, they demand a racialized paranoia from Jews concerned about anti-Semitism. In the end, her vision of the world undermines the possibility of solidarity between Jews and others who are marginalized, thereby cutting out a powerful locus of allyship.

All told, How to Fight Anti-Semitism is a book that launders prejudice under the guise of fighting prejudice.

There is also Judith Butler’s review at Jewish Currents where Butler asserts a Jewish particularism different from Bari Weiss’s:

Is it ok to criticize the crimes of the Israeli government without ceding one’s Jewish identity? Must I give up my fight against antisemitism if I believe that the occupation is wrong or if I question the legitimacy of the Israeli state in its current form?

What Weiss refuses to tackle is this particular anguish at the heart of Jewish families, communities, and congregations throughout the diaspora and even within Israel, one that often tears at the heart of individual Jews overcome by a strong sense of the need for justice—frequently derived from Jewish ethics—that compels them to distinguish their Judaism from prevailing forms of Zionism. It may well be, as Weiss avers, that Zionists feel censored and marginalized within certain progressive circles, but so too do those who wish to raise questions about Zionism within broader circles.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is senior editor of Mondoweiss.net and founded the site in 2005-06.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

142 Responses

  1. bcg on October 7, 2019, 4:45 pm

    I’ve always suspected that criticism of Israel would lead to a discussion on foreskin restoration surgery in the second century bc.

    • Misterioso on October 8, 2019, 9:41 am

      Keep it up Ms. Weiss, aka, the “Zionist Princess,” (Zionism is not Judaism.) Your inane panic ridden rants are well serving the Palestinians.

  2. John Douglas on October 7, 2019, 5:55 pm

    Not one word in defense of what is being done to Palestinians. Not a smidgen of Logic. Not even a sentence arguing for Israel’s right to do what it is doing. Instead, pure ad hominem. Pure Zionist desperation in the face having to defend what is humanly indefensible. Freudian hocus pocus: You hate yourself! Deep, deep down you want to be free of your Judaism. In the far reaches of your unconscious, you want your foreskin back. You are sick. You betray your own people.

    What vicious nonsense this is.

    • JWalters on October 8, 2019, 2:11 am

      Very well put. The extreme intellectual dishonesty is beyond brazen, which is characteristic of sociopaths. It’s likely that Bari “Mossad” Weiss was commissioned to write this book so rabbis around the country would have a template for their insane sermons. If they each had to make up their own insane sermon there would be disarray. Control must be maintained. For example,
      “Rabbis want to criticize Israel but fear donors (and NYT buries the news)”
      http://mondoweiss.net/2014/09/rabbis-criticize-donors

      • RayJosephCormier on October 8, 2019, 8:56 am

        Bari Weiss says, We invented the idea that people shouldn’t be slaves, and that “human life is sacred.”
        Except for Palestinians, that is.

        The purpose of BDS is to get Israel back on track with that Jewish ideal.

        The reality in Israel Today is akin to the American ideal in the Declaration of Independence saying,
        We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

        The American forefathers didn’t practice what they preached and were totally oblivious to the self-evident Truth. Black men are included in ALL men, as blacks were slaves doing the labor creating the early wealth of the new Nation.

        Egypt is perhaps the most Archeologically explored Nation on earth, and to date, there has been no evidence unearthed about Joseph and the Patriarchs, and the Hebrew slaves in the Egyptian economy 400 years later.

        On the surface, I see the Bible account of the Exodus as the world’s 1st record of a massive labor movement on strike.

      • gamal on October 8, 2019, 11:23 am

        “We invented the idea that people shouldn’t be slaves”…..”We”…..”Invented” …people shouldn’t be slaves they should be genocidal and enslaving (and enslaving…but we invented that) conquistadors to give a full account of ‘your’ ingenuity.

        “Human Beings enslaved by Human Beings,
        Are exploited by them;
        Tortured, shackled and incarcerated,
        Are forced to work day and night
        Though they (who do this) themselves know
        The agony evoked by torture and chains”

        Mahabarata XII 262 38-9,

        People shouldn’t be slaves….we invented that….does any of that even rise to level of idiocy?

      • Mooser on October 9, 2019, 12:37 pm

        “….does any of that even rise to level of idiocy?”

        It’s sad, but that’s the way the matzoh crumbles sometimes, into a half-baked cracker.

      • MHughes976 on October 9, 2019, 3:20 pm

        The first abolition of slavery with a proclaimed ideology was, as far as I’ve been able to find, by Louis the Quarrelsome in 1315 ‘comme selon le droit de nature chacun doit naistre franc’ (well, there may have been some insincerity and the text appears to be disputed). This ideology is not really due to the Jewish or Christian scriptures but to Roman legal theory emerging from Stoic philosophy, as RoHa has noted. Seneca’s ‘one human being is a sacred thing to another’ comes close to being a founding statement of the sanctity of life in a reasonable sense of that term. Prohibition of murder is found in the Laws of Ur-Nammu, which is, as Zionists like to say, 4,000 years old. Those of us who have moral roots in the Bible, such as Bari Weiss and me, have to recognise that it is a document which legitimates at least some forms of slavery and that we do owe something to the polytheists. Karl Barth would come down on me like a ton of bricks.

  3. eljay on October 7, 2019, 5:56 pm

    … when I look at Jews who support the BDS movement, I feel sympathy because I understand emotionally what is driving that. It’s a deep, deep desire to feel a part of a tribe. …

    Jews who choose to support BDS are choosing to support justice, accountability and equality.

    Jews like Ms. Weiss who choose to support Zionism and Israel in its current form are choosing colonialism, (war) crimes and supremacism.

    Mr. Weiss should spend considerably less time feeling sympathy for those who choose morality and considerably more time feeling shame and disgust for herself and others like her who choose injustice and immorality.

    Zionism really does make people stupid.

    • eljay on October 7, 2019, 9:18 pm

      || eljay: … Mr. Weiss … ||

      Correction: … Ms. Weiss …

  4. Mooser on October 7, 2019, 6:54 pm

    “Anti-Zionist Jews are like Jews who reversed circumcision to fit in with ‘cool group’ — Bari Weiss”

    Yup, Zionism is trolling. And Zionism trolls Jews hardest.

    (Or perhaps she thinks she is exposing the dark corners of the psychology of anti-Zionist Jews to non-Jews. That would be special.)

    • Keith on October 8, 2019, 12:35 am

      PHIL- “In it Bari Weiss likened anti-Zionist Jews … to Jews who had surgery to reverse their circumcisions, just so they can fit in with the cool goyim.”

      Well, you obviously privilege Bari over this “cool Goyim.” 1/3

  5. JohnSmith on October 7, 2019, 11:40 pm

    I suspect Ms. Weiss is just too ignorant to know that until relatively recently a large majority of American males were circumcised.

    As a typical circumcised non-Jewish American male of my generation, I am aware of the fetishism that might exist on both sides of arguments pro- or anti-circumcision, as well as the plausible / implausible health or other claims that people on both sides might have.

    I know that if I were the father of a boy, it would be a tough decision because of thoughts about “cleanliness” as well as the possibility of uncircumcised people being potentially more apt to get certain diseases. But I suspect the strongest arguments are against getting circumcisions–there are various protective aspects, there are veins involved, there are nerve or other functions that no male would want to lose or lessen….

    If people need to be clean, they can learn to wash. And if people want to lose a foreskin so it won’t attract disease, well, you can say that about any body part: just get rid of those nasty old legs of yours–they’re sure to cause problems some day!

    And finally, most men have always had foreskins. Period. It’s basically just absurd to remove body parts that most male human beings in all of history and pre-history have had.

    Also, circumcision can basically maim people, completely apart from deaths or extreme mutilation. I don’t know if you’ve ever heard of this, but there are all sorts of short art films online about people forming close momentary personal friendships, and in these films one can see that some men have had circumcisions that are just–too reductive and horrifying!

    I know everyone is avid to learn about my own circumcision–I saw an article years ago which had line drawings about the five basic types of circumcision, and I saw that I was lucky enough to have the “least extreme” of the five.

    I’m not sure if circumcision should be outlawed, but I think it should probably be mandated that only a trained, specialist surgeon should be involved, performing the operation at a hospital.

    But I don’t think Bari Weiss wants a rational discussion about circumcision. I think she just wants to bring her ignorance and infantilism to bear on a discussion of male sexuality, in the same way that she brings her ignorance and infantilism to any discussion of Israel. She’s basically a version of Meghan McCain–ignorantly sounding off with her substance-free rants and self-love.

    Would Bari Weiss be so cutesy if we all decided that female genital mutilation were an important social marker? Would she decide that women in general should get various cosmetic surgeries to their privates like some porn stars do to make their privates “pretty”? I think the fact that she can’t recognize surgery as what it is–surgery–indicates that she just doesn’t live in any sort of world of facts and reality. It’s all just playtime to her. Giggle-giggle, circumcision, giggle-giggle.

    And where exactly are these teeming masses of people getting their circumcisions “reversed”? I would think that group, would be so small in number to not even feature in a sane conversation. What does she expect–mass demonstrations and riots by circumcision-reversing BDS supporters who decided surgery would make them “cool”?

    God, she really is a moron.

    • Citizen on October 8, 2019, 5:21 pm

      She’s at least as stupid and ignorant as Meghan McCain. Anybody with doubts should watch Joe Rogan’s discussion with her regarding Tulsi Gabbard on his podcast available on YouTube.

    • Mooser on October 9, 2019, 12:49 pm

      “And where exactly are these teeming masses of people getting their circumcisions “reversed”?”

      2nd Century Syria had a very complete health program. Covered everything. We could do worse than emulate that kind of coverage.

    • Mooser on October 9, 2019, 1:12 pm

      “What does she expect–mass demonstrations and riots by circumcision-reversing BDS supporters who decided surgery would make them “cool”?”

      All shouting ‘Viva La Reconstructa!

  6. Keith on October 8, 2019, 12:35 am

    PHIL- “In it Bari Weiss likened anti-Zionist Jews … to Jews who had surgery to reverse their circumcisions, just so they can fit in with the cool goyim.”

    Well, you obviously privilege Bari over this “cool Goyim.” 1/3

  7. oldgeezer on October 8, 2019, 12:48 am

    How do you reverse circumcision? Serious question. The answer doesn’t alter my opinion of bari as an intellectual lightweight on par with the zionists who spread hasbara on the net

    • Another Dave on October 8, 2019, 8:10 am

      You don’t. Once the skin’s gone it’s gone.

      You can have a surgeon mess around with stretching skin, or moving skin from one part of you to the penis. But that’s not a reversal of the procedure.

      I had to laugh at the headline, as a gay man in North America I know just how many men are circumcised, damn near all of them.

    • Mooser on October 8, 2019, 1:26 pm

      “How do you reverse circumcision?”

      Some of the technology intersections between “collagen scaffolding” and 3D printing look promising.

  8. RoHa on October 8, 2019, 12:54 am

    “If the Jews are a people, and peoples have a right to a nation state, then why do only the Jews not have a right to it?”

    1. “If… peoples have a right to a nation state…”

    But there is no right for “peoples” to have a nation state.

    Neither morality nor common practice provide a foundation for such a right. And I will challenge the experts on international law to show it is a legal right.

    2. “…only the Jews not have a right to it…”

    Is there anyone who asserts that the Lakota, the Tungus, the Romani, and the Pitjantjatjara have a right to a state but that the Jews do not?

    3. “the Jews not have a right ”

    Even if we concede – and I don’t – that the Jews have a right to a state, that does not mean they have a right to commit ethnic cleansing and establish a state in someone else’s territory. If such measures are to be used, the right is lost.

    • eljay on October 8, 2019, 8:25 am

      … Weiss then mentioned all the UN Human Rights Council resolutions against Israel, none against China, just a few against North Korea, a slave state. …

      But she didn’t mention harsh economic sanctions, destabilization, bombardment and devastation and/or regime change undertaken against Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and Iran (to name but a few) but none against Israel.

    • PaulMerrell on October 8, 2019, 9:14 am

      @ “And I will challenge the experts on international law to show it is a legal right.”

      It is, but Jews don’t have it. The “peoples” who are entitled to the right of self-determination are defined by international law. Those who hold that right are the citizens of the former colonies and trust territories that existed at the time the U.N. Charter became effective. See Article 73. More importantly to the situation of the former Mandate Territory of Palestine, the right of self-determination belongs collectively to all of that Territory’s citizens without regard to race, religion, or ethnicity, not just to a Jewish subset:

      “States have consistently emphasized that respect for the territorial integrity of a non-self-governing territory is a key element of the exercise of the right to self-determination under international law. The Court considers that the peoples of non-self-governing territories are entitled to exercise their right to self-determination in relation to their territory as a whole, the integrity of which must be respected by the administering Power. It follows that any detachment by the administering Power of part of a non-self-governing territory, unless based on the freely expressed and genuine will of the people of the territory concerned, is contrary to the right to self-determination.”

      Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, ICJ (25 February 2019), pg. 38, https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/169/169-20190225-01-00-EN.pdf (;) see also V. Gudeleviciute, Does the Principle of Self-Determination Prevail over the Principle of Territorial Integrity, (2005), 2 International J. of Baltic Law, pp, 48-74; https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=242745

      The establishment of Israel was in direct violation of the Palestinian people’s right of self-determination, and still is.

      Paul E. Merrell, J.D.

      • philweiss on October 8, 2019, 9:45 am

        thanks for that

      • Misterioso on October 8, 2019, 10:47 am

        @PaulMerrel

        BINGO!!

      • RayJosephCormier on October 8, 2019, 12:23 pm

        Appreciate you taking the Time to comment and contribute Paul.
        You bring up legitimate points.

        Zionist terrorism against the British Mandate in Palestine started with the 1939 British White Paper which reads in part,
        It has been urged that the expression “a national home for the Jewish people” offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty’s Government do not wish to contest the view, which was expressed by the Royal Commission, that the Zionist leaders at the time of the issue of the Balfour Declaration recognised that an ultimate Jewish State was not precluded by the terms of the Declaration.

        But, with the Royal Commission, His Majesty’s Government believe that the framers of the Mandate in which the Balfour Declaration was embodied could not have intended that Palestine should be converted into a Jewish State against the will of the Arab population of the country.
        That Palestine was not to be converted into a Jewish State might be held to be implied in the passage from the Command Paper of 1922 which reads as follows

        “Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. Phrases have been used such as that `Palestine is to become as Jewish as England is English.’

        His Majesty’s Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated …. the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine.
        They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE.”

        But this statement has not removed doubts, and His Majesty’s Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State.
        They would indeed regard it as contrary to their obligations to the Arabs under the Mandate, as well as to the assurances which have been given to the Arab people in the past, that the Arab population of Palestine should be made the subjects of a Jewish State against their will.

        The nature of the Jewish National Home in Palestine was further described in the Command Paper of 1922 as follows

        “During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community now numbering 80,000, of whom about one fourth are farmers or workers upon the land. This community has its own political organs; an elected assembly for the direction of its domestic concerns; elected councils in the towns; and an organisation for the control of its schools.
        It has its elected Chief Rabbinate and Rabbinical Council for the direction of its religious affairs.
        Its business is conducted in Hebrew as a vernacular language, and a Hebrew press serves its needs. It has its distinctive intellectual life and displays considerable economic activity.
        This community, then, with its town and country population, its political, religious and social organisations, its own language, its own customs, its own life, has in fact `national’ characteristics.

        When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and pride.

        After that report, when the British started restricting European Jewish emigration to Palestine, Jewish terrorists starting attacking the British and Arabs.

      • RoHa on October 8, 2019, 9:36 pm

        Thank you Paul.

        Your contribution makes it clear that “peoples”, in the tribal sense Bari Weiss means, do not have a right to a nation state.
        “…the peoples of non-self-governing territories are entitled to exercise their right to self-determination in relation to their territory as a whole, …”

        implies that all and only the legitimate residents of the territory have the right to self-determination. This means that:
        (a) if some or all the members of a “people” are within the territory, but do not constitute the whole population, they only have the right as members of the population, not as a “people”, and cannot exercise the right as a “people”.

        (b) if some or all the members of a “people” are outside the territory, they have no right whatsoever.

        I think that satisfactorily clears up the legal question.

        Thank you again.

      • RoHa on October 8, 2019, 9:45 pm

        “During the last two or three generations the Jews have recreated in Palestine a community … with its town and country population, its political, religious and social organisations, its own language, its own customs, its own life, has in fact `national’ characteristics.”

        Which makes it clear they had no intention of becoming part of Palestinian society.

      • mondonut on October 9, 2019, 12:09 am

        @PaulMerrell, It is, but Jews don’t have it.

        Wow, simultaneously declaring the Jews are not a people and that self-determination as a core principle of international law is limited to territories recognized in 1945 – Bold strategy Cotton.

        But for the record, the UN Charter neither established nor limited that right. In fact, the UN Charter in Article 1, specifically identifies self-determination as a priciple rather than a right. Becoming a right recognized in international law was a slow migration, it was offically declared in the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which even still was not effective until 1976.

        And Article 73 of the UN Charter pretty much does none of what you rest your conclusions. It does not declare any rights, it does not limit who is entitled to self determination, it does not opine on who are “peoples” and it does not declare that self determination belongs only to residents collectively. Incidentally, “legitimate residents” is nonsense.

        Also as you must already know, legal opines in the years 2005 and 2019 have no retroactive value to the year 1948. The establishment of Israel in 1948, by the people commonly known as Palestinians, was entirely valid and still is.

      • eljay on October 9, 2019, 7:42 am

        || … When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole … ||

        Of course it may be answered that way because there was (and still is) no Jewish nationality to impose.

        Jewish is a religion-based identity that can only be acquired by:
        – undergoing a religious conversion to Judaism; or
        – being descended from someone who underwent a religious conversion to Judaism.

        The identity of Jewish cannot be acquired by:
        – being born in or living in “Judea and Samaria” / “Jewish State” / the “Land of Israel” / Israel;
        – speaking Hebrew; and/or
        – partaking of Jewish cuisine and customs.

      • MHughes976 on October 9, 2019, 3:43 pm

        The term ‘legitimate resident’ would mean to me someone who is a resident rather than a transient or visitor and whose arrival has not breached any law. Versions of these distinctions seem to be in practical operation in the UK, determining who is entitled to vote or to have NHS treatment etc.. There is a moral meaning in identifying people who have a significant connection to the place, are really making a life there, intend to live there legally and constructively and so on.

      • mondonut on October 9, 2019, 5:21 pm

        MHughes976 , The term ‘legitimate resident’ would mean to me someone who is a resident rather than…

        If only that that term would be so benign and innocent. However within the context of Mondoweiss comments its target is Jewish migrants, specifically pre-Israel European Jewish migrants and those who arrived shortly after the founding of the state.

        Because for some racist AF reason, a Jew from Greece in 1947 is not legitimate whereas an Arab from Yemen in 1947 becomes a Palestinian who has lived between the river and the sea for 15,000 years.

      • eljay on October 9, 2019, 6:01 pm

        || mon donut: … for some racist AF reason, a Jew from Greece in 1947 is not legitimate whereas an Arab from Yemen in 1947 becomes a Palestinian who has lived between the river and the sea for 15,000 years. ||

        Your Zionist indignation is truly pathetic, donut.

        The legitimate indigenous population of geographic Palestine is the people living in and up to n-generations removed from the region.

        You and Zionists just like you are hateful and immoral supremacist hypocrites. It’s for that very obvious racist AF reason that people who have chosen to embrace the religion-based identity of Jewish are deemed to be part of the indigenous population of geographic Palestine – regardless of how temporally-remote or even non-existent are their ties to the region – while still-living refugees expelled from their homes and lands in geographic Palestine are not.

      • RoHa on October 10, 2019, 1:20 am

        “But for the record, the UN Charter neither established nor limited that right. In fact, the UN Charter in Article 1, specifically identifies self-determination as a priciple rather than a right. Becoming a right recognized in international law was a slow migration, it was offically declared in the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which even still was not effective until 1976.”

        So you are claiming that the alleged legal right to self-determination did not exist in 1948, and therefore the Jews did not have that right. (Legal opines in the years 1966 and 1976 have no retroactive value to the year 1948.)
        I am quite prepared to agree.

        “And Article 73 of the UN Charter pretty much does none of what you rest your conclusions. It does not declare any rights, it does not limit who is entitled to self determination, it does not opine on who are “peoples” and it does not declare that self determination belongs only to residents collectively.”

        So you think that the UN Charter is pretty useless for claiming anything about the alleged legal right to self-determination. That means we have to do our own thinking on the matter. However, I would suggest that the frequent references to justice and equal rights in the Charter provide a basis for that thinking.

        And with that background, it seems pretty clear that  the establishment of Israel in 1948, by the people commonly known as Zionists, was entirely wrong and still is.

      • RoHa on October 10, 2019, 2:58 am

        “Wow, simultaneously declaring the Jews are not a people …”

        If you want to say that the Jews are a people, you should tell us what you mean by “a people”.

      • MHughes976 on October 10, 2019, 5:45 pm

        Well Mondonut, we seem to be within reach of agreement about what the term ‘legitimate resident’ might reasonably be taken to mean. That gives hope of agreement on those to whom the term applies.

      • Talkback on October 12, 2019, 6:30 am

        mondonut: “Wow, simultaneously declaring the Jews are not a people and that self-determination as a core principle of international law is limited to territories recognized in 1945 – Bold strategy Cotton.”

        Dishonest as usual to fabricate another straw man argument.

        PaulMerrel didn’t declare that Jews are not a people. He points out that that the Jewish people had no right to national self-determination (in Palestine), but that only the citizens OF A country (Palestine) collectively have (whether they are Jewish or not).

        He quotes from the International Court of Justice:
        “The Court considers that the peoples of non-self-governing territories are entitled to exercise their right to self-determination in relation to their territory as a whole, the integrity of which must be respected by the administering Power.”

        So the people of non-self-governing territories have this right in relation to their territory as a whole and it’s territorial integrity can’t be violated. Foreigners and colonists whether they belong to the Jewish “people” or any other, don’t. Not even in parts of it.

        If “people” (a term that is not even internationally defined) as such and without even being the PEOPLE OF A COUNTRY had this right – which you claim – they could freely choose any (non-self-governing) territory for their national aspiration which is obviously nonsense.

        And therefore PaulMerrel is right when he says:
        “The establishment of Israel was in direct violation of the Palestinian [the citizens of Palestine] people’s right of self-determination, and still is.”

        Not to mention that the citizens of Palestine were not even asked. There was no referendum, not even amongst the Palestinian Jews or Nonjews who would become citizens of Israel. Instead its Nonjewish majority was expelled. Israel’s establishment even lacks any internal legitimation. So does keeping Palestinians expelled to maintain Jewish dominance which is full bore Apartheid.

        mondonut: “Because for some racist AF reason, a Jew from Greece in 1947 is not legitimate whereas an Arab from Yemen in 1947 becomes a Palestinian who has lived between the river and the sea for 15,000 years.”

        Another dishonesty to fabricate a straw man argument distract from the legitimate rights of the citizens of Palestine in 1948.

        Try to argue without distorting positions or twisting words. I dare you.

    • RoHa on October 8, 2019, 9:43 pm

      But I want to reiterate my final point

      If (per impossible) the Jews, by some strange alchemy, did have a right to a Jewish nation state, that still does not imply that they have a right to a state at the expense of other people.

      • Talkback on October 12, 2019, 6:32 am

        Or in any country they prefered(d), including the US.

    • RoHa on October 11, 2019, 4:06 am

      “That means we have to do our own thinking on the matter. However, I would suggest that the frequent references to justice and equal rights in the Charter provide a basis for that thinking.”

      And I’ll follow on a bit from that.

      “… it [Article 73] does not limit who is entitled to self determination, it does not opine on who are “peoples” and it does not declare that self determination belongs only to residents collectively.”

      We are talking about the right to found a state in a territory. The founding of a state will seriously affect the lives of all the people in territory. If we apply the ideas of justice and equal rights to that situation, we find that this implies that all the people in the territory collectively share in the right.

      (MHughes will give you the Lockean background to see that this is so, even though he has grave reservations about the idea of group or collective rights.)

      From this, then,it looks as though the right to self-determination belongs at least to all the residents of the territory, and not just a subgroup of those residents.

      If we understand the term “people” to mean “all the residents of the territory”, then saying “peoples have a right to self-determination” makes a smidgin of sense.

      However, if we understand the term “people” to mean something in the tribal line, we find ourselves running into difficulties.

      First, we run the risk of a multitude of groups declaring themselves to be “peoples”. We then are in the position of saying that stamp-collectors, members of the famous West Brisbane Gentleman’s Cheesecake Photography Club, and (Eljay’s favourites) left-handed lesbian Latvian spokeshavers’ apprentices are all entitled to set up states. It is going to take some very careful phrasing of the requirements for being a “people” to avoid this.

      Second, we run into curious anomalies. We discover that, if the Jews are a “people”, then Australian Jews have the right of self-determination as Jews, and again as Australians. But many other Australians only have the rsd once, as Australians. This seems to be inequitable.

      Third, in cases where two or more “peoples” are distributed through a single territory, for one group to set up a state in that territory would be an infringement of the rights of the others.

      I think these difficulties are sufficient to show that, if we intend to be sensible (an intention not, I know, shared by you Zionists), then we have to exclude the tribal interpretation of “peoples”.

      And this means that “the Jews are a people” does not imply “the Jews have a right to establish a Jewish state”.

      • RoHa on October 11, 2019, 4:10 am

        And old lags will know that I pointed this out, in greater detail and more dazzling prose, long ago.

        However, since the various “improvements” to the MW site have lost half the archives and rendered the rest inaccessible, I have to repeat myself.

      • oldgeezer on October 11, 2019, 11:45 pm

        But wait now….. If Jews are a people and have a right to self determination …. And I do mean a literal codified right….. Don’t they have the right to self determination wherever they are? Is it an individual right or a collective right?

        If it’s an individual right can’t they claim and exercise it wherever they are and whenever? Is it AS to deny them that right?

        If it is a collective right then is there a litmus test on how many Jews it takes to to band together in order to claim that right?

        In either case is it not their right to exclude nonJews in order to ensure their right is not infringed?

  9. jon s on October 8, 2019, 4:36 am

    Yom Kippur approaches, a day of introspection and soul-searching.
    For Israelis of my generation – memories of that awful Yom Kippur of 1973, never forgotten…

    The traditional greeting is גמר חתימה טובה- may you be inscribed in the Book of Life.
    And time to apologize to anyone whom I may have personaly offended . Sorry, wasn’t intentional.

    • eljay on October 8, 2019, 8:15 am

      || jon s: Yom Kippur approaches, a day of introspection and soul-searching. … ||

      It’s truly a shame that you and your fellow Zionists won’t introspect and search your souls hard enough to understand and accept the fact that you need to change your evil ways.  :-(

      • eljay on October 8, 2019, 3:47 pm

        || JustAJester: @eljay,
        Jon S. gave a strictly religious greeting. You countred with a despicable anti-Semitism. … ||

        The first part of jon s’ post – the part that I addressed – was precisely this: “Yom Kippur approaches, a day of introspection and soul-searching.”

        That is anything but “a strictly religious greeting”.

        Fail #1.

        My reply to that part of jon s’ post was “It’s truly a shame that you and your fellow Zionists won’t introspect and search your souls hard enough to understand and accept the fact that you need to change your evil ways. :-(“.

        That is anything but “a despicable anti-Semitism”.

        Fail #2.

        || … Remember, conflating Judaism and Israel is anti-semitic. … ||

        I didn’t conflate Judaism and Israel. You did, just now. Not only that, but you deliberately misinterpreted what I wrote in order to conflate Judaism with Zionism.

        Fail #3. And an epic one at that, Jester.

        But don’t worry – I won’t ask for you to be banned. Your Zionist input is valuable.

    • philweiss on October 8, 2019, 9:45 am

      thanks for that jon

      • spadepiccolo on October 8, 2019, 9:17 pm

        Siegfried to 99: Is he putting me on?

    • Mooser on October 8, 2019, 1:01 pm

      “Let’s imagine that the IDF had not deployed on the border and had not prevented Hamas forces from tearing down the border fence and entering Israel. Consider that Israeli civilians live a very short distance from the border…Imagine the consequences…” “Jon s”

      Don’t worry, you’ll be all redeemed after Yom Kippur.

    • spadepiccolo on October 8, 2019, 1:47 pm

      And now…. on with the occupation!!

      • Mooser on October 9, 2019, 12:59 pm

        “And now…. on with the occupation!!”

        And treatment for electile dysfunction.

      • Keith on October 9, 2019, 6:55 pm

        MOOSER- “And treatment for electile dysfunction.”

        Hear, hear! Oh, wait. “Electile” dysfunction? Hard hearted smartass!

  10. Sheldonrichman on October 8, 2019, 7:08 am

    Uh, does she not know that the Maccabees forcibly circumcised men and boys?

    • Mooser on October 8, 2019, 4:07 pm

      “Uh, does she not know that the Maccabees forcibly circumcised men and boys?”

      That was part of the Maccabees brilliant plan to get the local people on their side in the rebellion against Rome! But for some reason, it didn’t work. But you can’t blame them for offering inducements to the local folks to come in on the Jewish side.

    • Citizen on October 8, 2019, 5:06 pm

      Does she know that USA is the only western country that does routine baby boy circumcision? Or that it takes less time to clean an uncut penis than to clean under one’s armpit in the shower?

      • Mooser on October 9, 2019, 1:26 pm

        “Does she know that USA is the only western country that does routine baby boy circumcision?”

        Probably as an prophylactic health measure, to prevent the heartbreak of phimosis. As George Ketterling of GM once said: “Parts left off weigh nothing, cost nothing and don’t cause trouble”.

  11. jon s on October 8, 2019, 7:59 am

    Oldgeezer,
    As I understand, Hellenizing Jews at the time would “pull the foreskin” so they would appear to be uncurcumsised. Must have been painful.

    • Mooser on October 15, 2019, 7:20 pm

      “Must have been painful.”

      Good thing infants can’t feel pain and have illimitable immunity against infection.

  12. Vera Gottlieb on October 8, 2019, 9:12 am

    What a load of malarky! To me, being anti-Zionist means totally disagreeing with how Palestinians are being treated by israel’s right wing/extreme regime. The Nazi-like tactics are very repulsive.

  13. jon s on October 8, 2019, 9:22 am

    Another Dave,
    You’re right, which is why I put quotation marks. That’s what it was called.

  14. RayJosephCormier on October 8, 2019, 11:32 am

    I was not aware of Bari Weiss, and that she was “an Opinion Editor” at the NYT before this article.

    Now I understand why the New York Times edits opinions that highlight Zionist abandonment of The Jewish Ideal in their treatment of Palestinians not considered to be worthy of the sacredness of Human Life.

  15. James Canning on October 8, 2019, 11:35 am

    Has anyone asked Bari Weiss what she thinks should be done with the millions of non-Jews living in the occupied West Bank and Israel combined?

  16. spadepiccolo on October 8, 2019, 12:35 pm

    If there’s anything that could make the thought of Alan Dershowitz or Shmuley Boteach et al even more disgusting, reverse circumcision would be it.

    • jon s on October 9, 2019, 4:36 pm

      Sheldonrichman may be referring to the Hasmonean John Hyrcanus ,who ruled Judea 134-104 BCE. His policy was to forcibly convert non-Jewish populations whom he conquered, such as the Edomites. Told them that that he would remove either their foreskins or their heads. This policy led, two generations later, to the rise of Herod. (The Law of Unintended Cosequences…)

      • Keith on October 9, 2019, 6:42 pm

        JON S- “Told them that that he would remove either their foreskins or their heads.”

        Ah, real world Tikkun Olam.

      • Stephen Shenfield on October 10, 2019, 6:23 am

        Even the heroic Maccabees showed no respect for the rights of individual human beings. After their victory they went round looking for male Jews of any age who had not been circumcised and circumcising them by force. Of course, human rights had not been invented yet. They were just putting matters right again in accordance with their outlook. But why try to preserve or revive that archaic outlook today?

      • spadepiccolo on October 10, 2019, 11:01 am

        ‘their foreskins or their heads. ‘

        I thought Michael Corleone said it better.

      • spadepiccolo on October 10, 2019, 11:20 am

        Correction. Luca Brasi.

  17. Ossinev on October 8, 2019, 1:30 pm

    @Sheldonrichman

    “Uh, does she not know that the Maccabees forcibly circumcised men and boys?”

    All circumcision of children be it Biblical(sic) or modern is by definition child abuse. Of course those Western societies who have proposed to ban the practice eg Iceland have been subject to the usual accusation of Anti – Semitism /Anti Islamism.
    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/18/iceland-ban-male-circumcision-first-european-country

    For those of us who are truly civilised and who live in the 21st century as opposed to the post Neanderthal era it is quite simply a cruel and barbaric ritual visited upon innocent and defenceless children simply to satisfy the mystical religious whims of deluded adults.

    If a consenting adult chooses to have the procedure then he is entitled but the state/taxpayer should not bear the burden of treating any medical or health complications which may arise.

    • Citizen on October 8, 2019, 5:18 pm

      In America, where a substantial number of parents, Christian or secular, still go along with routine baby boy circumcision, religion has nothing to do with it. Why? Because the cut daddy’s vain and/or they remain very ignorant there’s no significant medical reason to cut yet a sizable patch of erotic sex cells are lost. Or perhaps they watched the Seinfeld episode where the foreskin intact penis is jeered at as ridiculously ugly. Obviously European women would disagree.

    • jon s on October 9, 2019, 4:46 pm

      Ossinev
      How could a ban on the practice of a significant element of the Jewish religion NOT be Anti-Semitic? And also Anti-Islamic.
      This is a clear-cut freedom of religion issue. Any such legislation is, indeed Anti-Semitic.
      In the past Jews were willing to die, literally, rather than forego circumcising their sons. Today, I assume that many will be willing to go to jail rather than comply with such a ban.

      • Mooser on October 9, 2019, 5:49 pm

        “How could a ban on the practice of a significant element of the Jewish religion NOT be Anti-Semitic?”

        Male infant mutilation, through ritual circumcision based on no medical knowledge whatsoever is a “significant element of the Jewish religion”.
        Of course it is, “Jon s” and you should insist on it.

      • Mooser on October 9, 2019, 5:53 pm

        “This is a clear-cut freedom of religion issue.”

        Okay, Jerkofsky, bring us the week-old infant which knows it is Jewish and is begging to be circumcised.

      • eljay on October 9, 2019, 6:11 pm

        || jon s: … How could a ban on the practice of a significant element of the Jewish religion NOT be Anti-Semitic? And also Anti-Islamic.
        This is a clear-cut freedom of religion issue. … ||

        Consenting adults should not be banned from religiously mutilating each other. No adult should be allowed to mutilate any child or non-consenting adult.

        There’s something horribly wrong with any belief system that, in the 21st century, requires and insists upon the ritual mutilation of children in order to validate itself and its adherents.

      • Keith on October 9, 2019, 6:34 pm

        JON S- “How could a ban on the practice of a significant element of the Jewish religion NOT be Anti-Semitic?”

        Since it involves a specific practice rather than a hatred of Jews simply because they are Jews, how could it be anti-Semitic? Similarly, would opposing burning witches at the stake be anti-Gentile? How can you even argue crap like this? And you CLAIM to be an Israeli history teacher? Do Jews still perform animal sacrifice? Is opposing the return of animal sacrifice at a reconstructed temple anti-Semitic?

        JON S- “And also Anti-Islamic.”

        Funny, I don’t see all of the Muslim complaints. Perhaps they have moved on.

        JON S- “In the past Jews were willing to die, literally, rather than forego circumcising their sons. Today, I assume that many will be willing to go to jail rather than comply with such a ban.”

        Interesting priority.

      • echinococcus on October 10, 2019, 12:58 am

        “This is a clear-cut freedom of religion issue.”

        Sure. The newborn have every right under the Constitution to request that clear cut, even against their parents’ wishes.

        Nice to know the kind of “history teachers” the invaders of Palestine are importing from the States to clear-cut the brains of their unfortunate offspring.

        I was going to compare to its clear-cut historical precedent but should better abstain — Moderation wouldn’t be happy.

      • RoHa on October 10, 2019, 1:31 am

        “This is a clear-cut freedom of religion issue.”

        Many states have taken the view that freedom of religious practice is limited by humanitarian requirements.

        Only the other day I was about to offer the hearts of some schoolchildren to the Sun, when an officious clerk from the local council told me that it was not permitted. And I wasn’t even on council land!

      • Marnie on October 10, 2019, 3:05 am

        ‘In the past Jews were willing to die, literally, rather than forego circumcising their sons. Today, I assume that many will be willing to go to jail rather than comply with such a ban.’

        So what.

      • Marnie on October 10, 2019, 9:44 am

        @jon ssssssss

        Jeremiah 4:4
        “Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, remove the foreskins of your hearts, O men of Judah and people of Jerusalem. Otherwise, My wrath will break out like fire and burn with no one to extinguish it, because of your evil deeds.”

      • Mooser on October 10, 2019, 4:44 pm

        “This is a clear-cut freedom of religion issue.”

        “Jon s” thinks that Jewish children are less than fully human, and can be mutilated without consent.

      • Mooser on October 10, 2019, 5:46 pm

        “Consenting adults should not be banned from religiously mutilating each other.”

        This might be undesirable from a public-health standpoint. Who is responsible for patching them up after.

      • Mooser on October 10, 2019, 6:06 pm

        “Today, I assume that many will be willing to go to jail rather than comply with such a ban.”

        Yes, some may even become known as ‘prominent Jewish pro-infant mutilation activists’.
        I can’t think of a better hill to die on than the right to sexually mutilate our own infant sons for ritual purposes.
        Because Judaism knows better than nature, of course.

      • Talkback on October 12, 2019, 5:36 am

        jon s: “This is a clear-cut freedom of religion issue.”

        You are not talking about the infant’s freedom or consent, are you? You are talking about its parent’s freedom to mutilate its genitals while being defenseless. And you seriously believe that the latter have the right to violate the body of the former. If that’s your believe than it is sick no matter how long this sickness has been going on.

        jon s: “Any such legislation is, indeed Anti-Semitic.”

        Nope. It isn’t hatred against Jews as such. And if you had any real problem with antisemitism you wouldn’t abuse the word.

        Such a legislation isn’t against circumcision but against circumcision without consent. Same goes for the legislation against sex or marriage without consent. Nobody should be allowed to circumvent child protection because o their belief.

        jon s: “In the past Jews were willing to die, literally, rather than forego circumcising their sons.”

        Their freedom of religious choice.

        jon s: “Today, I assume that many will be willing to go to jail rather than comply with such a ban.”

        As they should!

      • Mooser on October 12, 2019, 12:11 pm

        “Talkback”, if a person can convince themselves they have the right to mutilate their own child’s genitals, for ritual purposes they can easily convince themselves that circumcision is an improvement on Nature’s imperfect sculpting of a man. (They say that bears have their’s down there, and even camels. We’re merely mammals.)

      • jon s on October 12, 2019, 4:04 pm

        I have a distinct feeling of déjà vu’, of here-we-go-again. Over two and a half years ago I happened to mention here on MW that I had become a grandfather. Some of the commenters reacted with common decency but I was stunned that others saw fit to react with nasty , hateful, remarks concerning the circumcision ceremony. So now my daughter is in her ninth month, and we’re expecting a second grandson, God willing, and the topic is back on MW…

      • jon s on October 12, 2019, 4:43 pm

        Keith,
        Your examples and comparisons are so far-fetched that I hardly know whether to take them seriously:
        I would oppose building a 3rd Temple, for a multitude of reasons. So ,opposing the introduction of animal sacrifices in a hypothetical 3rd Temple, which I oppose in the first place? No, I would not consider that theoretical attitude Anti-Semitic. Jewish ritual circumcision on the other hand is a part of Jewish life, every day, here and now, in communities all over the world. Banning it would be banning the practice of our faith and would be Anti-Semitic.
        Burning witches was an evil practice , a misogynous manifestation of fear, hatred, ignorance and violent death. The traditional Jewish circumcision ceremony (that Jewish Americans call “the bris”) is an expression of love and a celebration of a new life welcomed into the tribe.
        Using a hideous term like “mutilation”, like some commenters here, simply shows the Anti-Semitic attitude, hardly disguised. Sure, Jews mutilate babies, can’t get more explicit than that.
        As to Muslim complaints I refer you to the link to the Guardian report on the Icelandic legislation provided by Ossinev.

      • Mooser on October 12, 2019, 8:19 pm

        “Using a hideous term like “mutilation”, like some commenters here, simply shows the Anti-Semitic attitude, hardly disguised.”

        Well, you better get used to hearing it. When we cut into a male infant’s penis, based on nothing at all except a ritual, yes, that is mutilation.

        But that’s all right, “Jon s”, you can tell us it’s done to improve the male’s sexual function. Our ancient Jewish ancestors were obsessed with enhancing sexual function, you know. That’s why they started cutting on the male sex organ.

        Oh, BTW which of the available circumsisions will you be having done on your grandson? Ritual, or medical? And if ritual, which one? Going for a certain ‘look’, or just getting all the cut you can for the money?

      • Talkback on October 13, 2019, 9:08 am

        jon s: “The traditional Jewish circumcision ceremony (that Jewish Americans call “the bris”) is an expression of love and a celebration of a new life welcomed into the tribe.”

        You almost sounds like child molester. What’s your stand on female genital mutilation and child marriage based on religion? Probably pure love, too. What a way to welcome a baby into the world by circumcising it.

        jon s: “Banning it would be banning the practice of our faith and would be Anti-Semitic.”

        Nope, still not motivated by hatred but to protect an innocent child from genital mutilation. You still don’t get the point, do you? I can see that you are not interested in the point of view of the baby at all.

        What’s the problem to allow the boy to decide when he is not longer a minor? You are probably afraid that they won’t do it. So you enforce it.

        jon s: “Using a hideous term like “mutilation”, like some commenters here, simply shows the Anti-Semitic attitude, hardly disguised. Sure, Jews mutilate babies, can’t get more explicit than that.”

        ROFL. Sure it is an antisemitic conspiracy theory that most if not almost all of the Jews have the penis of their new born sons mutilated. You don’t like the term? Well I don’t like how I was mutilated. Nobody asked me. I didn’t feel “love” when they did this to me. And I give a s***t about being member of a “tribe” or cult that treats Palestinians the way they do.

        With your accusation of antisemitism you just demonstrate that you have no pro child protection argument at all. You are not even interested to see its position. Shame on you. What if Judaism would call for forced female genital mutilation or child marriage? You would also call it “antisemitic” if anybody was against it. It’s your racism that wants us to believe that Jews as such have a right to violate their son’s penis withouth his consent and hide this barbarism behind “freedom of religion”.

      • Mooser on October 13, 2019, 12:24 pm

        I gotta hand it to “Jon s”. He pimps Judaism.

      • jon s on October 13, 2019, 4:55 pm

        Talkback, I wrote that it’s an expression of love and life and that makes me sound like a child molester?
        Your comment was way out of line. I love my little grandson more than anyone or anything in the world. I would not dream of causing him harm, much less mutilation..
        I’m not a shrink, certainly not your shrink, but in my non-professional opinion: you’re quite insane.

      • eljay on October 13, 2019, 11:26 pm

        || jon s: Talkback, I wrote that it’s an expression of love and life and that makes me sound like a child molester? … ||

        jon s, the fact that…
        – your “expression of love and life” involves mutilating an infant’s penis; and
        – you are unable even to begin to comprehend how f*cked up that is,
        …does, in fact, make you sound like a child molester.

        The fact that you are incapable of understanding that simply drives home the point.

        || … I love my little grandson more than anyone or anything in the world. … ||

        But by your own admission your desire to snip skin off his penis is your over-riding concern, your #1 priority.

      • MHughes976 on October 14, 2019, 7:18 am

        There are quite important logical points here.
        To say ‘there is, as can be shown by further argument, no valid moral case against circumcision: so to say that there is must be anti-S’ is not the same as to say ‘there cannot be a valid moral case because to say that there is anti-S’. The latter is important for our general discussions.
        My friend H was recently saying that we in the Church of England should stop making it a feature of our ceremonies that everyone takes a sip of wine. She mentions that someone in the congregation – she wasn’t looking at me, honestly – might be an alcoholic. Communion in wine is very important to us historically and theologically and seems to be the Lord’s command. But still it’s possible that H has a point.
        Is H a s-h Anglican? Yes and no perhaps, depending on whether you define s-h and anti- in terms of ‘taking a negative view of some things Anglican’ or of ‘taking a prejudiced or unjustified view’. If the first, it is possible for an anti- attitude itself to be justified, so that the case against it remains to be argued. If the latter, then there is no reason, at least in advance of further argument, to think that anything anti- is involved.

      • Mooser on October 14, 2019, 11:51 am

        “But by your own admission your desire to snip skin off his penis is your over-riding concern, your #1 priority.”

        Actually, it’s not just “skin”. There’s a lot more to it. The prepuce has several functions. Removing it is somewhat analogous to removing the lips from your mouth, for one thing.

      • eljay on October 14, 2019, 4:02 pm

        Mooser: … The prepuce has several functions. Removing it is somewhat analogous to removing the lips from your mouth, for one thing. ||

        Ouch!   :-(

      • RoHa on October 15, 2019, 2:57 am

        Jon, it seems to me that there are at least three positions you might be endorsing.
        (a) Circumcision is good and so should not be prohibited.
        (b) Circumcision is harmless, Jews want it, and so it should not be prohibited.
        (c) Jews want it, and so it should not be prohibited, regardless of whether it is good or not.
        Which of those is your position? If none, could you perhaps express your position in similar, simple, terms?

      • MHughes976 on October 15, 2019, 8:52 am

        Or even ‘To disparage anything greatly valued by Jewish people is anti-Semitic, therefore proved without more ado to be wrong and mistaken’.

      • Mooser on October 15, 2019, 12:51 pm

        “Ouch! :-(“

        All the tissue in your mouth which depends on being moist and sealed would dry out, and scarify.

      • Mooser on October 15, 2019, 12:58 pm

        “Which of those is your position?”

        You left out one thing, “RoHa”. What exactly does the circumcision consist of? A millimeter or two can make a huge difference. Apart from the basic insult to the tissue.
        There’s a huge difference between a medical circumcision to relieve a touch of phimosis and a ritual circumcision designed to achieve God-knows-what. And to achieve a certain “look”.

      • jon s on October 15, 2019, 4:26 pm

        RoHa,
        Observant Jews have the ritual circumcision because it’s a commandmant from God, according to their belief:

        From the new traslation by Alter:
        Genesis 17
        9And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep My commandment, you and your seed after you through their generations. 10This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your seed after you: every male among you must be circumcised. 11You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12Eight days old every male among you shall be circumcised through your generations, even slaves born in the household and those purchased with silver from any foreigner who is not of your seed. 13Those born in your household and those purchased with silver must be circumcised, and My covenant in your flesh shall be an everlasting covenant. 14And a male with a foreskin, who has not circumcised the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his folk. My covenant he has broken.

        For non-observant Jews, it’s done because of the tradition and as a sign of Jewish identity.

        And yes, it’s harmless.

      • jon s on October 15, 2019, 4:29 pm

        Mhughes, who are you quoting?

      • Mooser on October 15, 2019, 6:18 pm

        “And yes, it’s harmless.” The urologist “Jon s”

        Sure it is. Every male mammal is born with an organ which should be cut off. And there’s no reason to shield the head of the penis inside some kind of a cover. None at all. Nature has made an error , but the Torah knows better?

        And again, the word circumcision covers a lot of ground. Ritual circumcision is designed to affect sexual function.

      • RoHa on October 16, 2019, 12:33 am

        So you are taking position b, with two interpretations of the “Jews want it ” part.

        Now, even if we set aside Mooser’s point that there are differing types of circumcision, it is still the case that the operation involves cutting off a bit of the child without the child’s consent and for purposes not connected with the health and well-being of the child.

        Obviously, then, to this extent the child is being harmed.

        Mooser and other commenters have described further harm that can follow, but even if none of those things happen, it is still not correct to say that circumcision is harmless.

        The best you can offer is that it is only slightly harmful.

        As our ability to inflict harm on a grand scale has grown, we have introduced more and more legislation to prohibit harm. Dotheboys Hall has been reformed. In civilised countries, the declawing of cats and ear cropping and tail docking of dogs are either flat out prohibited or heavily restricted.

        Why, then, should this harm, small though it may be, not also be prohibited?

        I’ll discuss your reasons in my next comments.

      • RoHa on October 16, 2019, 2:23 am

        “For non-observant Jews, it’s done because of the tradition”

        I find it difficult to decide whether or not “traditional” is less pernicious than “fashionable”. Much that is evil stems from both, but both are also the basis for much that is merely silly. In favour of tradition, we can say that some traditions serve a useful function, whereas fashions seldom serve any purpose at all.

        But tradition was not accepted as a sufficient excuse for docking dog’s tails. I do not see why it would be adequate for snipping bits off baby boys.

        “and as a sign of Jewish identity. “

        I’m not familiar with all the nuances of Jewish social life. Do Jews regularly exhibit their acquired attributes as proof of their identity? And why is it necessary for the maintenance of this “identity”?

        (My multitudes of devoted fans on MW will know that I consider 80% of this “identity” stuff to be nonsense, and the other 20% to be blithering nonsense.)

      • echinococcus on October 17, 2019, 1:52 am

        “Observant Jews have the ritual circumcision because it’s a commandmant from God, according to their belief:”

        A “commandmant” from who? They can believe all they want — mutilating an infant, or any minor unable of giving informed consent, is an extremely serious crime. So the Observants can tell Mr or Ms God to please conform to civilized laws and customs.

        “For non-observant Jews, it’s done because of the tradition and as a sign of Jewish identity.”

        It still remains the same serious crime. And they don’t even have the superstitious pretext for it.

        “And yes, it’s harmless.”

        It certainly is not. Trust me, I’ve been paid to know that for 40 long years, unlike you. The extensive specialized literature is easily available — just avoid Zionist propaganda.

        We also observe, yet again, that Mr Weiss and Co. are playing the medical experts in their “moderation”.

      • RoHa on October 18, 2019, 12:42 am

        The religious justification.

        “Observant Jews have the ritual circumcision because it’s a commandmant from God, according to their belief: “

        Suttee was seen as an expression of the love and devotion of the widow for her late husband.* Even when the poor girl was drugged and tied up before being placed onto the pyre. Religious justifications were given for the practice. Likewise for FGM (also regarded in positive terms by the practioners), but both suttee and FGM have been declared illegal at various times and in various places. Does forbidding these count as a restriction on freedom of religion, as well as being anti-?

        I can see three approaches you can take here.

        The first is to say, “Yes. They should be permitted under freedom of religion.”
        That would be a very courageous line to take. You would need to produce a very strong argument for the overriding importance of freedom of religion in order to justify such a stance.

        The second is to declare that these practices are not actually part of any religion, not scripturally based, but mere traditions.

        If you say that, you have tossed aside tradition as a justification for circumcision.

        You are also faced with what scriptures actually do say. I haven’t checked what The Laws Of Manu say about suttee (though I gather there is little support for immolation therein), but, if scriptures do give religious support for horrors, you will have to do some very fancy footwork to avoid endorsing those horrors.

        (Here are some scriptures:
        Exodus 22:8
        Exodus 22:20
        Deuteronomy 21:18-21
        Deuteronomy 25:11-12 )

        A third, and, I think, the most promising for you, is to accept the principle that humanitarian principles can justify banning religious practices that cause harm, but add the rider that this only applies when the harm is above a certain level.

        Of course, you have to justify the rider. You need an argument to the effect that freedom of religious practice is so important that it outweighs humanitarian concerns for harm below that level.

        Naturally this will lead to a request for a precise delineation of the level.

        If you can give one, you should then show that circumcision falls below the level.
        If you cannot give one, that is not fatal to your position. We are sufficiently familiar with sorites problems to recognise that inability to specify a dividing point does not make the lesser the same as the greater.

        However, to justify your claim that circumcision is too trivial a harm to outweigh freedom of religious practice, you will probably have to fall back on the agreement of Men Of Sound Judgement. (In whose ranks you are, naturally, foremost.)

        (*It also meant that the widow would not take a share of the deceased’s estate. But I’m certain that such considerations never entered the minds of pious Hindus.)

      • RoHa on October 18, 2019, 1:01 am

        So if you want educated people to take you seriously, you have a lot of work to do.

        Perhaps you could start by convincing Echinococcus that circumcision is, like the Earth, mostly harmless.

        But you might find it easier to ignore tiny minorities, and concentrate on stitching together buzz-words to impress the artsie-fartsies and stifle the οἱ πολλοί. That has always been a socially successful tactic.

      • Sibiriak on October 18, 2019, 9:57 am

        echinococcus: ulemas and rabbies both profit from a supposed (and statistically faulty, controversial) advantage in homosexual men. So, in all logic, they are essentially recommending circumcision… in order to allow the circumcisee the practice of sodomy.
        ——————————————————————-

        Hard to see what your “ulemas and rabbies/sodomy” argument is based on. The claimed health benefits of male circumcision are in no way confined to homosexual men.

        ————————————————————-
        Conclusions of the 2012 Circumcision Policy Statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision

        Systematic evaluation of English-language peer-reviewed literature from 1995 through 2010 indicates that preventive health benefits of elective circumcision of male newborns outweigh the risks of the procedure.

        Benefits include significant reductions in the risk of urinary tract infection in the first year of life and, subsequently, in the risk of heterosexual acquisition of HIV and the transmission of other sexually transmitted infections.

        The procedure is well tolerated when performed by trained professionals under sterile conditions with appropriate pain management. Complications are infrequent; most are minor, and severe complications are rare. Male circumcision performed during the newborn period has considerably lower complication rates than when performed later in life.

        Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns, the benefits of circumcision are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns. It is important that clinicians routinely inform parents of the health benefits and risks of male newborn circumcision in an unbiased and accurate manner.

        Parents ultimately should decide whether circumcision is in in the best interests of their male child. They will need to weigh medical information in the context of their own religious, ethical, and cultural beliefs and practices. The medical benefits alone may not outweigh these other considerations for individual families.

        Findings from the systematic evaluation are available in the accompanying technical report.

        The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this statement.

        —————————————————————————————-
        Male circumcision confers immediate and lifelong protection against numerous medical conditions. Medical Conditions That Male Circumcision Protects Against Over the Lifetime

        Urinary tract infection

        Penile inflammation, for example, balanitis, balanoposthitis, lichen sclerosus

        Candidiasis

        Phimosis and paraphimosis

        Inferior hygiene

        Sexually transmitted infections including high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV), genital herpes simplex virus (HSV), trichomoniasis, mycoplasma, syphilis, chancroid, and HIV

        Physical injuries to the foreskin, including coital injuries

        Cancers of the penis, prostate, and cervix

        Sources: CDC technical review2 and draft policy recommendations,3 AAP review5 and infant MC policy statement,4 risk-benefit analyses by Morris et al.7–9

        ——————————————————————————————

        The evidence shows the CDC is correct in concluding that findings from sub-Saharan Africa concerning circumcision of adult males for protection against heterosexually-acquired HIV and certain other STIs also apply to men in the United States. The findings also apply to boys when they grow up.

        Moreover, the cumulative lifetime benefit is greatest if circumcision is performed early in infancy since early infant circumcision is simpler, more convenient, and carries lower risk than when performed later, and circumcision confers immediate protection against urinary tract infections, phimosis, balanitis, and, when older, specific STIs and genital cancers.

        MC also protects the female partners, as confirmed in randomized controlled trials.

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5478224/

      • echinococcus on October 18, 2019, 11:51 am

        Sibiriak,

        Please read what I wrote: I know very well that AAP position paper and I already said it is a lot of politically-motivated, poorly evaluated bunk put together tendentiously by pompous asses who know where their bread is buttered. If you even for a second think that public health policy business the US is based on rigorous science and medical empiry, think again. The literature allegedly reviewed by this sausage-making body and the way it was reviewed leaves one dreaming — and the conclusions derived are widely controversial. No sale.

        The giveaway is already in their ridiculous statement:
        “Although health benefits are **not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns**, the benefits of circumcision are sufficient to justify access to this procedure ***for families choosing it***…
        Parents ultimately should decide whether circumcision is in in the best interests of their male child. They will need to weigh medical information **in the context of their own religious, ethical, and cultural beliefs and practices***. The **medical benefits alone may not outweigh these other considerations** for individual families.”
        blablaglbb crsxx gwa gwa…

        And yes, there was a faint advantage seen in a cohort of homosexual men — not yet repeated to confirm reproducibility, though. That’s why I’ll continue considering it the sole basis of the recommendation.

      • echinococcus on October 18, 2019, 12:11 pm

        RoHa,

        ” to justify your claim that circumcision is too trivial a harm to outweigh freedom of religious practice”

        I think that the above would be the standard under a theocratic regime.

        The test that is conform to the Rights of Man and all following civilized principles is rather the following: to justify freedom of religious practice, proof must be required that there is no harm, none at all.

        The American Pediatricians, now, indicate in their statement that the putative advantage is so negligible that the choice is left to the family, according to its religious fanaticism or other superstitions. Not according to any medical criteria (which would have been listed if there was any even trivial advantage.) So the major harm inflicted, ie damage to bodily integrity without informed consent by the himself, is not even mentioned.

        Well, pediatricians routinely ignore informed consent but why should they get away with it?

      • Mooser on October 18, 2019, 1:03 pm

        So those are conclusions from a study of medical circumcision? Anything in there about ritual circumcision?

      • RoHa on October 19, 2019, 1:31 am

        @Echinococcus,

        I did point out that he would have to argue that freedom of religious practice is so important that it outweighs minor harms.

        If his argument is good enough, then the Rights of Man and all following civilized principles will have to be revised.

        I’m waiting to see if he takes up the challenge of producing the argument.

      • echinococcus on October 19, 2019, 11:03 am

        RoHa,

        “… would have to argue that freedom of religious practice is so important that it outweighs minor harms.”

        Formulated that way, it’s clear and of course and you’re right… almost. He’ll still have to argue that “minor” harm for the sake of freedom of religious practice is tolerable.

      • jon s on October 21, 2019, 3:44 am

        RoHa,
        Sorry for not responding sooner, been busy with family matters and the holiday.

        I would like to make a few assumptions and see whether we agree:
        a. Freedom of religion is a basic right. Everyone should have the right to practice his or her religion.
        b. Religious practice cannot be used as a pretext to harm others. You can’t go around killing people and claim that your religion compels you to do so.
        c. Practically any human activity entails a certain risk: you can go out for a drive and be in an accident, you airplane could crash, you could go to a baseball game and get hit in the head by a foul ball…We know about these dangers yet we generally consider the risk to be acceptable. Otherwise we would not be able to go about our everyday lives.
        d. Coercion should be opposed: parents should not be forced to have their sons circumcised and should also not be prevented from having it done. (see point (a).

        Jewish ritual circumcision is a religious commandment and an important tradition.
        Assuming that it’s performed by a competent practitioner on a healthy baby, the risk of a mishap is tiny. The procedure itself is not harmful or traumatic and may even be beneficial (though that’s not the core of my argument, just a possible bonus).

        Now some questions for you:

        Have you ever been invited to a traditional Jewish circumcision ceremony (“bris”)? I would just like know whether you have any personal experience or observations.

        Would you favor legislating a legal ban? Outlawing the practice?

      • RoHa on October 21, 2019, 9:54 am

        OK.
        a. I’m not convinced that freedom of religion is a basic right, but I’ll agree. I can see good reasons for it.

        b. “Religious practice cannot be used as a pretext to harm others. “
        I agree. You can’t go around snipping bits off people and claim that your religion requires it.

        c. “Practically any human activity entails a certain risk … We know about these dangers yet we generally consider the risk to be acceptable. Otherwise we would not be able to go about our everyday lives.”
        Agree. All the cases you mention are ones in which we decide accept a risk to ourselves.
        Now we do accept that some of our behaviour entails a risk to others. When I go for a drive, I might accidentally harm others, and we accept that putting others at risk is also necessary as part of our daily lives. But we try not to deliberately put people at risk.

        But this does not have relevance to circumcision.

        When you decide to circumcise a child, you are not risking harm to others. You are deliberately causing harm.
        And you are not the one facing the risk. It is the child who faces the risk. You are deliberately putting the child at risk of the complications. And it is not necessary for our daily lives.

        d. “Coercion should be opposed:”
        I agree. Children should not be forced to have bits snipped off them.

        “Jewish ritual circumcision is a religious commandment and an important tradition.”
        None of this makes it morally acceptable. If you think it does, you must present an argument.

        “Assuming that it’s performed by a competent practitioner on a healthy baby, the risk of a mishap is tiny.”
        But there is no morally acceptable reason to even take the risk.

        “The procedure itself is not harmful or traumatic “
        Snipping a bit off a baby is certainly harmful. It is ridiculous to deny that.

        “Have you ever been invited to a traditional Jewish circumcision ceremony (“bris”)? I would just like know whether you have any personal experience or observations.”
        No. I haven’t been invited to a suttee or FGM ceremony either. What difference do you think it would make if I had?

        “Would you favor legislating a legal ban? Outlawing the practice?”
        Yes.

      • Mooser on October 21, 2019, 1:09 pm

        “d. Coercion should be opposed: parents should not be forced to have their sons circumcised and should also not be prevented from having it done.”” “Jon s”, the human-rights-mayven

        ROTFLMSJAO! If that’s your concept of “coercion” (which doesn’t seem to involve the person being circumcised) I would really hate to hear your concept of “consent”.

        “Jewish ritual circumcision is a religious commandment and an important tradition.” “Jon s”

        Oh, I see, a “ritual circumcision”, not a medical circumcision.
        .

      • wondering jew on October 21, 2019, 2:56 pm

        To compare male circumcision which saves thousands of lives every year in societies that suffer from improper hygiene to other types of procedures that have shown zero medical benefit, is an attempt to throw dust in our eyes. It may be unproven how many lives in hygienically advanced societies are saved by circumcision, but particularly in regards to cervical cancer, there is no question that thousands of lives (to be conservative) are saved every year by the practice of circumcision and over the generations, millions, if not tens of millions of lives have been saved. You don’t care about the good of nonhygienic female or homosexual lives, that’s your business, but in fact this procedure saves lives.
        Now, given most of us live in hygienic societies, and most of the lives saved are female lives in unhygienic societies, so you really don’t give a damn about the benefits, but save us your nonsense comparing a useful procedure to procedures without any proven benefit.
        How to deal with a tradition that was useful in nonhygienic stages of human history but is not necessarily beneficial in our western current stage, that is a valid question, but the line of argument is false and unscientific and disregards history.

      • jon s on October 21, 2019, 3:20 pm

        The reason I asked if you had ever been invited to a brit is to try to ascertain whether or not you actually know what you’re talking about, especially given your obscene comparisons to suttee or FGM. Comparing an event in which a woman is cruelly killed to a joyous welcoming celebration of love and a new life is just that: obscene.
        Unlike you, I’ve attended many brittot : my son and grandson, cousins and nephews, friends and colleagues, too numerous to count. The procedure itself is performed in sterile conditions (one of the best known practitioners here in Beersheva is actually a surgeon who doubles as a mohel) and takes a few moments.The baby cries and calms down amazingly fast. The place heals within a few days. The procedure and ceremony is performed on 8 day old infants, who retain no memory of the event, hence no trauma.
        I note that you would support a ban. So you may agree to freedom of religion, just not the Jewish religion.

      • RoHa on October 22, 2019, 1:49 am

        “Comparing an event in which a woman is cruelly killed to a joyous welcoming celebration of love and a new life is just that: obscene.”

        Suttee was a solemn celebration of the wife’s love and commitment to her husband. But that did not change the essential nature of the act. It was, as you say, an event in which a woman is cruelly killed.

        A circumcision party may be, as you say, “ a joyous welcoming celebration of love and a new life”, but that does not change the essential nature of the act. A bit of the child is cruelly sliced off.

        In both cases, the essential nature of the act is cruel.
        In both cases, the religious practitioners regard it as a good thing.

        So the comparison holds. The difference between them is the degree of cruelty. Yes, I agree that suttee is a lot more cruel than circumcision, but, since neither cruelty is necessary, I think they should both be forbidden.

        “The baby cries and calms down amazingly fast. The place heals within a few days. The procedure and ceremony is performed on 8 day old infants, who retain no memory of the event, hence no trauma.”

        But the damage is permanent. The harm has been done.

        “I note that you would support a ban. So you may agree to freedom of religion, just not the Jewish religion.”

        I would place limits on the freedom of religious practice for the Jewish religion, but also for Islam and all other religions. My principles do not single out Judaism.

        But your principles also place limits on the freedom of religious practice. You say “Religious practice cannot be used as a pretext to harm others. You can’t go around killing people and claim that your religion compels you to do so. “

        Which means that you would limit the freedom of Hindus to carry out suttee, and the freedom of Aztec priests to offer human hearts to the Sun.

        But you want to make an exception for the Jewish religion.

        (Incidentally, have you ever been to a Christening? Christians, too, joyously welcome the new life, but many of them do not express their love by cutting off a bit of the child. They just drop a bit of water on it.)

      • Mooser on October 22, 2019, 1:32 pm

        “They just drop a bit of water on it.”

        “RoHa”, I have already suggested and advocated a non-invasive circumcision ritual.
        Basically, less all the preparation*: At the height of the ritual, the male infant’s you-know-what is exposed, and just touched with the tip of the sterile knife. Naturally, the kid sets up a howl, and the Rabbi intones the blessing:
        “And that young man, will remind you to keep it in your pants, until it’s called for, by name, Amen!”

        *Logistics, seating, lighting, sound system, opener bands, main attractions, troupe of dancers, catering, rehearsal, etc. The entire thing lasts a week.

  18. JustJessetr on October 8, 2019, 2:22 pm

    @eljay,

    Jon S. gave a strictly religious greeting. You countred with a despicable anti-Semitism. Remember, conflating Judaism and Israel is anti-semitic. Phil, you should ban Eljay from this site.

    I hope it’s clear now that while White Nationalism is indeed a threat, many choose to focus on the AS of the Left because Leftists are more in their social circle. The assumption is that at least a Leftist is willling to listen and change.

  19. wondering jew on October 8, 2019, 7:23 pm

    It may be unfair to do so, but if I had to guess I would put Bari Weiss in the Gordis school rather than in the Beinart school and as such I oppose her.

  20. JWalters on October 8, 2019, 7:55 pm

    Jake Tapper was Bari “Mossad” Weiss’s able assistant in presenting her grotesquely dishonest fantasy. Wondering why an award-winning journalist would lend his credibility to defending the vile Zionist ideology and practices, I did a little reporterial digging. According to Wikipedia, “Tapper was educated at Akiba Hebrew Academy”, and “spent summers attending the Jewish summer camp Camp Ramah”.

    So Tapper may have been so deeply brainwashed that he is now incapable of seeing glaring facts and logic which contradict that early indoctrination. On the other hand, he may simply be a man with no scruples or morals. Frankly, it’s hard for me to believe that an adult with his level of education, and especially working in an information business, could not EASILY see through the lies and illogic of Zionism. Clearly he was not taught anything about honor at Akiba Hebrew Academy or Camp Ramah.

    • Citizen on October 9, 2019, 3:28 pm

      Strange that the U.S. is the sole country in the world where a large majority of its male population is routinely circumcised at birth for non-religious reasons. Poor (boy) babies. No defense against the bully, similar to the Palestinians–I always thought American culture taught us to stick up for the little guy, the underdog…. no Rocky fans here?

      • Mooser on October 9, 2019, 5:57 pm

        “Strange that the U.S. is the sole country in the world where a large majority of its male population is routinely circumcised at birth for non-religious reasons.”

        Strange, too, that the US is home to so much sexual dysfunction in males, innit.

      • Sibiriak on October 11, 2019, 4:31 am

        The male circumcision debate continues– the issue is anything but cut and dried (and certainly a distraction from the Palestine/Israel issue). See for example:

        CDC’s Male Circumcision Recommendations Represent a Key Public Health Measure (2017)

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5478224/
        ——————————————————————————————

        INTRODUCTION

        After an extensive evaluation of the scientific evidence, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released draft policy recommendations in December 2014 affirming male circumcision (MC) as an important public health measure. 1–3 The CDC’s summary1 (Box 1) was accompanied by a 61-page literature review.2

        The CDC supported the 2012 American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) infant MC policy4,5 (Box 2) and recommended that providers: (1) give parents of newborn boys comprehensive counseling about the benefits and risks of MC; (2) inform all uncircumcised adolescent and adult males who engage in heterosexual sex about the significant, but partial, efficacy of MC in reducing the risk of acquiring HIV and some sexually transmitted infections (STIs) through heterosexual sex, as well as about the potential harms of MC; and (3) inform men who have sex with men (MSM) that while it is biologically plausible that MC could benefit MSM during insertive sex, MC has not been proven to reduce the risk of acquiring HIV or other STIs during anal sex.3

        […]The CDC has a mandate to use the best available evidence to inform the public on interventions for disease prevention. In the case of early infant MC, there are few public health interventions in which the scientific evidence in favor is now so compelling.

        Despite this, opponents of MC do not accept the CDC’s position. Two prominent opponents, Frisch and Earp, published arguments that led them to conclude that “from a scientific and medical perspective, current evidence suggests that circumcision is not an appropriate public health measure for developed countries such as the United States.”6

        Here, we critically assess the evidence used by Frisch and Earp to support their thesis and respond to their main criticisms (summarized in Box 3).

        * * * * *

        […]In summary, the current scientific evidence shows that MC provides protection against numerous adverse medical conditions and infections, and the benefits of the procedure, including cost-savings over the long-term, greatly exceed risks, with benefits found in both poor and wealthy countries such as the United States.

        In addition, MC has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, or pleasure, nor is there reliable evidence for any long-term adverse psychological effect of MC. Furthermore, complication rates following the procedure are low, especially following early infant MC. Finally, pain that may be associated with the procedure during the first week of life can be negligible when local anesthesia is used.

        Criticisms of the AAP and CDC policies by MC opponents have been consistently exposed as flawed (AAP policy42,128–131; CDC policy132,133). Convincing arguments have been made that it would be unethical to withhold information about the risks and benefits of MC from parents of boys.130–132,134,135 as recommended by the AAP and CDC.

        Curiously, those who condemn parent-approved infant MC are not as quick to condemn procedures that provide no medical benefit to children (e.g., cosmetic orthodontia, correction of harelip, surgery for tongue-tie, treatment of dwarfism by growth hormone injections, and surgery for removal of supernumerary digits).135 Why then do some regard MC as controversial?135

        Article 24(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states, “States Parties recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health” and “shall strive to ensure that no child is deprived of his or her right of access to health care services.”136

        Therefore, we assert that the CDC’s draft MC recommendations do nothing more than advocate appropriately the right of male infants, children, adolescents, and adults to access health care services with medical benefits—that is, MC—and that adoption of the draft CDC recommendations into formal policy should improve public health in the United States.

      • Mooser on October 11, 2019, 3:05 pm

        “In addition, MC has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, or pleasure, nor is there reliable evidence for any long-term adverse psychological effect of MC.”

        When he says “MC”, what exactly, is he talking about? There are many variations on MC, some done with the intent of affecting sexual function. Others may be done without any consideration of the consequences.

  21. edwardm on October 9, 2019, 7:14 pm

    “I know that if I were the father of a boy, it would be a tough decision because of thoughts about “cleanliness” as well as the possibility of uncircumcised people being potentially more apt to get certain diseases.” Malarky.
    Health and hygiene have nothing to do with it. If you choose to circumcise your child you are mutilating someone’s genitals. Period. It should be illegal to do such a useless and barbaric thing to a baby. If you are an adult, if your “particularism” is so important to you – feel free to 2nd guess nature (or God if you prefer). But until someone is old enough to make the decision it should be against the law.

  22. Marnie on October 9, 2019, 9:10 pm

    bari weiss starring in the new HBO comedy Desperately Seeking Foreskin

  23. Ossinev on October 10, 2019, 7:26 am

    @Jons S
    “This is a clear-cut freedom of religion issue.”

    I will assume that the “clear cut” was an inadvertent use of words.

    This is not a question of freedom of religion. It is a question of freedom of decision. Children do not have “freedom” of decision to refuse when an adult “decides” to mutilate their body to satisfy or confirm the adults adherence to a religion be it Judaism,Islam or Paganism.

    The practice is quite simply barbaric. What might change the ritual (sic) acceptance of this barbarism is perhaps an adult in later life seeking prosecution of the parent and / or the rabbi for GBH.

  24. echinococcus on October 11, 2019, 4:21 pm

    Mr Weiss and Co. now censor medical discussion. I suppose I’ll have to defer to their matchless medical and biostatistical wisdom. I didn’t know MW was knowledgeable enough to pass judgment on public health and study evaluation.

    The text is below, and I really want to know what MW objects to. Is it perhaps protecting the good and sacred reputation of the government agencies and the AMA? Or is it objecting to plain logic?
    ———
    “The male circumcision debate continues…” for laypeople who are totally clueless of the unbearable degree to which everything in medicine, particularly in the government, “parastatal” and other institutional bodies that issue guidelines and official fatwas is entirely infected by political ends! There is nothing less medical than these guidelines, that must obey,mainly, the corporate interests of the industry, government bureaucrats’ fears of displeasing the public, and the philosophy (= love of wisdom) of the most influential and corporate-sponsored physicians. I’ll give you three guesses about the readiness of the latter two to confront head-on the Zionists plus two major religions.

    The medical considerations mentioned in that screed ( and others like it) are controversial as to import and clearly defective, to be charitable, as to methodology. To say that such piffle offsets the human right of informed consent and justifies ritual mutilation is more than ridiculous, it is criminal. If that is the only “argument”, perhaps it’s time to let defenders of ritual female genital mutilation make their case, no? They, too, have, medical-sounding “advantages” of a similar nature to submit.

    The best in all this is that ulemas and rabbies both profit from a supposed (and statistically faulty, controversial) advantage in homosexual men. So, in all logic, they are essentially recommending circumcision… in order to allow the circumcisee the practice of sodomy.

    • edwardm on October 11, 2019, 5:08 pm

      also it’s good to know that having a foreskin is medically equivalent to having a cleft palate or achondroplagia.

    • Mooser on October 11, 2019, 8:14 pm

      “The best in all this is that ulemas and rabbies both profit from a supposed (and statistically faulty, controversial) advantage in homosexual men. So, in all logic, they are essentially recommending circumcision… in order to allow the circumcisee the practice of sodomy.” “echin”

      In all logic. Plain logic.

  25. jon s on October 13, 2019, 4:39 pm

    Every so often a topic like this comes up, which has nothing to do with Israel /Palestine and part of the “I’m not an Anti-Semite, just Anti-Zionist” crowd gets to show their true colors.
    Why stop at banning Jewish circumcision? The next step could be banning Jewish ritual slaughter so that Jews won’t be able to obtain kosher meat. The holiday of Sukkot begins today, so how about banning the building of sukkot, constructions without proper permits? You could also ban holidays like Purim and Hanukkah. You could also prevent the construction of the eruv. And so forth…

    • echinococcus on October 14, 2019, 2:41 am

      Finally some good, logical questions from the Zionist indoctrinator (and circumciser) of helpless children:

      “Why stop at banning Jewish circumcision? The next step could be banning Jewish ritual slaughter”

      Why not indeed? In fact, civilized countries that have animal cruelty laws did start banning it. In fact, it seems that the legislation may become Europe-wide if the Lobby lets people legislate.

      I suppose that people who support genocide, collective punishment and torture (or their victims, either) won’t be impressed by cruelty to animals. But then, yes it starts being banned. And a good thing it is.

      “so that Jews won’t be able to obtain kosher meat.”

      You know, Johnny S, always imagining that the universe is out to get you (as in: “opposition to ritual infant mutilation is antisemitism” or “banning cruelty to animals is antisemitism”, etc.) has a specific name in DSM (catalog of mental diseases), under “paranoia”.

      “The holiday of Sukkot begins today, so how about banning the building of sukkot, constructions without proper permits?”

      The way you guys destroy Palestinian houses for lack of “proper permits”? How about it indeed?

    • Marnie on October 15, 2019, 2:18 am

      @jon s

      ‘You could also ban holidays like Purim and Hanukkah. You could also prevent the construction of the eruv. And so forth…’
      Aw, you’re going all ben shapiro now, making something out of nothing with being the ultimate victim your end game. Don’t get your tzitzit in a knot! We’ll always have square dancing jon s – Swing your chicken, do-si-do, allemande left do the kapparot!

  26. jon s on October 14, 2019, 9:38 am

    echi,
    Thanks for proving my point.

    • Mooser on October 14, 2019, 11:59 am

      “Thanks for proving my point.”

      Oh, “Jon s”, don’t be upset. Don’t worry, it’ll be a while until anybody bans the proudest of Judaism’s achievements, the ritual slaughter of Palestinians.

  27. echinococcus on October 21, 2019, 3:54 pm

    RoHa,

    Trying to talk civilized to someone who doesn’t see any harm in mutilating a human being without informed consent?

    No wonder such a creature can’t see anything wrong with war of invasion, war of aggression and genocide, either.

    • RoHa on October 22, 2019, 6:21 am

      But there’s an awful fascination in showing that, behind the verbiage, Jons has nothing to offer beyond “Jews like to do it”.

      If his medical claims are correct, WJ is in a much stronger position with his “it’s a Good Thing in places where everyone is filthy and covered in germs” argument.

Leave a Reply