Trending Topics:

Campaign against Sanders on ‘antisemitism’ for his criticism of Israel begins in earnest

Media Analysis
on 86 Comments

In recent days, a group calling itself Democrats Against Anti-Semitism has begun an earnest campaign to inject the discourse with the idea that Bernie Sanders, historically the leading Jewish politician ever to run for president, is an antisemite because of his positions on Israel. That group joins New York Times opinion editor Bari Weiss and others in seizing on the urgent task of vilifying Sanders. They evidently aim to “Corbyn-ize” him, by parroting smears used effectively against the UK Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Sanders is a target because he has taken the strongest stances in favor of Palestinian human rights that any major candidate for the presidency has ever adopted. He has denounced the killings of Palestinian protesters in no uncertain terms, he has repeatedly called for the end of the Gaza siege so as to end a humanitarian disaster in the strip, he has said that he would condition military aid to Israel because of its unending settlement project and disrespect for Palestinian human rights, he has called Netanyahu a racist, and, worst of all, called for an “evenhanded” U.S. policy with respect to Israel and Palestine. All this, while saying that he is proudly Jewish, lived on an Israeli kibbutz as a young man, and supports Israel’s existence/favors a two-state solution.

Here, from Democrats Against Anti-Semitism, a new group, are some of the supposed bases for the slander, which involves the twisting of Senator Sanders’s words. Notice the Anglicism, “Whilst”:

Sanders may be ethnically Jewish, but his rhetoric, voting history and associations have not reflected the values of a friend of Jewish people…

Speaking of anti-Israel dogwhistling, Sanders himself, much like his comrades, has preached anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian and, at times, blatant anti-Semitic talking points…

In 1971, whilst giving a speaking outside a synagogue, Sanders stated his support for “no guns for Israel.” This just two years before the Yom Kippur War, where Israel came close to destruction, only surviving from American arms and aid shipments…

In 1988, Sanders reaffirmed his beliefs, quoted as saying “it is wrong that America provides arms to Israel.”..

It was also in 1988 that Sanders stated that he “wholeheartedly agreed” with Presidential Candidate Jesse Jackson’s plan for Israel. His plan, if you don’t know, was to ethnically cleanse the region of Jews in order to build a Palestinian State…

In 1990, when Sanders was elected as a Representative, he called Israel “the American administration’s mercenary” in an interview with Israeli newspaper Haaretz, and spoke about his “greatest wish” was to see “the U.S. press Israel harder”..

In 2004, a resolution was brought into the House of Representatives defending Israel after a resolution passed by the International Court of Justice condemned a security wall over “problem areas” in the West Bank. Sanders, naturally, opposed it…

In 2015, Sanders accused Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu of “overreacting” in the Gaza War. Whilst terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah were committing terrorist attacks against Israeli citizens. Yikes.

Finally, in 2019, Sanders voiced support against blocking support for the Boycott, Divest and Sanctions Movement, a group that is built on attempting to bankrupt Jewish-owned companies and weakening the Israeli economy and government

Bari Weiss of the New York Times spoke out against Sanders earlier this month at the JCC in Manhattan. She said that many Jews, including her father Lou, a prominent member of the Israel lobby group AIPAC, are “Trump curious or Trump supporters.”

I’ve been traveling all over the country talking to “the Jews” and … the number of people that say to me, I will vote for Trump over Bernie Sanders– it’s really unbelievable actually….

[The term Trump curious] describes my dad and a lot of other Jews that I know. It’s a very real thing. We are talking about Israel, and in certain ways Trump has enacted policies that have been the fantasy of many conservative Jeiwsh pro-Israel supporters, and there’s no way around that.

Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic responded that Sanders wasn’t going to win the nomination but that no matter who is the Democratic nominee, s/he will get about three-fourths of the Jewish vote.

“Not if it’s Bernie or Elizabeth Warren,” Bari Weiss said, while, once again, equating white nationalists who shoot up synagogues to the anti-Zionist left.

Norman Finkelstein told me that progressive defenders of Palestinian rights need to mobilize to oppose the campaign against Sanders, even if they don’t support Sanders’s presidential ambitions. He pointed to several new organizations taking on “the new antisemitism” (including this organization lately founded by Israel supporter Ronald Lauder) and said some of this energy is aimed at Sanders. That gives Jews a special responsibility.

This is a huge occasion for progressive Jews to rise to the occasion. There has got to be already now, a repudiation by the whole liberal Jewish community of the campaign that’s starting up against Bernie. And you have to remember this. Our situation is very different in the UK. In the UK, only 15 percent of Jews support Labour. UK Jews are overwhelmingly Tory. Yes, but here is a huge contingent of Jews who will not like what’s happening in particular, young Jews: The attempt to sabotage Bernie’s campaign. Yes. And you know, Bari Weiss is already that…

We have to create a firewall for Bernie, a very vocal, large Jewish presence, saying regardless of what we think about Bernie Sanders’ candidacy, there is no evidence to suggest that he is an anti Semite. And after 40 years in politics, there’s every good reason to trust his judgment about whom he chooses to associate with.

The last is in part a reference to Sanders endorser Linda Sarsour and the effort by conservatives to smear her, ala Jesse Jackson, because of her support for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions.

Philip Weiss

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

Other posts by .


Posted In:

86 Responses

  1. Gryfin on December 24, 2019, 3:58 pm

    There is no “new antisemitism.” There are only new uses for the charge of antisemitism.

    • Talkback on December 24, 2019, 6:49 pm

      Of course there is a “new antisemitism”. It was invented by Jewish supremacists.

      Real antisemitism includes for example, hostility or accusations of crimes, wrong doings and immoral behaviour against Jews, simply because they are Jews.

      New antisemtiim reduces this to include hostility or accusations of crimes, wrong doings and immoral behaviour against Jews, allthough they are Jews.

      Normaly anyone can accuse any person, organisation or state of any wrong doings, immoral behaviour or crime. The legal question is, if they can prove it. Jewish supremacists on the other hand only ask if the target is Jewish. If it is then it doesn’t matter, if the accusations are legitimate and they will accuse the accusers of antisemitism. Which only reflects their supremacist culture of impunity and ecxlusivism.

  2. wondering jew on December 24, 2019, 5:21 pm

    I think the intersection of antisemitism and corbyn was a serious accusation, but this accusation against sanders is flimsy.
    The advocacy of a confrontational posture vis a vis israel is what is happening here and israel supporters are obviously on a different wavelength than sanders vis a vis israel. calling it antisemitism, because he hung out with people and endorsed people who were antisemitic is indulging in a type of purity, because politics is a question of priorities and sanders never had it in mind to make purity vis a vis antisemitism one of his priorities. he was devoted to change and in the left there are some percentage of people with jew hating propensities and if it’s not a priority then you will hang out with those guys, because changing the world is more important than some sort of antisemitism purity test.

    if there are two paths: status quo or radical change (vis a vis israel) most israel supporters would probably prefer a third path down the middle, but many israel supporters are opposed to radical change and being endorsed by linda sarsour is a sure sign that at the end of the day, if there is no middle path, radical change is what bernie is about and so those who, if there is no middle path, would choose status quo, well, they are really not going to be friendly towards the radical change frame of mind.

    • Peter in SF on December 25, 2019, 1:53 am

      I think the intersection of antisemitism and corbyn was a serious accusation

      Why?

    • Talkback on December 25, 2019, 4:39 am

      wondering jew: “… because he hung out with people and endorsed people who were antisemitic … and in the left there are some percentage of people with jew hating propensities …”

      This a lie unless you can name these people who are antisemitic and explain why they are.

      • wondering jew on December 25, 2019, 8:22 am

        Alison Weir. Jesse jackson circa 1984 (when backed up by farrakhan). Anyone who starts up with “howcan i be antisemitic, when Palestinians are semites”. The woman who started attacking the reading of anne frank. Persons here who denigrate anne Frank’s bic pen.

      • Peter in SF on December 25, 2019, 4:46 pm

        Anyone who starts up with “howcan i be antisemitic, when Palestinians are semites”.

        wondering jew, I am sure you are well aware that the term Antisemitism itself was coined in the 19th century by people who divided humanity into racial categories and thought of Aryans as superior to Semites. That was the whole point of Antisemitism as originally conceived: Jews as a racial group inferior to indigenous Europeans. The non-European origin of Jews explains their cultural deficiencies, according to this Euronormative point of view. I trust that you can see that nowadays this way of thinking is used by Europeans and persons of European descent FAR more to justify hatred and discrimination against Palestinians and other Arabs than it is against Jews. The original Antisemitism idea was “Jews are inferior to us because they are not European.” Now the dominant view held by white people is “Those original antisemites were wrong — Jews of European origin are as European as the rest of us. But people from the Middle East are NOT European.” That last sentence is certainly true, but it is the background for a lot of justification of oppression of Palestinians, ironically most often by Jews who use their relatively newly acquired acceptance as being white people.

      • echinococcus on December 27, 2019, 12:27 pm

        Hey, Wondering Jew,

        You have thrown some gross libel there, together with a couple gross lies. You have been challenged on them. Stop hiding under the skirts of MW’s “Moderator” (now we can see: we know she just unjustifiably disappeared a challenge from RoHa w/o even his telling us) and answer. Intellectual cowards.

      • wondering jew on December 27, 2019, 1:04 pm

        echinocus, go to hell.

      • Mooser on December 27, 2019, 3:20 pm

        “echinocus, go to hell.” “wondering jew”

        How did this get past the Moderators?
        It’s “echinococcus” That’s e-c-h-i-n-o-c-o-c-c-u-s.
        Even a cyclophyllid (and of the family Taeniidae, too!) is entitled to have their nym spelled correctly.

      • jon s on December 27, 2019, 4:49 pm

        echi,
        Are you denying the authenticity of Anne Frank’s diary?

      • Talkback on December 27, 2019, 4:59 pm

        wondering jew: “Alison Weir. Jesse jackson circa 1984 (when backed up by farrakhan). Anyone who starts up with “howcan i be antisemitic, when Palestinians are semites”. The woman who started attacking the reading of anne frank. Persons here who denigrate anne Frank’s bic pen.”

        I asked you to explain why they are antisemtic. To make sure that you understand me: What did they negatively say about Jews, just because they are Jews? (And not: What did they say about Jews, allthough they are Jews – which is the Jewish racist version of fabricated antisemitism.)

      • RoHa on December 27, 2019, 9:34 pm

        Talkback, that’s what I wasn’t allowed to ask.

      • wondering jew on December 27, 2019, 11:20 pm

        talkback- If you want me to do research on all the people cited as friends of bernie sanders and determine if they are or are not antisemitic, i am delinquent and it is not one of my top priorities to do the research. if you want me to go over the people i mentioned in my first response then i will do so. be specific.

      • wondering jew on December 27, 2019, 11:49 pm

        talkback: how many times is judaism denigrated in this comments section. how many times does one hear “go back to brooklyn” when one argues with antizionists on the streets of manhattan. how many times is anne frank denigrated in this comments section?

      • Mooser on December 28, 2019, 12:44 pm

        ” how many times is… how many times does one…how many times…” “wj”

        Those are some questions, “yonah”.
        I’ve got one for you: What’s grey, and always carries a trunk?

      • Talkback on December 28, 2019, 2:50 pm

        wondering jew: “if you want me to go over the people i mentioned in my first response then i will do so. be specific.”

        Fair enough.

        wondering jew: “how many times is judaism denigrated in this comments section.”

        What’s your point? That if someone “denigrates” a religion it is racist, if it happens top be a Jewish religion?

        wondering jew: “how many times does one hear “go back to brooklyn” when one argues with antizionists on the streets of manhattan.”

        What’s your point? That an ergo decedo fallacy is racist, when applied against someone who happens to be Jewish?

        wondering jew: “how many times is anne frank denigrated in this comments section?”

        Again, what’s your point? That denigrating a person is racist, if this person happens to be Jewish?

      • Keith on December 28, 2019, 4:16 pm

        WONDERING JEW- “how many times is anne frank denigrated in this comments section?”

        You are dishonestly implying something which is not true. I don’t recall EVER seeing the person known as Anne Frank denigrated in this comments section. I recall there was some question as to the authenticity of some parts of what is known as Anne Frank’s Diaries. That is not the same and it is dishonest of you to twist reality to suite your obsession with anti-Semitism.

      • Donald on December 28, 2019, 4:34 pm

        Some of this stuff is news to me, but I don’t read all the comments. Are there people attacking Anne Frank? That sounds bad.

        I’d back up a step and say that the attacks on Corbyn were unfair. I think he made mistakes, some perhaps really dumb. I am thinking of that mural. He also went to some event run by a guy who turned out to be a Holocaust denier. That was dumb or bad staff work or whateve, but does anyone really think Jeremy Corbyn is a Holocaust denier or sympathizes with them? One could argue about calling Hamas and Hezbollah friends, but it hardly makes him an antisemite. There is a gigantic double standard here anyway— why are defenders of Israel not automatically considered to be anti-Palestinian racists?

        I think that anybody who spends much of their public life openly defending Palestinian rights will run the risk of bumping into people who are in the movement for bad reasons, and you might not always know it. Corbyn apologized for his actual mistakes.

        And nobody holds the pro-Israeli side accountable for racism, probably because once you go down that route you have trouble stopping. If the settlements are racist, and they are, wasn’t it also racist to drive Palestinians out of their homes in 1948? So Americans just pretend there is only one form of bigotry one needs to worry about on this subject. Corbyn’s entire public life was gone over with a finetoothed comb looking for things to condemn. If he actually were an antisemite I think the proof would be overwhelming.

      • echinococcus on December 28, 2019, 7:28 pm

        Donald,

        “Are there people attacking Anne Frank?”

        No but there are aspersions and slimy innuendoes by the usual Fredman and JonS, and simple questions to them, whom the MW censor protects from being answered by shooting down all responses, even if most factual and calm (at least 4 of them so far as I know.)

      • wondering jew on December 28, 2019, 10:10 pm

        anne frank bic pen. smirk, smirk. ha, ha. very funny.
        no proof for court of law.
        for this crowd, no respect.
        happy new year and til we meet again.
        sorry for wasting your time. not true. sorry for wasting my time and energy.

      • echinococcus on December 28, 2019, 11:15 pm

        Donald,

        “Corbyn apologized for his actual mistakes.”

        That was his actual mistake.
        No one wants to trust a wishy-washy Zio-yes-man to defend his rights.
        Except, perhaps, some tribal liberals.

      • oldgeezer on December 29, 2019, 12:36 am

        @wondering hypocrit

        ‘for this crowd, no respect.”

        I don’t recall anyone denigrating Anne Frank but if it occured I honestly would find it as offensive as you do. She was murdered simply because of her religious beliefs and because racists considered her to be an ‘other’ and not an equal.

        You on the other hand denigrate the many thousand of Palestinians who have been murdered enroute to Israel and Greater Israel.

        While you moan about their losses your bottom line is that they were merely a necessary price no matter how sad. That’s all they were. No, they were human beings murdered because of their religious beliefs and because they were “others”.

        In fact you denigrate Anne Frank’s death by duplicating the mindset that brought that horror upon us.

        “happy new year and til we meet again.”

        Sure. And how many Palestinians will be murdered to protect supremacy in the interim yonah? No matter. Their rights and their lives are just the necessary price.

        “sorry for wasting my time and energy.”

        Boohoo. Have a pity party.

      • Mooser on December 29, 2019, 2:44 pm

        “happy new year and til we meet again.
        sorry for wasting your time. not true. sorry for wasting my time and energy.”

        Don’t make New Year’s resolutions you are utterly incapable of keeping, “Yonah”.
        You’ll be back, after all, the Comment section is your minion.

    • Misterioso on December 25, 2019, 9:58 am

      @wondering jew

      Speaking of antisemitism:

      https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/12/19/trump-bad-jews-full-page-ad-progressive-jewish-group-condemns-president

      “‘Trump Is Bad for the Jews'” Full-Page Ad From Progressive Jewish Group Condemns President” Common Dreams, Dec.20/19

      “During this moment of very real, terrifying anti-Semitism coming from white nationalists and the White House, we need Congress to catch up and finally speak out.” By Jake Johnson, staff writer.

      “A progressive Jewish advocacy group on Thursday took out a full back-page ad in The Hill condemning President Donald Trump’s recent executive order on anti-Semitism as an attempt to silence criticism of Israel on college campuses and further undermine Palestinian rights.

      “‘Through this executive order, the president has cemented into law what he knew could never pass through a democratic process: using anti-Semitism as a weapon against Palestinians and Palestinian rights activists,’ said Beth Miller, government affairs manager of Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), which purchased the ad.

      “‘During this moment of very real, terrifying anti-Semitism coming from white nationalists and the White House, we need Congress to catch up and finally speak out,’ Miller added. ‘Trump is bad for the Jews, he is bad for Palestinians, he is bad for free speech.’

      “The executive order, which Trump signed last week, is ostensibly aimed at ‘combating anti-Semitism’ on college campuses in the United States. But critics warned the order is a thinly veiled effort to equate anti-Semitism with legitimate criticism of the state of Israel and its brutal treatment of the Palestinian people.

      “JVP’s ad denounces the executive order as a ‘harmful, authoritarian act that will not protect Jews.’

      “‘It will punish Palestinians and those who speak up with them,’ the ad states.

      “Trump signed the executive order just days after he was accused of making anti-Semitic remarks last Sunday at a Florida conference sponsored by the Israeli-American Council.

      “‘A lot of you are in the real estate business because I know you very well, the president said.

      “‘You’re brutal killers. Not nice people at all. But you have to vote for me, you have no choice.’

      “‘You’re not going to vote for Pocahontas, I can tell you that,’ Trump said, using his racist nickname for Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). ‘You’re not going to vote for the wealth tax.’

      “In a statement Thursday, Rabbi Alissa Wise, acting co-executive director of JVP, said Trump ‘routinely engages in anti-Semitic tropes that serve to embolden his white supremacist base, reduces Judaism to support for Israel, and uses anti-Semitism as a tool to attack Palestinians advocating for basic rights and freedom.’

      “‘We’re not fooled,’ said Wise, ‘and we’re fighting back!'”
      ____________________________________________________________________

      https://jewishcurrents.org/the-real-target-of-trumps-executive-order/

      “The Real Target of Trump’s Executive Order” Jewish Currents, Dec. 12/19, by Joshua Leifer

      EXCERPT:
      “THE EXECUTIVE ORDER Donald Trump signed yesterday, purportedly intended to combat antisemitism, can only be understood in the context of a few key facts. The first is that the Trump administration is actively pursuing a post-two-state solution in Israel/Palestine, laying the groundwork for Israel’s eventual annexation of all or parts of the occupied West Bank. The second is that, as a result of more than half a century of military rule over the Palestinian territories, Israel continues to face challenges to its legitimacy, especially in the form of the growing Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement on college campuses in the United States and around the world. The third is that, despite Trump’s numerous antisemitic comments and his administration’s general coziness with white nationalists, right-wing supporters of Israel have found in him a useful vessel for realizing their territorial-maximalist aims.”

      • echinococcus on December 25, 2019, 11:57 am

        Misterioso,

        Thanks for quoting, in the first part, the revolting voice of tribal ID politics gone mad.
        What a load of stinking fertilizer!

        Using a protest against the latest Ziofascist ordinance as a vehicle to peddle the absurdity of “very real, terrifying anti-Semitism coming from white nationalists and the White House.”

        Yarright, it’s not the Zionist owners of the country and their single party… instead, the “very real, terrifying threat” is in powerless fringe groups. Look over there, folks. Not where it matters. I wrote tribal ID politics gone mad, and by “tribe”, this time, I mean the Dim tribe.

      • Stephen Shenfield on December 25, 2019, 12:14 pm

        The class dimension should be taken into account. This isn’t solely about Israel. Trump was addressing not Jews in general but wealthy Jews and appealing to their narrow economic interests as the potential ‘victims’ of a wealth tax. He was saying: now that the Democrats have moved to the left, the only way you can protect your wealth is by supporting me. Surely protecting your wealth against leftist redistribution is more important to you than protecting yourselves against anti-Semitism?

        Ideally they would like to protect both, so the fact that anti-Semitism is concentrated on the right of the political spectrum, as it has almost always been, is very discomforting to acknowledge. Here is where the idea of ‘the new anti-Semitism’ comes to the rescue, enabling them to reduce their cognitive dissonance (as well as continue to support Israel). They will feel more coherent if they can say: OK, there is the old anti-Semitism on the right, but there is also the new anti-Semitism on the left, which is just as bad or even worse. Unfortunately for their mental coherence, that is at variance with the facts. But they say it, even presumably to themselves, not only because it justifies their support for Israel but also because it helps them protect their wealth.

      • Mooser on December 25, 2019, 6:54 pm

        “This isn’t solely about Israel. Trump was addressing not Jews in general but wealthy Jews and appealing to their narrow economic interests as the potential ‘victims’ of a wealth tax”

        Exactly. ‘Jewish tribal unity’ is an anti-Semitic trope, and there is no reason to burden ourselves with it.

  3. JWalters on December 24, 2019, 6:58 pm

    Here’s a deep, articulate analysis of the parallels between the smearing of Corbyn and Sanders, and more generally, the strategy of driving people from politics with accusations of “anti-Semitism”. “Prof Finkelstein: “What’s happening to Corbyn is a trial run for Bernie Sanders” | George Galloway”

    Personally, I think any person with their eye on Justice will trust Bernie even more for knowing his earlier statements on withholding weapons from Israel. I certainly do.

    The pathetic Zionist attempt to claim anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism will fail because it is sooo stupid. No matter how much money the Zionists spend on marketing this pig smeared with lipstick, no matter how many very important people are paid to tell us to ignore our own eyes and ears, no matter how many times they cry “WOLF!”, more and more people are simply finding out the facts.

    • RoHa on December 25, 2019, 8:37 pm

      It wasn’t a practice run for anything. It was a real operation in itself.

  4. Talkback on December 24, 2019, 7:21 pm

    “Sanders may be ethnically Jewish, but his rhetoric, voting history and associations have not reflected the values of a friend of Jewish people…”

    What are the “values of a friend of Jewish people”?

    “Speaking of anti-Israel dogwhistling, Sanders himself, much like his comrades, has preached anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian and, at times, blatant anti-Semitic talking points…”

    Lets’s see what his blatant anti-semitic talking points are, because the rest is perfectly legitimate.

    “In 1971, whilst giving a speaking outside a synagogue, Sanders stated his support for “no guns for Israel.””

    What’s wrong with that? That was four years after Israel’s second attack on Egypt while showing no intent to end its occupation of the Sinai, the Golan, Gaza, East-Jerusalem and the Westbank and its illegal settlement policy in all of these territories.

    “This just two years before the Yom Kippur War, where Israel came close to destruction, only surviving from American arms and aid shipments…”

    A blatant lie. Egypt and Syria were just trying to liberate their own territories that were under Israel’s occupation and illegal colonization. Both armies never even crossed Israel’s borders. In the case of Egypt it only crossed the Suez channel.

    “In 1988, Sanders reaffirmed his beliefs, quoted as saying “it is wrong that America provides arms to Israel.”..”

    What’s wrong with that? 1988 was a very brutal year for Palestinians under Israeli occupation.

    “It was also in 1988 that Sanders stated that he “wholeheartedly agreed” with Presidential Candidate Jesse Jackson’s plan for Israel. His plan, if you don’t know, was to ethnically cleanse the region of Jews in order to build a Palestinian State…”

    That’s the Zionist propaganda description for the totally legitimate deportation of Jewish Israeli settlers who illegaly entered, settled and live in territories under Israeli occupation in clear violation of international law. Security Council Resolution 467 (1980) calls for the dismantlement of the settlements and not to provide Israel with any assistance to be used specifically in connexion with settlements in the occupied territories.

    And what about the executed plan to ethnically cleanse Palestinians in order to build a Jewish State?

    “In 1990, when Sanders was elected as a Representative, he called Israel “the American administration’s mercenary” in an interview with Israeli newspaper Haaretz, and spoke about his “greatest wish” was to see “the U.S. press Israel harder”..”

    What’s wrong with that?

    In 2004, a resolution was brought into the House of Representatives defending Israel after a resolution passed by the International Court of Justice condemned a security wall over “problem areas” in the West Bank. Sanders, naturally, opposed it…

    What’s wrong with that? It seems to be natural for Sanders to respect international law and the advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice which decided that the “security wall” on Palestinan land should be dismanled. Btw, there is no right to secure the crime of illegal settlements.

    “In 2015, Sanders accused Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu of “overreacting” in the Gaza War. ”

    What’s wrong with this accusation? The UN used much harsher words. And rightly so.

    “Whilst terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah were committing terrorist attacks against Israeli citizens. Yikes.”

    How many Israelis were injured or killed and how many Palestinians? Yikes.

    F”inally, in 2019, Sanders voiced support against blocking support for the Boycott, Divest and Sanctions Movement, a group that is built on attempting to bankrupt Jewish-owned companies and weakening the Israeli economy and government.”

    What’s wrong with that? Sanders seems to respect the right to free spech and boycott which was also a legitimate reaction by Jews to the policies against Jews in Nazi Germany.

    But where are the “blatant anti-semitic talking points”? So far it’s just a pathetic attempt so smear Sanders for something that is a perfectly legitimate behaviour. His only crime seems to be that he’s less supporting when it comes to Jewish exclusivism. But are these the values of the Jewish people???

  5. Kay24 on December 24, 2019, 9:07 pm

    Bernie Sanders is on his way to get skewered by the zionist media, lobbies, and self appointed guard dogs of Israel, like Bari Weiss, Brett Stephens, and others. It happened to Corbyn, so you can be sure they will try the same tactics over here. Bernie Sanders, Jewish, who had his relatives killed during the Holocaust, will be caricatured and made into a self hating Jew, who is against “poor” Israel, and they will dig up all the dirt they can, even make up plenty, to make sure he does not win the presidency. Hope his campaign is ready for the viciousness and interference by a foreign nation that has interfered in US elections for decades.

    • Misterioso on December 25, 2019, 10:46 am

      WAKE UP AMERICANS!! WE’RE BEING ROBBED BY ZIONIST “ISRAEL”!!!!

      https://israelpalestinenews.org/congress-has-introduced-50-pieces-of-legislation-about-israel-in-2019/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily+Updates

      “Congress has introduced 50 pieces of legislation about Israel in 2019”
      If Americans Knew Blog, Dec. 16/19 by Kathryn Shihadah

      “While America struggles with crises in health care, hunger, and homelessness, Congress has found the time to entertain over four dozen bills and resolutions that cater to a wealthy, heavily-armed state [sic]: Israel.”

      EXCERPT:
      “On January 3rd, 2019, freshly-elected United States Senators and Representatives took the oath of office before beginning their work of legislating for their country. One phrase of the oath includes the promise to ‘defend the Constitution.’ How odd, then, that the first order of business for the new Senate was not a call to end the government shutdown, boost the economy, or improve health care.

      “The Senate’s first bill of the year focused on the interests of a foreign country, advancing policy that is costly to US taxpayers – and unconstitutional.

      “Our Senators chose to prioritize the State of Israel.

      “S.1, the ‘Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East Act of 2019,’ proposes legislation that would authorize $38 billion in aid to Israel over the next ten years, and protect the Israeli government from boycott.

      “Three additional bills supporting Israeli interests came up that first day, all in the House, and a total of at least eleven in Congress’ first month. In under a year, 47 of our 535 legislators (9%) have penned well over fifty pieces of favorable legislation about Israel.

      “In that same time, two bills addressing Palestinian needs have been proposed in the House; the Senate has heard none.”

      • JWalters on December 25, 2019, 8:13 pm

        As Nancy Pelosi told AIPAC, even if Washington DC crumbles to the ground, Israel will get its payment on time.

  6. echinococcus on December 24, 2019, 9:15 pm

    “there is no evidence to suggest that he is an anti Semite”

    Correct, but so what? Does Norman seriously think that the public at large, people who are no liberals and are not fixated on some “Jewish” identity sit up at night, worried that any candidate may be an “anti-Semite”? Sanders should be shrewd enough to figure out that. Let the gatekeepers self-sabotage.

  7. Peter in SF on December 25, 2019, 2:20 am

    Sanders is also the guy who wrote in a major opinion piece last month, “It is true that some criticism of Israel can cross the line into antisemitism, especially when it denies the right of self-determination to Jews

    Ask an American to affirm or deny the right of self-determination to Mormons, and they won’t know what you’re talking about. Ask an American to affirm or deny the right of self-determination to African-Americans, and they’ll wonder if this is about Black separatism or even segregation. How does a self-identified Jew affirm the right of self-determination to Jews while running for president of the United States?

    • Nathan on December 25, 2019, 9:34 am

      Peter in SF – It’s probably true that an American, indeed, wouldn’t know what you’re talking about if you were to ask if the Mormons have the right of self-determination. It could be that an American wouldn’t even understand the term “self-determination”. More importantly, since the idea of Mormon self-determination isn’t a topic on the agenda, it is therefore quite understandable that an American wouldn’t be able to address the issue. However, the question of the right of Jews to found their own state has been an issue on the agenda. Actually, there was a very dramatic UN vote in this regard on Nov 29, 1947.

      Bernie Sanders (according to the quote that you bring to our attention) feels that denying the Jews the right of self-determination is an example of an anti-Zionist argument that could be defined as antisemitism. Obviously, one can agree or disagree with such an opinion, and that’s really just fine. However, the Mormon angle that you use is just irrelevant. You compare an issue with a non-issue.

      What is wrong with affirming the Jews’ right of self-determination while running for president? It’s Mr Sanders’ opinion that Jews have the right of self-determination, and the fact that he’s a Jew and a candidate in the American political campaign doesn’t change that point of view. He still believes that Jews have the right to statehood, and he believes that denying such a right is improper – AND he still would like to be president. You should be able to live with that.

      • Misterioso on December 25, 2019, 11:04 am

        @Nathan

        For the record, here’s the ugly truth about the “very dramatic UN vote” on Nov. 29, 1947:

        The UNGA Partition Plan:
        To be brief:

        On 29 November 1947, the recommendatory only (i.e., no legal status, contrary to the terms of the British Class A Mandate and the Atlantic Charter, never adopted by the UNSC and grossly unfair to the native Palestinian Arabs) the Partition Plan (Res. 181) was passed by the UNGA.

        Despite massive Jewish immigration during the British Mandate, Jews comprised just 31% of the population & privately owned only 6 to 7% of the land. Outrageously, the Partition Plan recommended Jews receive 56% of Palestine as a state!! (Native Arab Palestinian Jews comprised 10% of the Jewish population and were vehemently opposed to Zionism.)

        48% of the total land area of mandated Palestine was privately owned (‘mulk khaas’) by Palestinian Arabs. (To repeat, total Jewish privately owned land was between 6% and 7%.) About 45% of the total land area was state owned (i.e., by its citizens)* and it was comprised of Communal Property (‘mashaa’), Endowment Property, (‘waqf’), and Government Property, (‘miri’.) The British Mandate kept an extensive land registry and the UN used the registry during its early deliberations. It has in its archives 453,000 records of individual Palestinian owners defined by name, location & area. *Only 30% of the Jewish immigrants had taken out citizenship & tens of thousands were illegals.

        Land ownership in all of mandated Palestine on Nov. 29, 1947: By Sub district – Acre: 87% Palestinian owned, 3% Jewish owned, 10% state owned; Safed: 68% Palestinian owned, 18% Jewish owned, 14% state owned; Haifa: 42% Palestinian owned, 35% Jewish owned, 23% state owned; Nazareth: 52% Palestinian owned, 28% Jewish owned, 20% state owned; Tiberias: 51% Palestinian owned, 38% Jewish owned, 11% state owned; Jenin: 84% Palestinian owned, less than 1% Jewish owned, 16% state owned; Beisnan: 44% Palestinian owned, 34% Jewish owned, 22% state owned; Tulkarm: 78% PalestinIan owned; 17% Jewish owned, 5% state owned; Nablus: 87% Palestinian owned, less than 1% Jewish owned, 13% state owned; Jaffa: 47% Palestinian owned, 39% Jewish owned, 14% state owned; Ramleh: 77% Palestinian owned, 14% Jewish owned, 9% state owned; Ramallah: 99% Palestinian owned, less than 1% Jewish owned, less than 1% state owned; Jerusalem (West and East): 84% Palestinian owned, 2% Jewish owned, 14% state owned; Gaza: 75% Palestinian owned, 4% Jewish owned, 21% state owned; Hebron: 96% Palestinian owned, less than 1% Jewish owned, 4% state owned; Bersheeba: 15% Palestinian owned, less than 1% Jewish owned, 85% state owned. (Village Statitistics, Jerusalem: Palestine Government, 1945; subsequently published as United Nations Map no. 94b, August, 1950)

        Regarding land ownership in West and East Jerusalem in 1947: The total land area of West Jerusalem (the New City) was 19,331 dunams (about 4,833 acres) of which 40 per cent was owned by Palestinian Muslims and Christians, 26.12 per cent by Jews and 13.86 per cent by others, including Christian communities. Government and municipal land made up 2.90 per cent and roads and railways 17.12 per cent.

        East Jerusalem (the Old City) consisted of 800 dunams (about 200 acres) of which five dunams (just over one acre) were Jewish owned and the remaining 795 dunams were owned by Palestinian Muslims and Christians. (“Assessing Palestinian Property in the City,” by Dalia Habash and Terry Rempel, Jerusalem 1948: The Arab Neighbourhoods and their Fate in the War, 1999, pp. 184-85)

        Although the Philippines initially opposed Res. 181 and Liberia and Haiti wanted to abstain, the United States and the Zionists pressured these countries to vote in favour, thereby gaining the necessary two-thirds approval. “Under threat of a Jewish boycott of Firestone rubber and tire products, Harvey Firestone told Liberia that he would recommend suspension of plans for the expansion of development there if Liberia voted against partition.” (Michael Cohen, Palestine and the Great Powers, 1945-1948, 1982)

        These bullying tactics were aptly described by James Forrestal, then U.S. Secretary of Defence: “The methods that had been used…to bring coercion and duress on other nations in the General Assembly bordered closely onto scandal.” (Millis, Walter, ed., The Forrestal Diaries, New York: the Viking Press, 1951)

      • Talkback on December 25, 2019, 2:09 pm

        Nathan: “However, the question of the right of Jews to found their own state has been an issue on the agenda. Actually, there was a very dramatic UN vote in this regard on Nov 29, 1947.”

        UN181 didn’t say anything about “the right of Jews to found their own state”. It was a proposal for the future goverment of Palestine which violated the principle of majority ruling of the citizens of Palestine that wasn’t accepted. Neither by the majority of the citizens of Palestine nor by the Security Council. If it had been a right the Jews could have simply refered the case to the International Court of Justice. But this referral was rejected multiple times by those who were not interested in any legal evaluation.

        Nathan: “Bernie Sanders (according to the quote that you bring to our attention) feels that denying the Jews the right of self-determination is an example of an anti-Zionist argument that could be defined as antisemitism.”

        This is just anotther example of Jewish racist exclusivism.

        Normally, it’s the people OF a country that have a right to self-determination within their country irrespectively of their faith or heritage and not a religious or ethnic group amongst them and especially not foreign members of this group. And when the people OF the country become independent everybody habitually residing in this country becomes ipso facto a citizens of this state and belongs to its nation.

        That was and still is clearly not the case of the “Jewish” state. To the contrary. The creation of this state prevented the independence of Palestine and violated the the Palestinain’s right to self determination and the territorial integrity of their country by people whose majority were not even citizens of Palestine and had no right to determine Palestine’s future goverment.

        This state wasn’t even the outcome of a referendum which means that its creation lacks of any internal legitimation, too. And the majority of the Palestinian citizens had to be expelled and denationalized, because of their faith and heritage to create a “Jewish” state that’s not even the state for all of its citizens. The Jews had even the audacity to call their war against the natives that was the result of their colonization of this country a “war of independence”.

        Yet the the whole world is is made to believe that this is not racist, but those who disagree with this racism. And this accusation of antisemtism is in itself is just another example of Jewish racist exclusivism.

        Those who reject or question a group’s right to national self determination, because this group is Jewish are obviously antisemites. But again, the whole world is made to believe by Jewish racists, that anyone who rejects or question a group’s right to national self determination, allthough this group is Jewish is an antisemite, even if their rejection is based on non racist, universal principles and their rejection of a racist state which is not the state of all of its citizens.

        Bernie Sanders is a liar who accuses others of racism who don’t support his own.

      • Nathan on December 25, 2019, 3:01 pm

        Wow, Misterioso, it came as a terrible shock to learn that a threat of boycott forced Liberia to vote in favor of the 1947 Partition Plan. Can you imagine the nerve of people to use a non-violent method to attain their goals? It’s really unthinkable in today’s terms.

        Anyway, Senator Sanders still thinks that Jews have the right of self-determination, and he suspects that denying them this right might be an expression of antisemitism (and he’d like to be president, too).

      • Nathan on December 25, 2019, 5:09 pm

        Talkback – It certainly is interesting to read your comments, but it is also quite puzzling. You feel that states must come into being in accordance to your understanding of the rules. However, in reality, states come into being through a variety of ways. And the bottom line is that states come into being, and that’s that. There is only one single (universal) test of legitimacy: Survival.

        One can shoot an arrow, and then one can draw the target around the very spot where the arrow happened to land. It’s always “bull’s eye”! This little example is true for all ideologies, and the anti-Israel ideology is no exception. In other words, one is first anti-Israel (“shooting the arrow”), and then one finds the justification for being anti-Israel (“drawing the target”). It’s always “bull’s eye”.

        You’ve asked me quite a few times to give a universal reason that justifies the existence of Israel. Obviously, my finding an answer for you would also be like drawing a target around an arrow. (The pro-Israel position is an ideology, too). Moreover, since you have your pre-conceived ideology, you will always reject an argument that negates your point of view.

        Anyway, here’s the way of the “universe”. States come into being, and the approval of others is simply unnecessary. A state exists or it doesn’t exist. In the case of Israel, I think it’s obvious that she exists.

      • Mooser on December 25, 2019, 7:03 pm

        “A state exists or it doesn’t exist”

        Israel exists as long as it gets money from the US and Zionists. It is a remittance state, which could not exist on its own.

        And Israel is well on its way to not existing. It can’t form a government, and next comes an IDF-Rabbinate junta.

      • RoHa on December 25, 2019, 8:59 pm

        “There is only one single (universal) test of legitimacy: Survival.”

        That’s either a clear “might is right” statement or an admission that you simply have no idea of right and wrong.

        Those of us who have some understanding of morality recognize that Israel is evil in conception, evil in creation, and evil in conduct. Its survival just exacerbates the evil.

      • eljay on December 25, 2019, 9:37 pm

        ||Nathan: … Anyway, Senator Sanders still thinks that Jews have the right of self-determination … ||

        Of course he does – he’s a Zionist. And like all Zionists he is horribly mistaken to believe that the religion-based identity of Jewish comprises a right to be supremacists and to have a supremacist state.

      • echinococcus on December 25, 2019, 10:07 pm

        Why would anyone who has the minimum training required to pontificate on legal abstrusities waste his time on a full-time scribbling schedule for the minimal wages offered by Zionist entity?

        I deem it improbable that the Nathan thingy expects to achieve anything by his (?) continuous shysterly cavilling in a remote corner, other than fulfilling his Propaganda and Diaspora Ministry or Prime Minister’s Office, or Sebarah Foundation word production quota.

      • Talkback on December 26, 2019, 6:08 am

        Nathan: “You feel that states must come into being in accordance to your understanding of the rules.”

        You feel the need to argue ad hominem, because you can’t ad rem. There is not even an attempt to refute anything that I wrote about the right to self determination and how it was violated by the creation of Israel.

        Nathan: “However, in reality, states come into being through a variety of ways.”

        They do. But the legitimate were limited after 1919 and again after 1945.

        Nathan: “And the bottom line is that states come into being, and that’s that.”

        I know that your only argument for Israel is existence to might and not by right. And states don’t come into “being”. States are created. In the case of Israel through war and expulsion in the post Nazi era.

        Nathan: “There is only one single (universal) test of legitimacy: Survival.”

        The mere existence of a state doesn’t legitimize its existence. Again you need to portray a state as human being, as if states were something natural which “come into being” and their “survival” would be something legitimate. South Africa under Apartheid was not legitimate, because it “came into being” or “existed” for a long time as an Apartheid state.

        Nathan: “One can shoot an arrow …”

        Can you actually discuss a topic without loosing your self in stupid metaphors?

        Nathan: “States come into being, and the approval of others is simply unnecessary. A state exists or it doesn’t exist. In the case of Israel, I think it’s obvious that she exists.

        Yep, you fail again to formulate a single universal principle that would legitimate the creation of Israel or its existence. All that you can do is point to its existence. But crimes exist, too. That doesn’t legitimize them either.

        And to think that states can exist without the approval of others is just delusional. Again, see Rhodesia.

      • Talkback on December 26, 2019, 6:19 am

        Nathan: “Anyway, Senator Sanders still thinks that Jews have the right of self-determination, and he suspects that denying them this right might be an expression of antisemitism (and he’d like to be president, too).”

        Of course. He is a Jewish racist. And just like you he would fail to make a reasonable argument why Jews have a right to create a state within a state in Palestine of if the rejection of this nonsense would be antisemitic.

        But why do you even care? Your position is that even people who don’t have a right to self determination can create a state whose legitimacy is solely based on its de facto existence. ROFL.

      • Jon66 on December 26, 2019, 1:49 pm

        Talk,
        Can we list the criteria that you think make for a “legitimate” independent state?
        1. Majority rule. A geographic region of a country cannot declare itself an independent country without the majority of the whole country being in favor
        2.The people declaring independence cannot be doing so based upon ethnic/religious commonality.
        3. People residing within the area hoping to become independent who were born outside of the area are not entitled to vote.
        4.Everyone residing in the new State becomes a citizen of the new state.
        5. A referendum must be conducting in order to have legitimization.

        Is this accurate?
        If so, I’m not sure that many States meet all these criteria. Kosovo, India, Pakistan, USA, etc. I see violations of these in almost every instance.

      • echinococcus on December 26, 2019, 3:03 pm

        Route 66 still bullshitting all.
        None of that is relevant… invader.

      • Talkback on December 26, 2019, 9:02 pm

        jon 66: “Can we list the criteria that you think make for a “legitimate” independent state?”

        There is only one according to the UN. The people OF a country who are under colinal/alien domination have a right to independence based on their right to self determination. To prevent this violates their right to self determination as much as immigration does that is enfoced upon them without their consent.

        The prevailing view on secession is that it violates the defensive right of self determination of the majority and the territorial integrity of their state. Some argue that a case for secession can be made, if the rights of a group of citizens are fundamentally violated (for examply in the case of ethnic cleansing). Their ethnicity, religion or birthplace is irrelevant as long as they are or have become citizens and are the majority in the region they want to secede. And the seceding state is obliged under human rights and customary law to transfer its new nationality to all of the citizens of the original counry which habitually reside in the territory of the new state and which become the nation of this state.

        So here is what happened in Palestine.
        1.) Partition violated the right to self determination of the people OF his country . The independence of their country was prevented by terrorists and paramilitary groups in what could be described as coup d’état.
        2.) The rights or the citizens who wanted to secede were not fundamentally violated by the original state (for example because of their ethnicity/religion).
        3.) The majority of those who wanted to secede were not and had not become citizens of the original state.
        4.) Neither all citizens of this country nor anybody else who was going to live under the rule of the seperatists state was asked, if they wantd to secede.
        5.) The majority of those who should have acquired the nationalty of the seceding state did not become citizens of this state, but were expelled and denationalized, because of their ethnicity/religion.
        6.) Their right to return and citizenship has been violated for generations to maintain a regime dominated by another ethnicity/religion.
        7.) Other citizens of this state do not belong to the nation of this state because of their ethnicity/religion and do not enjoy the full rights that nationals enjoy.

        And if you come to the correct conclusion that this is racist and not legitimate at all, liars like Sanders will distract from this illegitimacy and their own deligitimizing acism by accusing you of racism and deligitimization. This racist hypocrit only recognizes “a unilateral declaration of independence” by Jews, but not by Palestinians. But of course it’s not hatred to deny people to exercise their right to self determination, if they aren’t Jewish, right?

        jon66: “Is this accurate?
        If so, I’m not sure that many States meet all these criteria. Kosovo, India, Pakistan, USA, etc. I see violations of these in almost every instance.

        It obviously isn’t accurate, but highly distorted. It’s actually very simple from a universal point of view.

        Besides that:
        Kosovo: The international community is decided on this issue. Those who support its indepence refer to the fundamdental violation of the rights of the people of Kosovo. Ethnic cleansing, mass murder, etc.
        Pakistan/India: Unfortunately this territory was under British rule (not mandate). and Britian decided that a part of its empire should split into two new independent states. ANother racist mistake which led to mass expulsion and a poisinous relationship between this country until today.
        USA: Was established before the right to self determination was recognized. Back then (settler) colonialism was not prohibited.

      • RoHa on December 26, 2019, 9:45 pm

        Jon66, it may be the case that the formation and conduct of every state in the world is morally unacceptable.

        But so what? That does not change the status of Israel.

        Israel is evil in conception, evil in creation, and evil in conduct.

      • Jon66 on December 26, 2019, 10:24 pm

        Echi,
        “ Route 66 still bullshitting all.
        None of that is relevant… invader.”

        They are not my conditions. I’m trying to understand Talk’s approach.

      • echinococcus on December 27, 2019, 12:26 am

        Somebody please tell John 66 that, seeing all these times he’s being “trying to understand”, if that’s true he must be devoid of the equipment necessary to understand anything.

        Anyway, no need to understand because it’s not any of his business either — as an invader.

      • Jon66 on December 27, 2019, 12:55 am

        Talk,
        Every group that seeks independence claims some grievance or form of oppression.
        That’s why they wish to secede.
        India split because the minority group believed that remaining in one state would be oppressive. Palestine broke into two because one group thought that they wouldn’t be able to fully govern themselves within one state. Yugoslavia broke apart similarly. Bangladesh separated from Pakistan. South Sudan, etc. Some states secede and some are kept together. It’s certainly not a clearly established principle that states must not split. We,may soon see Scotland separate from the UK.

      • Talkback on December 27, 2019, 5:16 am

        Nathan: “You feel that states must come into being in accordance to your understanding of the rules”
        jon 66: “I’m trying to understand Talk’s approach.”

        Ad hominem pattern detected.

      • Talkback on December 29, 2019, 8:38 am

        jon66: “Every group that seeks independence claims some grievance or form of oppression.
        That’s why they wish to secede.”

        First of all that’s not true in every case. And secondly you chose to ignore all talking points related to Palestine, especially point 2:

        1.) Partition violated the right to self determination of the people OF his country . The independence of their country was prevented by terrorists and paramilitary groups in what could be described as coup d’état.
        2.) The rights or the citizens who wanted to secede were not fundamentally violated by the original state (for example because of their ethnicity/religion).
        3.) The majority of those who wanted to secede were not and had not become citizens of the original state.
        4.) Neither all citizens of this country nor anybody else who was going to live under the rule of the seperatists state was asked, if they wantd to secede.
        5.) The majority of those who should have acquired the nationalty of the seceding state did not become citizens of this state, but were expelled and denationalized, because of their ethnicity/religion.
        6.) Their right to return and citizenship has been violated for generations to maintain a regime dominated by another ethnicity/religion.
        7.) Other citizens of this state do not belong to the nation of this state because of their ethnicity/religion and do not enjoy the full rights that nationals enjoy.

        jon66: “Palestine broke into two because one group thought that they wouldn’t be able to fully govern themselves within one state.”

        Sorry jon66, but not even Jews have a right to create a state within a state only to exclusively fully govern not only themselves or a right to expell others to become a majority in their declared state.

        And let’s be honest. Palestine broke into two, because a group of mostly foreign settlers and refugees took over a country through force and expelled its majority. Jews are obviously not the oppressed people in this case, but the aggressor and the oppressor. If anyone would have a right to secede it would rather be the Nonjewish citizens of Israel.

        P.S. Your comparison with other states shows your lack of historical knowledge and circumstances. You even list states who left or maybe want to leave unions.

    • echinococcus on December 25, 2019, 6:35 pm

      Good point, Peter.
      To summarize, of course there is no basis for affirming that Sanders is “anti-Semitic” in any way or wise, but there is overflowing evidence that he is a dyed-in-the-wool Zionist, or Jewish supremacist — of the so-called liberal variety. In addition to being a US-Zio-imperial warmonger at large.

  8. Talkback on December 25, 2019, 5:01 am

    I just finished reading Ben Shapiro’s book “How to Debate Leftists and Destroy Them: 11 Rules for Winning the Argument” and found it absolutely hilarious. Because what Shapiro says about “Leftists” applies 100% to Zionists ad how to deal with their false accusations of antisemitism.

    “Rule #1: Walk Toward the Fire.: … you are going to get hit with the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune no matter which way you turn. You can try to hide from the attacks of the […]; you can run away from them, attempt to ignore them, pretend that [they have] reached some sort of quasi-consensus in which they live and let live. … No matter how nice or polite you are, they will come after you. … [They know] this is war. And they know you are the enemy. You will be castigated. You will get punched. That’s the way it will go because that’s how [they win]: through intimidation and cruelty. You have to take the punch, you have to brush it off. You have to be willing to take the punch.”

    “Rule #3: Frame Your Opponent. I have argued that [their] entire playbook consists of a single play: characterizing the opposition. It’s incredibly effective. And the only way to get beyond character arguments is to frame your opponent – make it toxic for your opponent to slur you. Then, hopefully, you can move the debate to more substantive territory. …

    There is no way to convince someone that you don’t hate him or her. You can convince him or her, however, that your opposition is a liar and a hater.

    When [X] calls [Y] racist, [Y] tendency is to defend […] by explaining why you aren’t racist. This is a losing battle. In fact, you’ve lost the argument the minute you engage in it. The proper response to a charge of racism is not, “I’m not a racist. Never have been. I have [X] friends, [X] bosses, [X] employees.” You’ve already given away the store by dignifying the charge with a response.

    The proper response to a charge that you beat your wife is not to explain that you don’t beat your wife and are in fact an ardent feminist: bit’s to point out that throwing around accusations without evidence makes your opponent a piece of garbage. The truth is that your opponent, who labels you a racist without evidence, is the actual racist: it is he who waters down the term racism until it is meaningless by labeling any argument with which he disagrees racist. …

    … there will be no conversation in which you call me a racist, and I explain why I’m not a racist. That’s a conversation for idiots.

    Now, there’s another important point here: don’t wait for your opponent to call you a racist before going on the offensive. You’ve researched your opponent; you’ve game-planned him. You know he’s going to call you a racist, because he always calls his opponents racist.

    So hit him first by pointing out his vicious tactic.”

    • eljay on December 25, 2019, 8:58 am

      Shapiro isn’t just a smug, arrogant, fast-talking jerk, he’s a Zionist and – like all Zionists – he’s a shameless hypocrite.

      • Talkback on December 25, 2019, 2:16 pm

        He obviously is. His unintended description of Zionists and their smearing tactics are spot on as his tactics how to deal with them and why Corbyn on the other hand failed miserably. He should have taken the accusation of antisemitism, turn it around and send it back to his racist accusers and expose them of their dishonest tactics.

        Oh, how I would love to debate Shapiro on the “Jewish” state and hope for an accusation of racism/hatred.

      • Mooser on December 28, 2019, 12:48 pm

        Fight antisemitism in England! Dissolve the NHS!

  9. James Canning on December 25, 2019, 11:50 am

    The name of the game is suppression of criticism of Israel in American politics.

  10. Vera Gottlieb on December 25, 2019, 11:56 am

    Oh, enough already with this smearing anyone disagreeing with israel’s policies towards Palestinians. Of course, sensationalism sells so the MSM keeps at it. Even Moses would be smeared with “anti Semitism” if he dared disagree with israel.

    • RoHa on December 25, 2019, 8:53 pm

      Smearing and lebelling is the way it’s done nowadays.

      “Snowflake fascist transphobic racist denialist communist anti-Semite”

      Much easier than reasoned debate.

      • RoHa on December 26, 2019, 12:47 am

        “Labelling”, not “lebelling”. But also a bit of libelling, too.

  11. echinococcus on December 26, 2019, 12:52 am

    Meanwhile, I started hearing, as predicted, from several people who were misguided enough to support Sanders in 2016, no matter that he was running for the main imperialist party, no matter that he was a well–known old warmonger.

    They were supporting him in 2016, thinking that as he had completely ignored his Jewish “identity” and Zionist past, he may be a universalist, or as one of these figures writes in an online comment, “an old-fashioned race-neutral pro-labor type”.

    Now that I shared Sanders’ “anti-Semitism” and “proud Jew” rants with them, they are fuming, all of them. What Sanders’ warmongering and imperial interventionism couldn’t do was achieved by his kowtowing to J-Street and Co.

    They thought they had a union figure and now they discover they picked someone who may well be head speechwriter for the ADL director!

    • RoHa on December 26, 2019, 9:53 pm

      That settles it, then, Echinococcus.

      Either you run for President yourself, or you get your fellow Americans to come to their senses and make me their King.

      • echinococcus on December 27, 2019, 12:35 am

        Consider it settled, then: anyone in the world will tell you that we guys are far from ready for democracy. Even the best, those you couldn’t ever accuse of peddling stereophony, let alone stereotypes, will tell you that we Americans are big children who, like the fabled frogs, need a King.

      • RoHa on December 27, 2019, 9:46 pm

        “we guys are far from ready for democracy.”

        I think that applies to just about everyone, except, perhaps for the Icelanders or the San Marinese.

        Though probably they aren’t, either.

      • RoHa on December 28, 2019, 2:01 am

        Ooooooooooops!!!!!!

        There should be a comma after “perhaps”.

        I am now braced for the mockery I deserve.

        Go ahead.

      • Mooser on December 28, 2019, 12:56 pm

        “make me their King.”

        Their Philosopher-King, surely. And your first official act will be a proclamation declaring the current minor conflagrations in Australia unconnected to man-made climate change.

      • RoHa on December 28, 2019, 9:02 pm

        The current fires don’t seem as bad as the NSW fires of 1944

        https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/229265859

        or the great fires of 1851.

        Natural climate change might exacerbate the situation a bit, but not the imaginary man-made climate change of the apocalyptic fantasies. The extent of the current fires is a largely a result of bad management. Even the ABC has allowed it a mention.

        http://joannenova.com.au/2019/12/skeptics-win-on-fires-abc-quiet-flip-suddenly-its-fire-management-not-climate-change-to-blame/

        http://joannenova.com.au/2019/12/climate-change-and-bushfires-more-rain-the-same-droughts-no-trend-no-science/

        And plenty more on Jo’s site.

        But don’t let Keith catch you looking at this anti-Semitic denialist site. He will send you to the re-education camps to get any scientific understanding driven out of you. Mustn’t be corrupted by reality. Mustn’t even know that people have good reasons for doubting the story.

      • RoHa on December 28, 2019, 9:02 pm

        Though you might justifiably have doubts about choosing a king who leaves out a comma.

      • echinococcus on December 28, 2019, 9:48 pm

        Well, RoHa, the history of kings and the robber nobility at large doesn’t show them as being particularly gifted at writing, as opposed to sword-slashing (« Sa main digne, / Quand il signe, / Égratigne / Le vélin », says Hugo), so your reign would have to be a first in that regard, even if you have a slight blemish on your record.

        Besides, did you hear even a peep from me, before you made amends — to your honor? Descriptive linguists are your friends, who hear but say nought, and when they judge you shan’t know it.

        Anyway, we still urgently need a king by divine right here.

      • echinococcus on December 29, 2019, 12:16 am

        I suppose it would be asking too much to have the link formats fixed…

  12. RoHa on December 27, 2019, 3:07 am

    “Anti-Semitism” and “hate speech” are the ultimate silencers.

    Anything can be declared to be anti-Semitism or hate speech, and once the declaration is made that item cannot be mentioned again.

    Nor can the declaration be questioned. To ask “What makes that item anti-Semitic/hate speech?” is itself deemed to be anti-Semitic/hate speech.

  13. Kathleen on December 29, 2019, 1:36 pm

    Jews and non Jews alike should be pushing back hard against this movement to label Sanders an “anti-semite” Many of us have been in full support of Bernie in his Presidential candidate campaign since he declared. Never ever leaving his side by promoting him everywhere we can (including our fb pages) based on his decades long voting record and push for legislation that would level the playing field via health care for all, equity in education, support for unions fair wages, his votes against bad trade deals, commitment to civil rights, human rights social justice both here in the states, in the Israel Palestine conflict and elsewhere.

    He is the most honest candidate on the I/P conflict issue and is truly being an advocate for Israel based on the internationally recognized borders. He is the most decent candidate we have seen in decades.

    Many of us non Jews will continue to have his back any and every way we can.

    • echinococcus on December 29, 2019, 3:35 pm

      Now that you have provided an able piece of propaganda worth logarithmically more than $27, let’s underline:

      – “his decades long voting record” is choke full of enthusiastic support all US wars of aggression and outlawed interventions, especially his despicable AUMF 01 “yea” and his unfailing approval to war budgets;

      – “push for legislation that would level the playing field via health care for all” including his caving in to the suppression of the public payer option with Obama-“care” support to the insurance and pharma industries;

      – The fact that all other nice-sounding policies are nothing but requests for bigger crumbs from the war profits table to the complicit US middle class, nothing else. Not anything that is of the least interest to the peoples victim of the US empire (which would be all peoples, except perhaps the genocidal invaders of Palestine.)

      That being said, of course the accusation of “antisemitism” is not only despicable but beyond absurd, especially when leveled at persons who are “Jewish” according to themselves and/or the official definition by the Zionists themselves — including Sanders, Atzmon, Shahak, etc.

    • echinococcus on December 29, 2019, 3:41 pm

      “He is the most honest candidate on the I/P conflict issue”

      What “conflict”? You make it sound like some attorneys “litigating”.
      It’s Z invasion of Palestine. Period.

      The “most” honest candidate? Let me see, the last time that was Dr. Stein. This time, too, it will be a so-called third-party candidate, not a representative of the Imperial administration “party” machine.

      • Kathleen on December 30, 2019, 3:48 pm

        Oh wise one tell me your pick out of the candidates?

      • echinococcus on December 30, 2019, 5:13 pm

        As if it weren’t obvious.

        Not anyone connected or subject to any wing of the single Dictatorship and War party, for sure. It’s the owners of the single party that you necessarily vote and proselytize for, as long as you do not work to destroy it.

        That has nothing to do with wisdom, by the way. Any five-year-old can figure it out right away, just by looking at the facts.

      • Mooser on December 30, 2019, 5:56 pm

        “It’s the owners of the single party that you necessarily vote and proselytize for, as long as you do not work to destroy it.”

        And what did you do in the war, Daddy? You know what, “Echin”, more than anything, you are a political chicken-hawk.

      • echinococcus on December 30, 2019, 7:42 pm

        As any politician would say, “I’ll apologize if anyone felt personally targeted”.

  14. Ian Berman on December 30, 2019, 4:06 pm

    We hope Bernie will adopt this response to the anti-Semitic smear:

    “Thank you for bringing attention to Israel’s brutal military occupation of Palestinians. For this, I am called an anti-Semite”

    Palestine 365, the Ongoing Oppression (on FB)

    https://www.facebook.com/651474495053874/photos/rpp.651474495053874/1353174941550489/

    • Talkback on December 30, 2019, 6:36 pm

      Nah, the only way to react to lying racists is to call them what they are: Lying racists.

  15. pabelmont on December 31, 2019, 9:00 pm

    I think that when Trump (and other politicians, and not just Republicans) attack BDS (and make sure to say it’s because BDS is antisemitic, a lot of white nationalists will see this as special treatment for — and kowtowing to — those they hate and despise, those rich Jews who — in their worldview — control the government. As so understood, these anti-BDS enactments are incitements to antisemitic behavior by people already possessed of antisemitic propensities.

    (Ditto that stupid, evil, Bret Stephens NYT op-ed about how smart Ashkenazi Jews are: I mean who needed to read that? It was pure incitement of AS behavior. ( https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/dec/28/bret-stephens-new-york-times-jewish-intelligence-eugenics ))

Leave a Reply