Trending Topics:

Commenter Profile

Searching for: antisemitism (326 results found)

You can also use % as a wildcard: %ondoweis% will match mondoweiss

Showing comments 326 - 301

  • Zionists should be excluded from left-oriented protests
    • 1. "Even in its progressive manifestations, Zionism is in essence reactionary. Nearly all of its variations accept (or promote) structural iniquity mediated by state power. It therefore contravenes the fundamental aspirations of leftist protestors, who, whatever their disagreements, purport to share a desire for access and equality."

      It is in bad faith for anyone to refer to Zionism as reactionary. It is national liberation movement. Almost by definition, movements of national liberation are not reactionary. And of course, drilling down to the details, Israel remains the only country in the region that promotes anything resembling real minority rights and real civil and political rights.

      Salaita writes that leftist movements should not include reactionary forces. Would he ever dare apply that standard to people who march under the banner of respecting traditional religious worship? Like, say, Linda Sarsour, who insists on her right to wear a hijab and to worship as a traditional Muslim, and consciously marches for that objective? I certainly support her right to do so, but there is little that is more reactionary than the gender roles presumed by traditional Islam, and the vision of traditional religion, whether Islam, Christianity, or Judaism, is generally not a vision of access and equality.

      Moreover, leftists have a huge blind spot when it comes to their own reactionary forces. Anyone who has paid any attention to Venezuela, as great an example of reactionary leftist ideology as there is, knows that Chavez and Maduro were cause celebre on the global left - and still are.

      2. "Palestine is a central feature of the global left, both imaginatively and materially. Israel can be found in systems of colonization, imperialism, police violence, capitalism, militarization, border control, racialized citizenship, and incarceration."

      It's also a central feature of the global left not to support military intervention against genocidal dictators, and not to take a strong position against antisemitism. Moreover, the resistance movement is not synonymous with the global left. (Heaven forfend, given how awful the record of the global left on human rights.)

      3. "Liberal Zionists have a remarkable ability to dominate conversation. In their presence, we always seem fixated on their needs, their feelings, their anxieties, and their limitations. The Holy Land, if only by implication, ends up being the exclusive concern of American Jews, with Palestine serving as an occasional interruption. We intensely debate what is or isn’t anti-Semitism; how various Jewish demographics relate to Israel; why certain outcomes are unacceptable to Israelis; and where Israelis may be willing to compromise. Meanwhile, Palestinian sensibilities disappear into a bottomless void of settler anguish. I know this point will generate indignation and anger. I also know that the pattern I describe is pervasive and can be exhausting for Palestinians."

      This is really garbage. LIberal Zionists have an incredibly hard time being heard today. If there's one guarantee about being a liberal Zionist, it is that one will be attacked by everyone, the left for not being anti-Zionist and the right for not supporting Israel unreservedly. I'm sorry Steven Salaita doesn't like talking about antisemitism; he'd clearly rather talk about himself and about how he wishes settlers would be kidnapped. Those of us who have watched antisemitism surge, particularly across Europe, have noted the near-silence of the global left. Jews today are counciled not to cover their heads when they walk in public. What has Salaita said about that?

      I'm also sorry that he thinks that liberal Zionists, most of whom actually do the hard work of peacemaking instead of easy work of grandstanding, only care about Israelis and Jews. That's frankly a smear that has antisemitic overtones; Salaita is really saying here that Jews only care about Jews.

      Salaita can hide all he wants behind the bogus idea that excluding Zionists is not the same as excluding Jews because there are non-Jewish Zionists. I doubt he'd ever apply the same logic to any other minority group. The fact of the matter is that Zionism is synonymous with supporting the concept of a Jewish state, and the fact of the matter is that the people most affected by a no-Zionist policy are Jews, and Jews, like every other minority, retain the right to define what constitutes hatred against them, and not their loud critics, who seek to use anti-Zionism as a mask for their own bigotry.

  • Flynn's plea on Russian influence reveals... Israel's influence!
    • Predicably antisemitic response from Phil.

      Of course, nearly 2/3 of Americans did not support UN Resolution 2334. So if Jared Kushner is dually loyal, then I guess most of America deserves the same charge. But you're only bringing it out for Kushner because he's Jewish. #antisemitism #stopBDSantisemitism

  • It's my 'Jewish duty' to put aside differences with Trump and advocate for Israel, says CEO of American Jewish Committee
    • "When it was formed more than 110 years ago, the AJC was a non-Zionist group with many anti-Zionists among its leaders."

      Yes, many of the rich Jews who were involved in founding AJC were worried that standing up for the interests of Jews too loudly would result in antisemitism. As was true elsewhere. It's so interesting that you've chosen to identify with white supremacists on this issue of Jewish power.

  • Collective post-traumatic stress disorder – Jews, apartheid and oppression
    • "1) as von Treitschke (major 19th century German politician and historian wrongfully accused of antisemitism by racist Jews) "

      According to "historian" and apparently, neo-Nazi, YoniFalic, the man who popularized the phrase "The Jews are our misfortune" was not an antisemite.


  • 'Constructed crisis for political ends': anti-Semitism claims are prime weapon for UK Israel lobby, Al Jazeera shows
  • The immaculate conception of Louis Brandeis
    • Rosen probably left it out because, frankly, it's not really very important, and because there's about as much debate over this topic among historians as there is about climate change between scientists. Shapiro's view is an outlier that no one seems to endorse. Shapiro acknowledged that the evidence for the view was weak.

      In any case, Shapiro first made this claim in 1965 in the American Jewish Historical Quarterly; he turned the article into a book in 1971. It was pretty much debunked in 1973 by Stuart M. Geller in the same publication. You can find both articles on JSTOR.

      The claim was presented as an inference, and Shapiro seems to remain almost alone among historians in making it; there's a scholarly debate that's about as one-sided as the scholarly debate over whether climate change is real. Shapiro also quoted selectively from Brandeis's 1910 interview with de Haas; he quoted the portion of the interview where Brandeis rejected hyphenated identities, without including the portion of the same interview in which Brandeis expresses sympathy for the Zionist cause.

      Contrary to your nonsensical assumption here that those who disagree with Shapiro (which is virtually everyone), is motivated by pro-Zionist views, Shapiro himself cited Brandeis's biographer Alpheus Mason's view that Brandeis's involvement in the Zionist movement grew out his mediation of a garment worker strike in 1910. He calls Mason a competent biographer.

      As Shapiro's article concedes, Brandeis had many contacts with Jews and Judaism before 1913, including the garment workers, and those Jewish leaders he met when he campaigned with La Follette in 1912. Shapiro writes that antisemitism from business interests and from prominent Bostonians, and not opposition from Jewish business leaders like Jacob Schiff, was the main reason that Brandeis was denied a cabinet appointment. Though Brandeis generally did not discuss antisemitism in his letter, he was clearly the victim of it as a lawyer and as a confidante of Wilson's. Shapiro's contention is that the antisemitism that mitigated against Brandeis's appointment made the opinion of prominent Jews like Schiff more important.

      But contrary to your claim that strong evidence exists to support your viewpoint, Shapiro himself makes clear that it is "impossible from the available evidence to determine how effective the refusal of these Jewish leaders to stand by Brandeis on Wilson's final decision" not to include Brandeis in his list of Cabinet appointees. Shapiro merely infers that this was the case from Wilson's apparent desire to appoint someone Jewish who would be satisfactory to Schiff and his associates, and the fact that Brandeis began his association with Zionist a few days after he was denied a Cabinet appointment.

      The hypothesis doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Brandeis was well-known as a progressive lawyer and leader. He had support Robert La Follette during the 1912 election. Wilson's attempt to appoint him to be either Attorney General or Secretary of Commerce would have been met with overwhelming opposition by business leaders, and that is the most likely reason for his rejection for both positions, rather than Jacob Schiff's opinion that he was an unrepresentative Jew. Brandeis was also opposed by virtually the entire leadership of the Democratic Party in Massachusetts.

      Indeed, the isolated quote from the Schiff letter to Max Mitchell, which seems to be as much a remark to convey Schiff's annoyance with the assumption that Brandeis needed to be a representative Jew in order to merit a cabinet appointment, is the only written evidence that exists of any campaign on the part of rich German Jews to oppose Brandeis's nomination, and it's very weak evidence indeed; as Geller points out, there is no evidence of such a campaign in Wilson's papers or in the papers of Felix Warburg, who worked with Schiff.

      As Geller also points out, Wilson biographers place no great emphasis on Brandeis's Jewishness as the reason for his appointment to the Supreme Court; rather, they believe it was Brandeis's radicalism, and its contrast with the strict constructivism of James McReynolds, Wilson's 1914 appointment, that represented the reason. Brandeis's appointment, which occurred in the midst of the 1916 election season, was an example of Wilson's outreach to those progressives.

      As far as Taft, there were many reasons for Taft to hate Wilson and Brandeis; both men were Taft's political antagonists, and of course, Taft wanted the Supreme Court appointment that Brandeis got. Geller includes much more of Taft's letter in his piece, and it is clear that Shapiro's quoting was very selective. Taft hated Brandeis's progressivism much, much more than he detested Brandeis's alleged newfound love for Judaism.

      Shapiro's own article undermines his case. Besides telling De Haas of his sympathy for Zionism in 1910, in 1914, soon after he became active in the American Zionist movement, Brandeis told Louis Lipsky, the head of the Federation of American Zionists, that he regretted not being able to do so earlier for lack of time. That would be a much more obvious explanation than scheming on Brandeis's part to achieve an appointment, given Brandeis's demonstrated support for Zionism as early as 1910. Jacob Schiff did strongly support his appointment in 1916, but so did many progressives who were being courted by Wilson, and there is no reason to believe that Schiff's support made the difference then, or in 1912-13.

      I can see why you (and the antisemitic website jewworldorder, which republished this piece of yours), would be attracted to a theory that attributes to Jacob Schiff the power to decide who can and cannot be appointed to the Supreme Court. Theories attributing outsized power to rich Jews seem attractive to you, and to your commentators, like Ronald Johnson, who quotes from Holocaust denier David Irving's website to make an overt Der Sturmer-type antisemitic claim about Jews pushing the United States into World War I.

      This is also the latest example where you've adopted some outlier belief, and have rejected all contrary to that belief as "disingenuous," "dishonest," etc, any opinion contrary to yours is "preposterous," even if it comes from multiple scholars who have far more credibility on the topic than you do; you've adopted a minority scholarly view that accords with your presumptions.

  • John Kerry gives the 'separate but not equal' speech to Israel
    • Right, so according to you, about half the Jews in the world are assholes. But it's anti-Zionism, not antisemitism. No word on what you think of Arabs who live in states that are more ethnically pure by design than Israel will ever be.

  • Hell just froze over: the New York Times runs an article saying Zionism is racist
    • "Surely the interesting question is whether or not Judaism is silly and repugnant. "

      Actually, according to the stated rules at Mondoweiss, antisemitism isn't permitted. According to the reality at Mondoweiss, whether Judaism is silly and repugnant is perfectly permissible, but whether Islam is silly and repugnant is banned as Islamophobia, as per the written rules.

      So the sum total is that antisemitism is permitted here.

    • Yoni Falic claims to be a college professor. He's clearly lying. Someone this insecure, uncivil and silly could not possibly have received a PhD. Like a lot of fakes attempting to put one over here (there have been a whole run of them), he masked what amounts to garden-variety antisemitism with intellectual-sounding garbage. He is latest in a long line of pretend Pablo Christianis, dedicated not only to attacking Israel, but to Judaism itself, as he has countless times here, despite the stated rules against antisemitism.

      Clearly, Mondoweiss readers provide him with a platform and an audience.

      Just to take up one idea: I have no idea why he would argue that rabbinic Judaism does not originate in Palestine, or that the Talmud never caught on there. It is a strange claim. Rabbinic Judaism grew out of the Pharasaic Judaism of antiquity. It takes a person with a real axe to grind to suggest that the Oral Law is "fake", rather than to simply say the historical truth, which is that Pharasaic Judaism, and the Rabbinic Judaism that later grew from it, was distinguished by its reliance on Oral Law in addition to Biblical Law, a principle that was rejected by competing sects. Two of those sects, the Karaites and the Samaritans, exist today in small numbers.

      The Mishna and Talmud were ultimately compiled in exile precisely because these communities wanted to codify a Jewish way of life in the absence of a Temple. They were the basis of what developed into modern Judaism.

      The notion that a Jewish canon (canon meaning the Old Testament, not the Mishna) was compiled to compete with the Christian canon is one theory, and certainly not established scholarly fact. Whether it has veracity or not, it does not explain the Mishna and the Talmud that followed it. There were many other reasons to codify Jewish law; Rabbinic Judaism has a strong predecessor in Pharasaic Judaism, which distinguished itself from other sects by believing in an Oral tradition as well as a written one.

      When someone says that Rabbinic Judaism is fake, they're saying the Judaism as practiced throughout much of Jewish history is a fake religion. It's an antisemitic slur, reminiscent of what you might here in the medieval Catholic Church, and it's just as deplorable.

  • Jewish brawl on CNN signals breakup of the pro-Israel monolith in the Trump era
    • Still don't know why Keith is still allowing to post on a site where antisemitism is alleging not permitted.

  • 'Make this my dream as well' -- in historic appearance, Palestinian offers one-state vision to a NY temple
    • No. That's not what I said at all. What I've always said here is that a one-state solution would be a violent disaster, and that I'd seen nothing to convince me otherwise. That, combined with the callousness for Jewish life around the world that I see in the BDS movement, which won't even accept the reality of worldwide antisemitism, their role in causing it, or the privileged position from which they criticize Israel, makes me reject anyone who advances that cause and gives me reason to fear those who espouse it. I will say that generally, the vitriol is in inverse correlation to the distance of the speaker from the zone of conflict. Palestinians generally aren't crazy. Their Western supporters tend to be a little nuts.

      Most of you, predictably, won't take my point about tone, and it reminds me again of how much of this is just childish political posturing for most of you, rather than real action or accomplishment. Most of you would rather yell your heads off than accomplish anything.

  • Miserable night, bleak forecast
  • The dark side of Jewish consciousness: manufactured anti-Semitism
  • Jill Stein defends BDS in CNN town hall
    • And, yet another link to Rense, the Holocaust denial website.

      But it's anti-Zionism, not antisemitism, folks.

    • LOL. You're a joke, Citizen, just like this ridiculous antisemitic article. Yeah, Afghanistan and Iraq are "Zionist" wars and Zionists "subvert" America. It's anti-Zionism, folks, not antisemitism.

  • Chosen indeed: all 7 letters run by 'NYT' on Mideast article are by Jews
    • You have no clue what a modern campus is like if you think that antisemitism is perceived as the only important form of bigotry. It is exactly the opposite. It is rejected at every turn as a legitimate form of bigotry because Jews are perceived as white victims and because groups like SJP have cynically used campus racial strife to portray Jews as white and Palestinians as people of color, when neither is true.

  • Jewish organizations' response to Black Lives Matter platform demonstrates inability to engage with reality in Israel
  • Israel lobby panics about 'spoiled' next generation of American leaders turning against it
    • JVP may well be the fastest growing organization on campus that has "Jewish" in its name. Whether there's anything Jewish about it is another question. It seems like basically a fig leaf for anti-Israel activists to say nasty things about Jews, which JVP Jews then validate, much like Jewish converts to Christianity validated Church antisemitism a few hundred years ago. There is literally nothing that JVP won't validate. They couldn't even bring themselves to issue criticism of Joy Karega, the Oberlin prof who posted antisemitic conspiracy theories about the Rothschilds on Facebook and blamed Israel for 9/11, and then refused to apology for it. They are the embodiment of the South Park joke about antisemitic Jews who support Haman. See the Jewbilee episode.

      Any rational analysis must conclude that JVP is ultimately inconsequential. Most Jews on campus join no organization. Most of those that do will join other organizations before they'll join JVP. And in terms of growth and clout, young Orthodox Jews are far outpacing JVP Jews.

  • Clintonites on message: Vote for Trump, and you get Putin
  • As Dems vote against Palestine, Cornel West warns it is the 'Vietnam War' of our time
    • "No, it’s the moral response to the moral outrage that is the creation of the Zionist state, one of the great crimes of the 20th Century. "

      It says a lot about you that in a Century that featured the Holocaust, the Killing Fields, Soviet repression, and countless other atrocities, you view the founding of a Jewish state as one of the great crimes of the 20th Century.

      "There was a time when it was only leveled against someone who just plain disliked or hated Jews."

      Actually, antisemitism is a philosophy that opposes the influence of Jews and Jewish culture in society. It's completely apropos to describe the paranoia that leads people to worry about the influence of Jews in secular society, or to put it as Keith does, "the Judaization of the elite," because, you see, when Jews are in a position of power, they're in a position of power as Jews, their influence is "Jewish," and they act in their own interest, rather than the interest of the countries they inhabit. That's how that philosophy goes.

      Some people here may find Keith's bluntness a step too far, but he really does a very good job at doing what Phil does in a less nice and even more offensive way. He takes the euphemisms out.

      "I am actually quite proud that you once labeled something I wrote antisemitic."

      I'm sure you are. I'm sure that you feel quite ennobled when you think you're in the right and someone else calls you on your bias and privilege.

      "When your JSIL experiment has run its bloody course I will be proud to point to that if anyone asks me how I stood on this issue."

      I certainly expect that you will, whether Jews are massacred in the process or not.

  • Jewish entitlement, and Jewish populism
    • Keith was permitted to write about the "Judaization of the imperial elite" on a site that supposedly does not allow antisemitism.

      The moderators here must be very confused people


  • Clinton to Palestine: Drop dead
    • Because, you see, Yonah, when you talk about antisemitism, anti-Jewish bigots with guilt complexs take it as personal criticism. For them, mentioning antisemitism is the same as being anti-Gentile.

      And of course, Yonah, don't you know that there were Jewish communists? That means that there couldn't possibly have been Russian antisemitism. Or at least that if that was any, it was either the fault of the Jews or really Jew-on-Jew violence. And let me tell you, Yonah, these Jewish communists - even though they were atheists who suppressed the religion of their own people - they were Jews, and they must be highlighted as Jews, Yonah. What do you mean you've never heard Keith discuss the Eastern Orthodox religion of the vast majority of the Russians?

    • You appear to feel that because the writer mentioned the length, location, and nature of the antisemitism that Jews experienced, the writer is "anti-gentile."


    • "Quite possibly true and not all that surprising considering Jewish Zionist influence on the doctrinal system in general and the media in particular."

      Typical antisemitic response from Keith. If it comes out his way, rest assured he'll celebrate the outcome. If it doesn't, he blames the Jews.

      Then he cites an article about antisemitism in a Seattle newspaper and calls it "anti-gentile," which is his term for any article that discusses antisemitism in historical perspective.

    • "source?"

      It's the same poll. 62% of those asked agreed the statement that "The movement to boycott Israel is a modern form of antisemitism because it seeks to harm the national homeland of the Jewish people."

      33% agree with statement "Boycotting Israel is justified." 24% say that they'd support actions that lead to boycotting Israel.

      81% of those polled define themselves as pro-Israel and 19% define themselves as anti-Israel.

      So I have no idea why the Democratic Party would endorse something that more than 3/4 of the country opposes in service of a cause than more than 4/5 of the country opposes, and slightly under 2/3 finds to amount to hate.

  • The naked racism of 'Save Jewish Jerusalem'
    • "hophmi really wants us to believe that there’s no prejudism or hatred against Nonjews as Nonjews, because that would be … antisemitic"

      Yeah, it is. It's the same as complaining about anti-white attitudes in the Black community. As many African-Americans will tell you, African-Americans can't really be racist because racism connotes power and structure relationships, so accusing Blacks of being anti-white is like blaming the victims and excusing the acts of the racist by suggesting that the bigot is entitled to hate because the target of hate is also bigoted.

      It's exactly the same thing here. Jews are a small minority and were persecuted for a millenia and more in Europe. It's perfectly natural that a few Jews may harbor resentment toward non-Jews because of that history. The vast, vast majority do not, of course. In this antisemitic space, people seem to think that a bias against Gentiles is somehow innate to Jews. So they talk about it endlessly, and the point is to suggest that Jews are responsible for the violence done to them. It's no surprise that the same people who harbor these bigoted views are the ones quickest to doubt that antisemitism is a real problem today and the ones quickest to suggest that the persecution Jews experienced in Europe was somehow routine or the fault of the Jews themselves.

    • Page: 3
    • Anti-Gentilism is an antisemitic trope. And that's all it is. It should not be permitted on a site that forbids antisemitism.

  • American Jewish identity: Moving beyond 'love for Israel' and the Holocaust
    • No one is obligated to like another's cultural practices. I would posit, however, that criticism of cultural practice is often taken by other minority groups as a phobia of their religion, or, as the case may be, their race or ethnicity. Criticizing the profanity and misogeny in rap music is seen by many African-Americans as racism. Criticizing the treatment of women in the Middle East is often seen as a form of Islamophobia. Even criticism of BDS is often cast as Islamophobia.

      The context of a critique matters. If rich European countries with colonialist histories and genocidal pasts are the critics of what they term Israeli settler-colonialism, the critique has very little real value, and it is callous and offensive when it is made in a historically decontextualized manner. If Arab dictatorships are the critics of the shortcomings of Israeli democracy, what relevance does that critique have? If the United Nations, a body which suffers from structural antisemitism, allows countries like Iran to sit in judgment of Israel, how can you take their judgment seriously? And if the Zionist idea arises from historical European persecution, and Israel exists, not in some utopia, but in the real world, where most people lack basic freedom, minority rights are not generally respected, and people are dying en masse throughout the Middle East, what relevance is the critique of an America that, though protected by two oceans, has caused the deaths of more - far more - people in the last fifteen years than have died in the entire history of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict?

    • "Jews who see anti-Semitism as a serious problem lurking everywhere can never relate to their Gentile neighbors as their fellows. "

      Right, so if there's a serious antisemitism problem, it's anti-Gentile to point it out. Got it.

  • Dennis Ross tells American Jews, 'We need to be advocates for Israel' -- and not for Palestinians
    • Here's what you wrote:

      "when he says this he only means jews shouldn’t be exclusionary in relation to other jews. but ross, as a representative of the state department, doesn’t seem to have a problem with jews being exclusionary towards non jews under the same principle."

      First of all, he's not currently a representative of the State Department. Second of all, he's talking to a synagogue audience. Third of all, he's addressing intra-Jewish issues. None of this makes him anti-gentile, and your conclusion that he "doesn’t seem to have a problem with jews being exclusionary towards non jews under the same principle" is the editorial nonsense that you added.

      "when he says “We don’t need to be advocates for Palestinians. We need to be advocates for Israel” he doesn’t appear to grasp that as a representative of the state department his job (during negotiations) is to be an advocate of what’s best for america, our policy, and what’s best for peace or resolution. to be inclusive not exclusive with respect to all people. but for ross, it isn’t all people he’s concerned with."

      That's right, and believe it or not, most Americans believe that it's in America's best interest to favor the region's only stable democracy, rather than its many unstable dictatorships. And that's the clear implication. Antisemites have always purposely read the position of those who favor a strong US-Israel relationship as caring more about Israel than about the United States. That's garden-variety antisemitism, whether you care to admit it or not.

      "so as a reader — when he says “we are too small a people to be exclusionary” i don’t think he has a problem with excluding me."

      Well, he wasn't talking to you or about you, so I'm not sure how you draw this conclusion.

      " in the absence of balance, or advocacy for what’s fair to all people in principle, it’s not difficult to assess he is “anti” towards those who he does not afford the same principle."

      Again, there's no evidence that he's talking about the same thing that you're talking about here.

      " sure, one could say by advocating for non exclusionary practices towards fellow jews doesn’t necessarily mean he’s against non jews,"

      No, one couldn't "say" it. That's the only fair reading of what he said. Any other one is paranoid nonsense.

      "but if a gov official was advocating non exclusion for everyone except jews, wouldn’t you assess this to be bigoted against jews? wouldn’t you feel you were being excluded?"

      As Norman Finkelstein once said, this is like asking if Grandma were a baby buggy, would she have wheels? It makes no sense in context.

      "it’s the principle, it amounts to a special concern for jews only —"

      Again. This is a lecture at Central Synagogue. The implication of your paranoia that when Dennis Ross speaks to Jewish audiences, he's "excluding" you is that Jews should just not speak to Jewish audiences, or if they do, they should speak only in universalistic language that makes you feel comfortable.

      "which is what zionism does — in practice."

      In a state in the Middle East, a region where every other state has a weaker record on minority rights.

      "given his bias, he should not be representing our government as anything other than a representative for jewish people. in any kind of policy decisions or negotiations, as long as ross is participating, there should be another US government official representing non jews — and for good measure a few more representing all americans."

      This is so hateful - the idea that because Ross identifies as a Jew, he can't represent the United States, and that the United States needs someone to represent "non-Jewish" interests - my G-d, Annie, can't you see how bigoted that kind of statement is? As if supporting Israel were Jewish and not supporting it were "non-Jewish."

      "Clinton would air her disagreements with Israel “in private,” he said, and it’s “a whole lot easier for Israel” to take steps toward peace if it knows the U.S. is on its side."

      So I guess that if Clinton becomes President, there will need to be another President to represent the "non-Jews," right? Or does this not apply since Clinton isn't Jewish?

      "yes, and it would be a whole lot easier for palestinians to take those steps if they knew the US was on their side too, but as an intermediator, the US should not take sides."

      I don't know whether it would or it wouldn't be, but there are lots of countries on the side of the Palestinians.

      "it’s beyond hypocritical to hold a position that says the oppressed and the oppressor can only find resolution by direct negotiations knowing the deck is stacked against the oppressed"

      Is it stacked against the oppressed? Most countries seem to support the Palestinians.

      " — and then stack the deck even more by backing the oppressor. seriously, if the US government stacked the decks (with billions offering a military quantitative edge) towards israel’s opponents and against israel interests, you’d be the first to scream anti semitism."

      Actually, I'd just say that's really bad policy on the US's part.

      " and you have the nerve to lecture others on “ethnic slur”."

      You've proved many times over that you're a bigot, and you did so again here, suggesting that Jewish members of the State Department need non-Jewish counterparts to represent the American interest.

      Disgusting, Annie. Just disgusting.

      - See more at:

  • Clintonites oppose 'occupation' mention in platform-- as Cornel West says party is 'beholden to AIPAC'
    • "That will be followed by a demand that we goyim recognise the superiority of Jews over us . "

      More overt antisemitism at Mondoweiss.

    • "What the Hell is an advocate for a foreign nation doing on the Dem platform committee drafting committee? "

      Right, because calling for a two state solution makes someone an advocate for a foreign country.

      It's not antisemitism, folks. It's anti-Zionism. #bdsfail

    • Wexler, who leads the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace, which has long worked for a two-state solution, also called for a contiguous Palestinian state. You seem to have missed that.

      There was one person who booed, and it was the same guy who loudly yelled out when West claimed that the Democratic Party had been beholden to AIPAC for too long.

      Also interesting how you did not mention West's understanding of the preoccupation of Jews with security after 2000 years of persecution and hatred. Or his acknowledgement that antisemitism went "hand-in-hand" with most Christian and Islamic civilizations.

  • Democratic Party leadership lines up against BDS -- and the 'nuts' who support it
    • "and it’s anti semitic to report ““Rep. Israel said that he didn’t vote against the Iran deal last year for political reasons, but because he’s Jewish” ?"

      Well, first of all, that's NOT WHAT HE SAID. He said that it was in his DNA, not that he voted against the JCPOA because he's Jewish.

      "no one is required to run around interviewing christian or muslim legislators for counter opinions to deflect from possible future charges of anti semitism. "

      This site has made dual loyalty-type accusations about Jewish members of Congress dozens of times. It is the kind of thing that is only ever directed at a minority group. No one asks whether white legislators vote a certain way because they're white, but people ask this about African-American legislators all the time, particularly when it's on an issue of importance to the African-American community. No one ever asks whether Southern Baptist members of Congress vote the way that they do because they're Southern Baptists, but if a Congressperson is a Jew, and he votes a certain way on an issue of concern to the Jewish community, it must be because he's Jewish. And of course, if he suggests that he was motivated in any way by religion, bigots seize on that to suggest that Jews put their own before everyone else. It's pretty classic antisemitism.

      "before jumping for top comment, which we understand is a priority for you (and trolls in general), try opening the embeds and reading the context regarding what you’re opining on"

      You must be kidding. Phil is basing his conclusion on Jacob Kornbluh's tweet. There's no transcript that I know of, and the webcast isn't up yet. So it's beyond ironic that you're telling ME that I should "read the context" of what I'm opining on. How about you people wait a hot second for the transcript or the webcast before you (predictably) suggest that Steve Israel's Jewishness is the main reason that he voted against the JCPOA?

      What makes you look like a bigger idiot is that I was actually there, so I can tell you that that's not the impression that Steve Israel gave.

      "Out of my DNA" is not quite the same thing as saying "because I'm Jewish." It can mean a lot of things. It can be "in your DNA" not to vote for agreements with countries you deem hostile to the United States.

      Israel said one of his main reasons for voting against the deal was that it didn't address Iran's ballistic missile stockpile. He didn't just say that it was because of his DNA, and he certainly didn't say: "I voted against the JCPOA because I'm Jewish."

      There should be a webcast of his speech up in a day or so, so we can check to see exactly what he said in context. As usual, the notion that Israel's Jewishness is the main reason that he voted the way that he did is deeply antisemitic, and it's the kind of thing that you'd never analyze for any of the hundreds of non-Jewish members of Congress of both parties that voted against the JCPOA, and frankly, Annie, you damn well know it.

      As I said, many non-Jewish members of Congress voted against the JCPOA. I'm not aware of any effort made by this site to ascertain whether their religion was the reason that they voted the way that they did. As I've said many times, examining whether members of minority groups took certain policy positions because they were members of those groups has a long and sordid history in the United States, and the practice is per se bigotry as far as I'm concerned.

  • Sharansky disses American Jews for assimilating, then tells 'major donors' to universities to stop BDS
    • Right, because a single story about some Jewish student painting a swastika on her own door automatically discredits every other story of antisemitism on campus. You're a joke, talknic. You're the kind of person who would have questioned reports of concentration camps in 1944 by suggesting that the Jews were making it up.

      People on this site always, always, always, respond to antisemitism issues by denying that antisemitism is a problem or by suggesting that people are fabricating the claims. That's another indicator that BDS has a serious antisemitism problem.

      "No, sorry, I am very well acquainted with campus BDS. Jewish students absolutely are not targeted, not ever. - See more at:"

      I'm well acquainted with campus BDS as well. So far, I've seen pro-BDS student groups produce special signs for Jewish students to hold expressing their pro-BDS views, which is a little like a conservative anti-affirmative action organization making signs for Blacks to hold that say things like, "Another Black against Affirmative Action." I've seen people write in campus newspapers that the Holocaust should be given less prominence because the victims were "white." I've had Jewish students tell me that they were heckled when they complained about how BDS activists were using antisemitic language on campus. I've heard people dismiss the concerns of Jews on campus because they're "white and privileged." Don't tell me that Jews aren't being targeted.

      "You are so paranoid. BDS activists on campus are just ordinary college students who have no control over funding for other student groups and have no mechanism for restricting the funding of other student groups."

      I've seen pro-BDS students who sit in student government attempt to deny funding to groups like J Street.

      "You sound ridiculous."

      You sound like a person who is either very dense or very ignorant about how a college campus works.

  • Once, most Jews viewed Israel as the anti-semite's best friend
    • Once, most Jews were afraid to speak their minds for fear of what others might think.

      Do you guys ever recognize the irony of what you say here? You claim that antisemitism is overblown, and then you talk about how great it was when Jews self-censored in order to avoid opprobrium from antisemites. And you wonder why people think that anti-Zionism and antisemitism is the same thing.

  • An apologia for Ken Livingstone (What would Buber say?)
  • Harvard biotechnology conference whitewashes Israeli occupation
    • LOL. Or, it was a meeting to discuss an biotechnology issue. Believe it or not, it's unusual to discuss politics at Biotechnology conference. In fact, if I decided to attend such a conference and insisted that the participants discuss Chinese prison practices, I'd probably be thrown out of the room. I guess if something like this were organized by a France company or university, you'd be complaining that it was whitewashing French antisemitism and Islamophobia, right?

  • Advice to British leftwingers on kicking racism out of their anti-Israel rhetoric
    • I admire Mondoweiss for printing Robert Cohen's common sense piece on how irresponsible and antisemitic speech takes the focus away from Palestinians. I've made similar points here many, many times.

      Judging by the reaction here, it's a lesson few anti-Zionists will learn. Antisemitism is endemic to the BDS movement. Zionism/Nazism analogies are endemic to it. So are narratives about ethnically cleansing Jews from Israel. And sometimes it seems like anti-Zionism wouldn't be anti-Zionism without complaining, as Mondoweiss does almost daily, about Jews controlling the media. The New York Times has a highly assimilated Jewish owner! This explains its liberalish editorial position!

      But Mondoweiss seems tethered to bigotry and to the incorporation of classically anti-Jewish views into the BDS movement and into the anti-Zionist movement. So sad.

  • 'Her absurd generals, her military junk' -- Daniel Berrigan's prophetic speech on Israel in '73
    • Of course, what Berrigan's speech shows is that the radical left has always had a yen for Arab dictators, and that has led to its absorption of the antisemitism that pervades Arab societies.

      It's also interesting that you leave out Berrigan's anti-Arab racism. Berrigan claimed that Arabs have a "capacity for deception." By Berrigan's logic, the other states in the Middle East constituted "criminal Muslim communities."

      And of course, the speech is the same brand of ignorant ridicuousness we often hear from the radical left about Israel. In 1973, Israel was still basically a socialist state; Berrigan claims that it had not yet dealt with poverty and misery. American Jews were active in the antiwar movement; Berrigan called out American Jews to an audience doubtless primed to believe the worst about Jews.

      But typically, Mondoweiss defends this kind of extreme speech, which calls Israeli Jews and American Jewish leaders criminal.

  • 'Forward' columnist and Emily's List leader relate 'gigantic,' 'shocking' role of Jewish Democratic donors
    • "The traditional definition generally follows the line that anti-Semitism is the irrational hatred of Jews just because they are Jews."

      Actually, the definition of antisemitism is to be opposed to the influence of Semitism (which is used as a synonym for Judaism in this context) on European culture. The 19th century writer who coined the term, and artists like Richard Wagner, who were examples of the intellectual line of thought, felt threatened by the presence of relatively newly emancipated Jews on European culture. Wagner wrote about it in musical terms.

      That's why I find so much of Phil's writing to be problematic. His critiques actually are in that modern mode of taking the presence of Jews in general society and the power they possess as individuals, and creating a myth that they exercise it collective, as Jews, for the benefit of Jews, and to the detriment of everyone else. Jews are responsible for the Iraq War, because a few Jews supported the war (and of course, no one else did). Jews own a lot of newspapers. A Jew owns the New York Times! So because a Jew owns the New York Times (even if he's very highly assimilated), he must use his influence, as a Jew, to dictate the editorial direction of the paper to the benefit of the Jewish collective, and to the detriment of everyone else. Disregard the fact that the most rabidly pro-Israel national newspaper is owned by an Australian Christian, or that many newspapers that take a similar editorial line to the Times are owned by non-Jews, or that the invidious fallacy that because an owner is a Jew, he must therefore act as a Jew, on behalf of other Jews.

      "The current operational definition of anti-Semitism is any activity which interferes with the agenda of Zionist Jews."

      This is the definition that antisemites like to use to caricature the Jewish community. In reality, while a few rightists might propound this definition, just as many Islamists might define Islamophobia as any criticism of Islam or Muslim countries, most Jews do not take this view.

      "It is a tactic used to justify Israeli actions (safe haven from anti-Semitism, etc), and of intimidation to squelch any discussion of Jewish power and the political economy."

      I've never heard anyone ever suggest that it was antisemitic to discuss power in the Jewish community. What is antisemitic is to do it by assuming that because people were born into a certain religion, they must therefore act as members of that religious group principally on behalf of others in that group, to the detriment of everyone else. What is antisemitic is to endlessly discuss Jewish power without placing it into some meaningful comparative context, such as mentioning that Jews are under 2% of the population, that Jews have a long history of working harder than almost any other affluent minority for universal social justice, that Jews have been targeted by divisive campaigns throughout history meant to force them either to convert or to assimilate, etc. It's like talking about crime in the Black community without discussing institutional racism. It's like talking about terrorism in the Muslim community without mentioning that the vast, vast majority of Muslims are peaceful people. It's a form of covert, and sometimes overt, bigotry.

      " The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are frequently referenced along with Blood Libels and lately Pablo Christiani and Father Coughlin."

      Well, of course, when the topic is J.J. Goldberg's comments, and the part where J.J. said that we hadn't heard people making certain kinds of comments "since Father Coughlin," I think it becomes relevant to mention Father Coughlin. When a political movement uses Jews who are harshly critical of their own faith, like Israel Shahak, to talk about what Judaism is, I think mentioning Pablo Christiani, and the use of such Jews by hegemons throughout history to justify persecuting the Jewish community, are relevant. And when people talk about Jews as fifth columnists and as tribalists who are only interested in themselves, I think mentioning the Protocols is relevant.

      "Also, if you link to your quote will be tainted even though Google led you there"

      A man is defined by the company he keeps. Rense has been cited enough here to suggest to me that at least a portion of Mondoweiss commentators are Holocaust deniers of one form or another.

      "I find it curious that these Zionists seem to have such an intimate knowledge of these “anti-Semitic” websites, apparently they spend a lot of time there."

      Unfortunately, history has taught us to be vigilant.

    • Well, Lillian, they're quite routine here. And they're evidence of a serious antisemitism problem within the BDS movement.

  • Democratic debate: Is Netanyahu welcome at White House on Day 1 or an arrogant, deceptive asshole?
    • Keith can't handle the truth, unfortunately.

      First he does the usual two step where he claims, after making statement after statement about Jews and tribalism, that he's just referring to Zionists.

      Then, he ignores his bigoted statements about Jews using advocating multiculturalism to advance themselves and then abandoning it when it no longer benefited them and says "didn't Jews benefit from multiculturalism?" as if this is what the argument was about, and then asking why Jews need Israel if they believe in multiculturalism. I suppose that the Irish don't need Ireland, and the Chinese don't need China. One sign of intelligence is the ability to hold two ideas in your head at the same time. Keith doesn't seem to possess that quality.

      Then he referred to the frankly uncontroversial history of antisemitism in Europe and the culmination of centuries of hatred in the Holocaust as a "Zionist construct."

      Then he complains about personal attacks in the Mondoweiss comment section, LOL.

      What a joke this guy is.

    • "For a variety of reasons, American Jews have a relatively strong sense of tribal identity, even as they have promoted multiculturalism for non-Jews. One consequence is that non-Jews have come to accept Jews (who they usually are unable to identify as Jews in any event) as an integral part of the body politic, whereas, many Jews continue to see the world through the eyes of Jews as apart from non-Jews."

      You see, no matter how much Jews may assimilate, people like Keith will continue to tell us that we're "tribal." But this takes the cake. We "promoted" multiculturalism for other people without practicing it ourselves, you see. It was all a grand plot to get people to like us. We didn't take stances on religious liberty, church-state separation, civil rights because we wanted a better society. We don't continue to vote overwhelming Democratic because we favor civil liberties. No. It's all about us.

      "Multiculturalism is very different from tribalism and sectarianism which seek to divide a society based upon tribal groupings, each exhibiting an “us” versus “them” group loyalty which fundamentally rejects a unified society of diverse equals. The tribe is more concerned with the group than with the individual member."

      Right, it's always us vs them with those damn Jews.

      "The “us” versus “them” emphasis in Jewish tribalism which exists in varying degrees and which usually manifests itself when widely different individual Jews (Orthodox and secular, for example) unite as Jews to pursue a “Jewish” agenda."

      Right, because when Jews collectively pursue policy goals, they do it for themselves and for no other reason. No, there's nothing whatsoever ethnocentric or bigoted about this thinking. I mean, you've seen Keith talk about other groups this way, right? Other minority groups have no organizations dedicated to their better welfare who pursue goals that they believe are for the betterment of the society in which they live. It's only Jews who form organizations.

      "One characteristic of Jewish tribalism which may be unique is the transnational nature of the tribal identity"

      Ah yes, The International Jew. The Cosmopolitan Jew, who must never advocate for himself or his people, lest he be accused of being a Fifth Columnist, a tribalist, an "Other."

      "such that Israel can claim to be the state of world Jewry and the French CRIF is a member of the World Zionist Organization and can count on American Jewish Zionist support as they pursue a Jewish Zionist agenda in France. I am unaware of any other self-defined ethnic group which yields this type of power."

      Mostly, French CRIF worries about the high rate of violent antisemitism in France. I guess that's pursue Zionist agenda for you.

      Gee, I can't understand why Jews would care about one another in other countries. I mean, we've never seen this ever with anyone else. Does it have something to do with the fact that there are only around 14,000,000 Jews in the world? Does it have to do with the fact that a third of the world's Jewish population was wiped out 70-75 years ago?

      But maybe not. American Muslims don't care about other Muslims, right? There's no major international Christian organization that wields much transnational power, except, oh, what the hell is it called - the CATHOLIC CHURCH. Do they wield any power?

      "Confining ourselves to individuals, the factors would be the same for any individual whether Jew or non-Jew. Education, ambition, hard work, etc. Once anyone climbs high enough in any organization, organizational politics plays a key role. Machiavelli placed a great emphasis upon artful deception and cunning, which I tend to agree with."

      So when Jews go far as a community, they do it deceptively and with fraud.


    • Keith: "All you do is name call."

      Keith: "As for Simone Zimmerman, she is rather obviously an anti-Zionist tribalist[.]"

      Keith: "You are the very essence of tribalism"

      Keith "Again and again you fulminate with vile accusations."

      Again and again you think criticizing the history of European antisemitism is akin to labeling all Gentile as murderous Jewhaters because, like most white supremacists, you can't deal with that criticism. And as usual, you selectively quote in order to support your bigotry.

      Please tell me which major Jewish organizations complained about "reverse discrimination." Maybe you can tell me which Jewish politicians in the Congress oppose affirmative action. Also, please tell me which minority groups have been as active historically as the Jewish community was in helping the African-American community, and when it was that Jewish community "threw the African-American community under the bus." The civil rights movement took a turn toward sectarianism in the late 1960's, when militant leaders decided that Jews were too white for the civil rights movement. And by the way, opposition to racial quota was a principled stance based on the Jewish experience with anti-Jewish quotas in the first half of the 20th Century. Most Jews supported race-based affirmative-action post-Bakke when the Supreme Court made clear that racial quotas were unconstitutional, though some major Jewish organizations have remained opposed to race-based affirmative action.

      While major Jewish organizations have historically opposed race-based affirmative action, they have supported class-based affirmative action. The ADL supports class-based affirmative action. So did the AJCongress. The AJCommittee filed a lead amicus on behalf of UMich in the Grutter case. Jewish organizations have worked with the NAACP on discrimination issues many times. So you're quite wrong, and you're engaging in revisionist history when you suggest that Jews used African-Americans primarily to advance themselves. In fact, you're making my point for me; for antisemites, when Jews act as a group to benefit others, they're just trying to help themselves.

  • Sanders hires a Jewish critic of Israel, as Clinton gets 'Daily News' nod as 'warrior realist'
    • "Seeing that the main excluders of “Jews of color” are, in the order, the Zionist governments "

      Blah, blah, blah, LOL. Israel has more Jews of color than anyplace else in the world, including over a hundred thousand Ethiopian Jews, and millions of brown Jews from the rest of the Middle East. Get your facts straight.

      "BDSers make racist comments about white Jews? "

      Yes, frequently. BDSers essentialize Jews as white all the time in order to dismiss their concerns about antisemitism. See, if you label it white, you can argue that their concerns about oppression don't matter because they're the beneficiaries of white privilege. If you acknowledge that Jews are a religion, rather than a race, and that Jews are White, Black, Brown, and every color in between, then that argument is weaker.

  • Israeli journalist Derfner succinctly analyzes the anti-Semitism vs. anti-Zionism debate
    • "hops, just cuz you hang w/the absolutist crowd (anti-Semitism = anti-Zionism) doesn’t mean your opposition is also absolutist i say that because nobody claimed “Zionists are Islamophobic” — albeit — clearly and obviously many are."

      I don't hand with the absolutist crowd. That's your deal; you're the one who tends to view the world in black and white.

      "if we ran into eachother on the street and you were wearing red pants and i told you that red pants symbolized racism and therefore you were a racist it would not be ‘whataboutery’, if, in your response to me, you noted i was wearing red pants. that’s not a diversion, it’s pertinent to the conversation."

      Do you understand how analogies work? This is not a matter of red pants. This is the equivalent of me telling you that your house is on fire and you reacting by telling me that the real problem is that there are forest fires in California.

      This is a version of an endemic problem here - the denial that antisemitism is a serious problem. You've frequently denied it in the French context. Others, like Keith, blame Jews for antisemitism. Here, your response is to react by talking about Islamophobia. That's not a response. That's the definition of whataboutery. It's part of the anti-semitic atmosphere at Mondoweiss that reflects that antisemitism that is endemic to the BDS movement.

    • "This belief that Gentiles are the eternal enemy of Jews motivates much Zionist thought and action. One has only to observe some of our Zionist commenters to observe this phenomenon on full display."

      Antisemite trope #115. This is Keith's old and tired line that he trots out to smear people with whom he disagrees; you see, the problem is that most Jews hate Gentiles.

      Since he's clearly referring to me here, I do not believe that Gentiles are the "eternal enemy" of the Jews, and I do not believe that Zionists are motivated by that belief. I believe that Jews are motivated by historical experience, pure and simple. Some religious Jews who have internalized historical antisemitic tropes of Jews being an eternal enemy of Christians may reverse the trope and say that Gentiles are an eternal enemy of Jews, but Zionists like Theodore Herzl were principally motivated by a desire to escape European anti-Jewish hatred, and that's the long and short of it.

      It's really a classic antisemitic trope - you invert antisemitism by claiming that it's really Jews who have attacked Gentiles, and not the other way around. Keith does this all the time; you talk about persecution that Jews have experienced, and he goes into old canards about peasants suffering at the hands of Jewish financiers.

  • Zionism is not really secular
    • "The Czarist Empire had an internal passport system, and the peoples of the Czarist Empire were more or less restricted to their historical homelands. For descendants of Yiddish-speaking Jewish communities that area was Czarist Poland + some provinces added to this region. Jews of other ethnicities were restricted to other areas."

      Right, again, so Yoni's ridiculous argument is that the selective integration of a few assimilated Jews in the 19th century, which resulted in restrictions on their admittance to universities and professions because, like American elites in the first half of the 20th century who used quota systems to restrict the number of the Jews in their schools, somehow negates the existence of antisemitism in Czarist Russia. You can't make this garbage up.

    • "I said that relatively speaking they were not a persecuted people compared to other people, primarily the peasants whom they helped the nobility to subjugate and control."

      Right, the frequent massacres and expulsions of Jews throughout the Middle Ages, culminating in the murder of 6,000,000 of them at once was not persecution.

      " Pogroms notwithstanding, they had relatively more power and privilege than the average Gentile"

      Thanks for the privilege of more than half of my people's population on the European continent being murder in the span of six years. This is all irrelevant nonsense. I'm sorry if you're resentful that a few Jews, restricted from most jobs, but focused on learning, took up lending, and as a result, became influential. Jealously of the financial success of this elite has always been a major motivating factor for antisemites. Get over it. Gentiles in Europe are not peasants anymore. They're wealthy people from the world's richest countries.

      "Can you even conceive of a Black Rothschilds?"

      Can you conceive of a relevant argument?

      "The Jews have always been RELATIVELY privileged."

      Can someone get me the world's tiniest violin?

      " Why do you deny this?"

      Because it is the same nonsense that antisemites always talk about - Jews are financially successful and influential; let's stop them.

      "Why do you continue to pretend that the relatively powerful and privileged Jews are victims?"

      Why do you continue to be unable to understand that power and privilege aren't bulwarks against antisemitism, and that your obsessive jealous of successful Jews is exactly the kind of BS that antisemites have always used to motivate bigots to kill Jews?

      " Are American Jews subject to persecution? Is AIPAC weak? Is the current reality unique? Or have Jews had political/economic power for centuries?"

      American Jews have thankfully been free from persecution for a couple of generations, and we no longer must worry that the elevation of this or that leader might threaten our community. That reality is indeed quite unique in history; in most countries, Jewish success depended on who was in power. Franz Joseph? Not bad. Ferdinand and Isabella? Big problem. Czar Alexander II? OK. Czar Alexander III? Hide your kids.

      But you are reminding my people again that when some Jews do achieve some measure of success in countries with a non-Jewish majority, there will always be jealous bigots like you who crawl out of the woodwork to complain that it's too much, that Jews are acting as a group to destabilize your society, and so on.

    • And here we have that brand of anti-Zionism that denies Jews were actually ever persecuted in Europe because (?) Black slavery. Keith, you win the stupid straw man award.

      Also, ladies and gentlemen, it's bizarre to note that antisemitism before the Shoah had any relationship to the antisemitism that resulted in the Shoah. Anti-zionism, you see. Norman Finkelstein's book continues as the uncontested leader in cited worked on the Holocaust at Mondoweiss. Interesting.

    • Keith reminds us that antisemitic tropes about Jews in finance, characterized by the usual comments about Jews were prominent in finance, usually because they were banned from other trades. Did you get that quote from Rense, Keith? I notice they have it there.

      "The Eastern European converts to Judaism never lived in exile, and Jews never lived in submission"

      Here we go again with the peasants-had-it-worse so shut-up-and-don't-complain bullshit and the antisemitism-was-really-a-peasant-revolt bullshit, which is one step removed from Nazi-Holocaust-was-really-about-Jews-and-finance bullshit.

      As if Keith was trying to go for most garden-variety antisemite of the year, he manages to complain about Judeo-Bolshevism at the same time as he complains about Jews in finance. Sense the common thread yet? Maybe Keith could save himself some time by just posting a link to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in lieu of commenting, since his comments amount to the same thing.

      It's complete with a selective quote from Benjamin Ginzburg's book, which is not just a touchstone for antisemitic websites like and the people who patronize them who wish to argue that Jews have too much power and that they were idenitified with 19th century excess, but an actual, in-depth history book about how Jewish communities were left with little choice but to become close to regimes, and how these often become the basis for antisemites like Keith to complain about Jewish power. But perhaps Keith should also pay attention to Jonathan Sarna's criticism of Ginzburg for confusing 19th century perceptions of Jews with the reality, which is that Jews experienced antisemitism whether they were allied with the state or not. He should also pay attention to the book itself, which is an analysis of antisemitism, and not the get-out-of-bigotry-free card that Keith seems to think that it is.

      The same goes for people who use outliers like Israel Shahak to say the things that they themselves know are antisemitic. It's amazing that with the thousands of books written by historians on Jewish history, that no one book seems to come up more here than the polemical one written by the atheist chemist.

  • 'Zionism is nationalism, not Judaism,' a former Hebrew school teacher explains
    • "Who cares how many Jews are billionaires"

      Apparently, Keith does, and he's not the only one here who does.

      " .Best of luck to them.What we care about is those billionaires , (Saban and Adelson , for instance ) ,who use their wealth to

      A, Interfere in the affairs of sovereign nations , by attempting to bribe their leaders ( often in opposition to the wishes of their citizens ) to support the crimes of Israel ."

      To bribe who? You mean, they lobby for a cause that they believe in like, oh, EVERYONE ELSE IN AMERICA?

      This you call "Interfering in the affairs of sovereign nations." Hey, Amigo! Guess what? Both are American citizens. So they're not interfering in anybody's affairs. They're lobbying their government, which they have a perfect constitutional right to do. Your language about "interfering in the affairs of sovereign nations" is antisemitic hate speech meant to cast them not as Americans doing what they believe is right, but as Jewish fifth columnists attempting to consciously undermine the United States for not doing their bidding. I guess you'd say that Muslim-Americans who lobby Congress to support investigations into Egyptian war crimes are also interfering in the affairs of sovereign nations. What a bigot you are.

      "B, To pay for birthright trips for neophyte Congress ?Senate critters with the goal of brainwashing them and ensuring they start their careers as servants of Israel instead of those who elected them."

      Guess what, Amigo? No one is required to go on an AICE trip (where, by the way, members of Congress will hear from both Israelis and Palestinians). You're more than welcome to organize trips to the West Bank and Gaza for the same group of people.

      "C, Support the construction of illegal squats on land stolen from Palestinians."

      Haim Saban is supporting settlement construction? In any event, Americans support all kinds of causes. Some I agree with, some I don't. But I don't question people's patriotism over it.

      There,s lots more , but you get the idea which is not the point of this post.It is offered as food for thought for those readers who might be fooled by your attempts to raise the specter of antisemitism where none exists."

    • "It always amazes me the extent to which you Zionists tirelessly search for examples of anti-Semitism. Once again I find myself compared to someone I never heard of. I gather that you have read him rather extensively. Actually, you seem quite obsessed with searching for the faintest hints of what you falsely claim is anti-Semitism. You wear your anti-Gentile chauvinism on your sleeve, Hophmi."

      I imagine you're amazed on a regular basis, especially since you talk a lot about antisemitism but don't even know who the progenitor of the term is. Marr defined anti-semitism as being against the influence of Jewish culture on European, and particularly German, society. You're worried about the influence of Jews on American society. That's why you obsess over how much money Jews have, how many are billionaires, etc.

    • You've highlighted Thier on here how many times now? Why? Because she thinks that Israel (sorry, the "Zionist entity" a la Iranian leaders) is an unredeemable place based on the Holocaust where no change will come from within and she supports BDS. This must be a truly enlightening experience for your readership. I bet they've never heard from pro-BDS anti-Zionist Jews before.

      When are you going to highlight someone in the BDS movement who is willing to take on the antisemitism in the BDS movement or who supports a two-state solution? That would be different.

  • Sanders is in Jewish tradition that rejected exceptionalist nationalism of Zionism
    • "Had trouble getting jobs as bus drivers, day laborers, and domestic help did they?"

      Do you have a point? They had trouble getting professional jobs.

      "Correct! If you actually read the links provided by Mooser and Sibiriak, it is quite clear that the notorious right -wing Albert Shanker was determined to sabotage community control even though that eventually cost the teachers union dearly."

      The "right-wing Albert Shanker?"

      LOL. Even the polemical links that they provided don't refer to the civil rights activist Al Shankar, who marched on Washington, in Selma, and was supported during the strike by Bayard Rustin and A. Philip Randolph, would describe him as "right-wing."

      "Firing? What firing? Did you not read Sibiriak’s quote, or don’t you care anything for facts?"

      They were dismissed from their positions, in violation of the contract. There is no other source I've seen that makes the claim that McCoy had the ability to transfer teachers without due process or that he tried to bring them back. It's a laughable claim. The teachers tried to return, since the Board's dismissal had no legal basis, and they were blocked by hundreds of activists. As usual, you're hearing what you want to hear, and ignoring any source (which in this case is every source other than the one you're citing) that would challenge your beliefs.

      "Have you no shame? Shanker was the Jewish head of a Jewish fiefdom"

      Again, your antisemitism is showing, and the moderator is facilitating it by allowing you to post nonsense like this. Shankar was indeed a civil rights activist, and there is no one who disputes this except antisemites like you. Lines like this are per se antisemitism.

      I think I'll go back to not dealing with you, Keith. You're a recalcitrant bigot, and you should be banned from posting here. No wait, this is Mondoweiss, where antisemites are welcome. So it's totally unsurprising that you continue to be permitted to post antisemitic lines about Jews and "Jewish fiefdoms" to describe Jewish civil rights activists who marched on Washington, in Selma, and worked to expand opportunity for Blacks and Hispanics who wanted to teach.

  • A 'longtime activist for social justice,' Booker worries his anti-BDS stance will 'rankle' and 'upset' people
    • "The time is approaching swiftly when you cannot maintain that you are an activist for social justice and are working against the Palestinian call to do something about their disfranchisement."

      Yes, BDS activists are definitely a nasty bunch, and they'll harass those who don't agree with their perspective by smearing them as racist, as they've done on college campuses throughout the country; like most political extremists, they don't understand how to disagree without being disagreeable. That's what Booker is referring to, and not the Democratic base, which continues to reject BDS, as do the overwhelming majority of Americans. People do get tired of this bullying after a while, and they instinctively realize that political movements that reject dialogue, and that describe themselves as a way of supporting Intifada, aren't non-violent and peaceloving; they're just partisans for a national cause cynically using the language of human rights to win over ignorant young people who know zero about the Middle East, Israel, or Palestine.

      BDS activists continue to do locally what Arab dictatorships do on the world stage - obsessively and selfishly push the Palestinian issue in every forum, forcing people to prioritize it above everything else, including civil rights issues in the United States. Fortunately, people are starting to realize how much antisemitism there is in the BDS movement, and the tide is beginning to turn against the discrimination is advocates.

  • Zionism is finally in the news, as officials seek to conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism
    • If it's not gonna happen, then I guess there's no real difference between anti-Zionism and antisemitism.

    • There's one main reason people equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism, even though the two can technically be distinguished intellectually. It's because there is a tremendous amount of antisemitism in the anti-Zionist community, which that community does little or nothing to address. Your constant Jew-baiting through conspiracy theories about Jews causing the Iraq War and controlling American foreign policy, the repetition here of lists of Jewish billionaires, the denialist posture you take toward the growing antisemitism problem in Europe and on campus, and your growing presence on the web because of the promotion of these antisemitic theories, and not in spite of them, are all part of why people view anti-Zionism and antisemitism as two sides of the same coin.

      When you add all of that to the selective obsession anti-Zionists have with bashing Israel in a world full of real human rights violators and in a region where hundreds of thousands of people are dying in genocides and civil wars, people sense that there's more to this than just "criticism of the nation-state."

  • Rubio's defeat means the downfall of neoconservatives
    • OK, so because two Jews wrote books about how many neocons are Jews, it's ok to assert that Merrick Garland will rule against BDS because he's Jewish. Got it.

      "Yeah, when 45% of the Supreme Court is drawn from a nominally religious group representing 2% of the population"

      What was that about how jealousy never motivates antisemitism?

      "and all those 45% just happen to be Zionists"

      Sorry, but can you point me to the long record of Ginsberg, Kagan, or Breyer's writings on Zionism and Israel? Oh, I see, they're not on record as being anti-Zionists, and they're Jews, so, even though Israel has nothing to do with their jobs, you're reducing them to "Zionists." Tell me again how anti-Zionism has nothing to do with antisemitism.

      "While others are not of any religion if they do not practice..."

      Based on what, exactly? Every Catholic on the court is a hardcore Catholic? The President's not a Christian because he doesn't go to church?

      Keep diggin' that hole, echinocrapus.

  • What Bernie Sanders should say at AIPAC (and cause a political revolution)
    • Ladies and gentlemen, Israel has the strongest protections for minority populations in the Middle East, and everyone knows it; look around that region of the world and you'll find that it has descended into tribal warfare precisely because these country have no history of minority protection; though some of them treated us comparatively well, we were still second-class citizens who were susceptible at any time to a whimsical rulers who could decide to make our lives difficult, and G-d forbid we should show any political consciousness.

      And ladies and gentlemen, though I'm a democratic socialist, I'm no radical authoritarian, and I'm certainly no fool. Minority protections have NEVER protected Jews from persecution. Europe in the 1930's was full of countries where Jews seemed to be doing well, and Germany was considered the most culturally advanced country on Earth. Didn't save the Jews. Neither did assimilation. Neither did conversion. After World War II, Jews were finished depending on others for their safety and security, and though antisemitism is up these days (funny how the same people who want an end to Israel also deny that Europe has an antisemitism problem), we have earned the respect of our fellow human beings, rather than their endless and useless pity. You know why minority protections don't ensure safety? Because nothing ensures safety against an angry mob. And that's what this country is becoming.

      Look at this country right now. The Republican frontrunner is a neo-fascist who incites people to violence, calls for restricting press freedoms, talks about total war, and is supported by white supremacists. He's probably the only candidate attracting larger crowds than I am. The radicals who hate our people are willing to ignore his neo-fascism because he claimed that he'd be neutral between Israel and the Palestinians, as if being neutral was possible for the United States in the Middle East, where the choices are being pro-Israel or being pro-chaos. So remember that folks: It's more important to be neutral on Israel-Palestine than it is to be an adherent of democracy. No wonder they're willing to sign on to the Arab Middle East's latest look-anywhere-but-here tactic, BDS. Three generations of Arab boycotts didn't work, so they took the show on the road, and it seems like their main achievement is passing resolutions on college campuses, where kids know zero about the conflict.

      Even I'm popular, and I'm popular because I've united lots of people against big money. Of course, big money in politics is a problem, but history shows that antisemites often take that one step further and blame the Jews for working class problems. First they start by pointing out all the Jews in finance. A website called Mondoweiss loves to do this, and commentators there love to post lists of rich Jews from those white supremacy websites in the moderated comment section. These people were on the fringes of the Occupy Wall Street movement, but it seems like there are a lot of them. You know where that leads.

      I love America. It's been a great place for Jewish Americans, who have made contributions to American society totally out of proportion to their numbers, something which always engenders a lot of jealousy, which in turn causes some our brethren to internalize the hatred against us, as it always has. I love that we have actually been able to live not just as Americans who happen to be Jewish, but, should we so desire, as proud and practicing Jews in a country that celebrates diversity, rather than forcing people to drown in a melting pot, like France, which also has minority protections that somehow, hasn't saved French Muslims from systematic discrimination. But the country has its problems. Of course, the BDS movement is trying to undue a lot of that, and yes, the same people who tell us to put our trust in American minority rights protections are the people who are most likely to bash America on a regular basis and to talk about how the United States misuses its power and oppresses people of color. It's hypocritical, but subscribing to a dumb idea like BDS is a sign that the subscriber is illogical.

      For people like African-Americans, minority protections are becoming a bigger and bigger bad joke. So it takes a special level of obtuseness to claim that Jews should put all of their eggs in the minority protection basket. It takes someone who wouldn't give a damn if 100 years from now, Jews and Judaism were extinct. May America be a safe place for Jews for many years to come, and may it become a safer place for others. But may Jews never take the place for granted, or become re-enamored with the idea that we may be saved by some Christian savior. We've been there, done that.

  • Pushed by alumni claiming anti-Semitism, Vassar officials oppose BDS and promote 'Israel-positive' programs
    • As far as your comment about the correlation between religiosity and racism, c'mon man. We're not talking about ultra-orthodox Jews who don't read secular newspapers. We're talking about secular kids having the opportunity to do (or not do, since the vast majority of them don't) Jewish rituals like eat in a sukkah. All this stuff has a univeralist flavor at Vassar.

      But in a way, I'm disturbed by the school's response as well. A nice synagogue isn't proof that antisemitism does not exist. There are lots of nice old synagogues in Europe. They're mostly empty today, because the Jews that used to fill them were massacred.

    • First of all, Phil, it's not right-wing alumni pushing Vassar to change. Vassar has exceedingly few right-wing alums, as in, next to none. It is people who are tired of hearing about Vassar students getting harassed on campus over their views on Israel. The BDS vote at Vassar was an ugly scene. The BDS kids were laughing as Jewish students spoke about antisemitism that they had experienced on campus and about the pain the entire situation was causing the Jewish community at Vassar.

      You're being a bit silly, Phil. Vassar is one of the most secular campuses in the country. I would have thought that you would support the campus's presentation of Jewish life as cultural and religious, rather than as tied to Israel. The only reason one would be disturbed by the presence of Jewish cultural life at a place like Vassar would be . . . well, I'm not going to say it.

  • 'In every important way Israel has failed'-- leading American Zionist says No mas
    • Such utter chutzpah. It's antizionists, not Zionists, who have politicized antisemitism by systematically degrading its definition in order to mask their own hateful rhetoric. You have a guilty conscience, Mooser.

  • Israeli designer eroticizes the Palestinian keffiyeh
    • I accuse people of antisemitism when it's warranted, and I do it a lot less than I could. As usual, people here complain about being accused much more often than they're actually accused. A lot of people here have very guilty consciences.

  • American Jewish Committee agent tries to dig up anti-Semitic dirt in a German refugee housing block
    • Yeah, Annie, guess what? There are a lot of organizations out there, and they have a lot of different perspectives. This article is about AJC. And although I know you're completely incapable of acknowledging the antisemitism that Jews in Europe face, AJC has been supportive of Germany's decision to take in refugees and migrants and has indeed called for the United States to take more.

  • Did Obama blunder in Haiti because he has to pay so much attention to Israel?
    • No, really. I mean, the US has been playing imperialistic games in Haiti for 200 years. But whatever happens there, it's Israel's fault. Remember people, it's anti-Zionism, not antisemitism.

  • What's the big difference between Israel's 1967 occupation and its 1948 occupation?
    • Jews waged this war? I guess Jews and Israelis are the same here. Remember, folks, it's anti-Zionism and not antisemitism, even though every comment this Rabb character makes refers to Jews, and not Israelis. He's also got a history of saying completely ridiculous things, like claiming that most synagogues raise money for Israel every Sabbath, which he might learn wasn't remotely true if he stepped foot in a synagogue, rather than picketing synagogues, as he's done in the past.

      Jeez, BDS really does have an antisemitism problem.

  • Methodist divestment highlights Israel's place in the world
    • Yes, against the will of most of their members, the Methodist Church was pushed into doing this by their anti-Israel faction.

      Marc Ellis asks why they didn't just sanction the entire American Jewish community.

      Remember folks, it's anti-Zionism, not antisemitism.

  • New Jersey teenager threatened with legal action by high school over pro-Palestine activism (Update)
    • Nah, I'm calling you an antisemite because you think everything is the result of Jewish power, which is what antisemites tend to think. Months ago, I had to explode the nonsense you posted about Holocaust movies, which you're also obsessed with.

      Our discussion was about the German law. In any event, as I pointed out, Europe does not have a First Amendment tradition, so it's much more common to see speech laws there. So it isn't about Jewish power. It's about European custom.

      Look, when you engage in Holocaust revisionism, or you (Roha) routinely blame Jews for the hatred they experienced during the last millenium in Europe, I'm going to call you what you are. I couldn't give a rat's ass whether you accept it or not; most people are in denial about their own bigotry and privilege. What is interesting is that on a moderated site with rules against antisemitism, antisemitic comments and links to Holocaust denial sites like routinely appear here.

    • Right, so because one guy is a spy, he's your representative of all US Jews. Remember folks, it's anti-Zionism, not antisemitism.

    • This is kind of nonsense that passes for comment here: Jews are highly assimilated, but they have a "ghetto" mentality. Remember folks, it's anti-Zionism, not antisemitism.

    • "My point being that so far the US has not been intimidated into including Holocaust “education” into its curriculum. "

      Intimidated by who? Oh, THOSE people.

      "More British and American school children would correctly know about the “six million” than would even have a clue about Soviet WWII war deaths."

      Why is "six million" in quotes? HOLOCAUST DENIAL IS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN HERE.

      "And what is the pressing need for Holocaust education beginning in 2008, over 60 years after the end of WWII?"

      Why indeed? I mean, the survivors are almost all dead. It's time we forgot about European antisemitism for good.

    • "Why was it considered necessary 40/50 years after the Holocaust? Was Holocaust denial some sort of problem? Mind you, these laws were passed AFTER the Jews had acquired considerable power and were in no danger. "

      Yep. I'm not a fan of these speech laws, but of course, you ignore the details, because, as usual, you're an antisemite obsessed with the Jewish angle. The law does not mention Jews, or the Holocaust. It is a general law criminalizing incitement against minority groups, and it includes general provisions against glorifying Nazi rule or downplaying Nazi atrocities.

      There's also a context. Europe does not have a First Amendment, and there are a number of laws on the books that regulate speech.

      You also might ask why many Muslim states advocate bans on depictions of the Prophet Muhammed (the same states where antisemitism is rampant), which seems to me a potentially much more serious problem in our times than Nazi atrocity-denial laws.

    • Yeah, Froggy, she's Sophie Scholl. Seems like the kind of comparison that someone who denies the existence of antisemitism in Europe would make.

      "Bendy has chosen to stand up against organised zionism, and that looks pretty brave to me."

      Why is it brave? What's she risking? A little ribbing by a few of her classmates? Support from classmates who agree with her political views? OMG, she risked a mean girl saying something not nice. That's totally putting her life on the line like Sophie Scholl.

      I thought, according to Mondoweiss, Israel hate was progressive orthodoxy now. Elite campuses are no-go zones for proud Zionists. Jews in France can't cover their heads because it's unsafe. But this girl is the brave one.

  • Roger Cohen and Jeremy Ben-Ami go on the road for the two-state solution
    • "The Jewish community needs to divest themselves of their predatory financiers and they will be fine."

      More garden variety antisemitism here at Mondoweiss.

  • David Grossman's love letter to Israel, warts and all
    • So Bumblebee, what's your record of calling out antisemitism in the BDS community? Anti-Jewish racism among Palestinians?

    • "Hophmi’s been around for a long time here, but no he’s never challenged himself to read anything that disagrees with him."

      Of course, you're projecting. I'm the dissident here, not you. You're just another Mondoweisser who repeats the same stuff everyone else but me and a couple others do. So your statement has zero credibility.

      " You might want to check out this old discussion from 2011, under an article about Rabbi Elmer Berger which devolved into a discussion of Shlomo Sands’ Invention of the Jewish People."

      The book you all love because it repeats discredited nonsense about Khazars and because it's by a guy who has opted out of the Jewish people? Why would I waste time reading a book on genetics by an author who has no expertise in the field? I know why you would waste time with it - because you waste time with anything as long as it supports your predetermined opinion, regardless of the credibility or provenance.

      "And then there is the discussion of Max’s response to Alterman’s hit job on Goliath, where Hophmi defended Alterman’s criticism despite Alterman’s own acknowledgement that Max’s book was “technically accurate” with his usual racist crap about Palestinians and “context”, while never explaining what context excused Jewish Israeli racism (and of course, only Jewish Israeli racism)."

      Actually, I've read many things that Blumenthal has written, and I've written about racism in Israeli society on Facebook repeatedly. Of course, since Blumenthal has said that Israelis should "indigenize" or leave, I reject his genocidalist views.

      What's your record of calling out antisemitism in the BDS community? Anti-Jewish racism among Palestinians?

  • 'Jewish Communal Fund' seeds Islamophobia as toxic as Trump's
    • As usual, logical arguments fall apart when they're based on faulty assumptions as yours is, RoHa, and as Phil's is.

      Here's what Phil wrote:

      "Geller is pro-Israel. The JCF is also pro-Israel. That’s why Clifton’s report is so meaningful to me. Defining the Jewish community as pro-Israel was the great project of Zionists in the years following the Biltmore program of 1942 and leading up to the Yom Kippur War in 1973, by which time the American Jewish community was wholly identified with support for Israel. Israel needed us; and we became one! as propagandists exclaimed. In fact, the Jewish community lost other broad bases of Jewish identification outside of Israel; it became completely Zionist– which is why members of that community assert with sincerity that anti-Zionists are anti-Semites.

      Let's break it down.

      "Geller is pro-Israel. The JCF is also pro-Israel. "

      That's the logical equivalent of saying that the sky is blue, and a racquet ball is blue, so they must be the same thing, since both are blue.

      "Defining the Jewish community as pro-Israel was the great project of Zionists in the years following the Biltmore program of 1942 and leading up to the Yom Kippur War in 1973, by which time the American Jewish community was wholly identified with support for Israel"

      It's amazing the way Phil always omits history when he makes statements like this one. The main achievement of the Biltmore program was to marshall support in the Jewish community for the establishment of a Jewish state. Zionists didn't have to work hard to get Jews to understand the importance of a Jewish state post-Holocaust and especially post-1967 War.

      "In fact, the Jewish community lost other broad bases of Jewish identification outside of Israel; it became completely Zionist"

      That statement is silly. The most ardent supporters of Israel today are Modern Orthodox Jews. Their base of Jewish identification is based around common practice, as are most religious Jews, which is the fastest growing sector of the Jewish community. Their Jewish identification incorporates Israel, but is not based exclusively or even mostly on it.

      "which is why members of that community assert with sincerity that anti-Zionists are anti-Semites."

      The reason why so many members of the Jewish community assert that anti-Zionists are anti-Semites is because so many of them seem to be anti-semites. Phil himself repeatedly blames Jews for starting the Iraq War and speculates that there are too many Jews in powerful political positions in the United States. Antisemitic canards, which for decades weren't heard outside of the far-right, like referring to the US Congress as "Zionist occupied," are common in the anti-Zionist community. Holocaust denial is common among anti-Zionists, I've seen people cite the Rense cite more than once.

      Then, of course, there's the structural antisemitism inherent in anti-Zionism - the obsessive targeting of the world's only Jewish state, and the concurrent silence by comparison from anti-Zionists about nearly every other human rights abuse in the region, the truth that if there were 15 million Muslims and 1.5 billion Jews, we probably wouldn't hear much about a Jewish state, because there would be dozens of them, rather than one, etc.

      So save your self-referential nonsense, RoHa. Your argument is not remotely logical or clever.

  • The way for Americans to take on the Islamic state is to end support for Jewish nationalism
    • "I am far less interested in Israel’s identity than I am in American and American Jewish identity."

      Fair enough. You're an avowed secularist. You're against Jewish day schools, which are today the main source of comprehensive Jewish education. You're opposed to circumcision. You don't keep kosher. You don't support any kind of real collective identity that members of other faiths enjoy many times over. You attack just about every Jewish leader there is and blame them for the war in Iraq, and the comment section of your blog is rife with overt antisemitism. So what American Jewish identity do you envision, really? Does it bear any resemblance to a religion, or it is simply taking however you choose to live your life and sticking a convenient Jewish label on it so that you can front for the BDS movement? And why should you be accorded credibility when you speak "as a Jew?"

  • Academics both 'pleased and concerned' with Salaita settlement with University of Illinois
    • "says the person belonging to a coddled minority that cries like babies if anyone says anything they don’t like. says the person who demands special privileges based on his faith. your a real piece of work. thankfully in the next you will get that which you have earned."

      Don't threaten me, pjdude. My people are facing serious antisemitism in almost every country in Europe right now. We're not a coddled minority.

  • Israeli embassy's attack on Rosengarten just made her stronger
    • You've never quite explained why Rosengarten's survivor background is relevant, particularly when there are hundreds of thousands of people who are survivors, the vast majority, who disagree with her perspective.

      In addition to facing a growing anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish movement in PEGIDA and an assortment of other neo-Nazi groups, Germany is a place where people really do take offense at people who like to throw around Hitler comparisons as if they're going out of style, including when they're Jews being used as fig leaves to cover the BDS movement's antisemitism.

  • Buy tickets now! Only $360 to hear Elliott Abrams and Dennis Ross!
    • I agree; it's a little irrelevant. But for the record, Meir Soloveitchik is 38, and an extremely important voice in the Modern Orthodox community, and Leora Batnitsky is a tenured religion professor at Princeton and graduated from Columbia in 1988, so I'm guessing she's under 50.

      The truth of the matter is that for conservative outlets like JRB, the highly-assimilated voices of young Jews don't matter a whole lot to the Jewish future, because with a 70% intermarriage rate and little will on the part of assimilated young Jews to give their children a Jewish education, there really won't be very many Jews among them in a couple of generations. I think that that's sad, but perhaps that's part of your goal; for Judaism to evaporate into melting pot. I remember that years ago, when Alex Cockburn launched his ridiculous book on the politics of antisemitism at NYU, Lenni Brenner talked about how assimilation would thin out the Jewish population in the United States, and the whole room erupted in applause.

  • Obama and the Zionists
    • "Jews with power and influence in the U.S. have been successful at promoting wars on Islamic countries, creating massive death and suffering for Muslims. As well, these neocon Jews and their supporters have been successful for many decades at enabling Israel’s slow-motion genocide of the Palestinians."

      More antisemitism. These are American policies, not "neocon Jew" policies. They were promoted by Americans of many different faiths and backgrounds, including the President and Vice-President, neither one of whom was Jewish.

    • I've conclusively documented that antisemitism is a serious problem in France, that synagogues have been attacked, and that Jews are leaving France in significant numbers because they're frightened for themselves and their families, and I've provided you documentary evidence of violence and of the statements of French Jews on the matter.

      I never said that all Muslims were attacking Jews in France. I agree that it's a small minority, but that doesn't much matter in terms of safety. None of that has anything to do with the fact that antisemitism is a serious problem in France, that the number of antisemitism incidents doubled from 2013 to 2014, and that Jews are 40% of the victims of violence incidents in France. Whether you want to accept the 40% number or not, and it is a number based on police reports and incident analysis, you must admit that antisemitism in France is an extremely serious problem that has caused tens of thousands of Jews to leave because they fear for the safety of their families, and you also must apologize for suggesting that they were leaving because they didn't feel European enough, a rather disgusting and frankly racist lie, as shown by the interviews with North African French Jewish families that I posted.

      I've also never denied that Islamophobia is a serious problem in France, so I don't know why you feel the need to quote Islamophobia statistics. There are 6 million Muslims in France, and Islamophobia is definitely a serious problem. With regard to underreporting, there is no question that antisemitism is also underreported for similar reasons. Things like verbal threats are not always going to be reported to the police.

      It should be no surprise that attacks on Muslims went up after the Charlie Hebdo killings, as they did in the United States after 9/11. I find it strange, however, that you would compare that to the situation of the Jewish community, which is much smaller and thus much more vulnerable, and which has no radical fringe that is committing or supporting acts of terrorism in France. As far as public opinion statistics on how Jews are viewed, it really is beside the point.

      Whether Islamophobia is a "worse" problem is a matter of perspective. There are far more Muslims in Europe than there are Jews, and in many of these countries, Muslim radicals have attacked Jews, including in France, Belgium, Sweden (where Jews have basically been driven out of Malmo, one of Sweden's largest cities), and Great Britain. That certainly doesn't excuse Islamophobia against the overwhelmingly peaceful Muslim communities in these countries, and some of this radicalism that results in attacks on the Jewish community is doubtless the result of societal Islamophobia. But it's high time people stop denying the scope of the problem, and also stop excusing it by blaming conflict in the Middle East.

      Jews in Europe are really frightened. They don't feel safe. You should acknowledge that, rather than apologizing for it, claiming it's not so bad, and blaming the LDJ.

    • "hops, allegations such as these don’t ever seem to be accompanied by video or recording"

      Are you kidding? So now, if a rabbi who is shocked with a taser doesn't videotape the incident, it doesn't exist for you. They're all making it up. It's all a big Jewish conspiracy, right?

      There are many videos on youtube. Did you bother to look?

      Here's one from Paris.

      Here's the France 2 report on Sarcelles from the day after the attack on the synagogue there:

      Here's a feature on antisemitism in France. The French family at the beginning - did they say that they were leaving because they didn't feel European? Because of the bad economy? They have a thriving business. They love being French. They're leaving because they don't feel safe. They're leaving because their son can't wear a Yarmulke without being harassed. They're leaving because they see anti-Jewish graffiti on the streets.

      Here's another from PBS Newshour:

      Is the Maloul family leaving because of the economy or because they don't feel European? No, he's giving up a successful practice as a dermatologist. He's leaving with his family because HE DOESN'T FEEL SAFE.

      Another, from Al-Jazeera:

    • "i said a crime is not always evidence of a racist crime."

      Certainly true. What does it have to do with the documented 15 year rise of antisemitism in France?

      " remember, france is a country that hauls bds activists in to court on charges of anti semitism/incitement"

      Whom are you talking about? Which ones? Jews are 40% of the victims of racist incidents in France. Are you asserting that BDS activists are being hauled into court for incidents toward Jews that were not antisemitic? Do you have documentation for this?

      " i don’t think victims of a crime are necessarily the most unbiased judge of the motive."

      So what you're saying is that Jewish organizations aren't reliable reporters of antisemitism because Jews are the victims. Would you ever say this to an historically African-American organization like the NAACP? Or a Muslim organization like CAIR? I doubt it.

      "other than that, it’s not just one or two. here’s another link to and another (famous in france), “victimhood competition."

      So you sent two articles about two anecdotal incidents, and a French wikipedia entry about the SPCJ with a section about a "victimhood competition." What does that mean? The article says that the victimhood competition is not because of the SPCJ, but because the Muslims are upset that the French media covers antisemitism more than Islamophobia. As a result, the Muslim community started an organization based on SPCJ, called the CCIF a "mirror," to report on Islamophobic incidents. That was in 2011. My numbers are from 2014. I don't see how this undermines the argument that there is a serious antisemitism problem in France.

      In other words, the victimhood competition is something that people engage in because they resent the Jewish community for being organized enough to issue reports on antisemitism, not something the Jewish community engages in.

      "The reputation of Commissioner Ghozlan of the National Bureau of Vigilance against Anti-Semitism (BNVCA), is compromised."

      Still clueless. Ghozlan was suspended from the Steering Committee of CRIF because he publicly criticized CRIF. The notion that the guy and his entire family would leave France, where they'd lived for 40 years, because he was suspended from the Steering Committee of CRIF is so ridiculous that I can't seriously believe that you believe it. As I've told you before, Ghozlan has never had great relations with CRIF (read Marie Brenner's Vanity Fair piece from 2002), because he's frequently criticized them for not taking antisemitism seriously enough. He was right in 2002, and he's right now, and leaving France hasn't stopped him from working on the problem. And for the sixth time, it's not Ghozlan's numbers that CRIF is relying on.

      "again, it doesn’t mean there’s not a problem w/racism against jews in france, it means just because someone makes a claim doesn’t mean it’s true from their perspective (google paranoia)."

      So you think that these incidents are unsubstantiated claims?

      You know what? Here's the report from 2014. You can read it. It includes a long list of incident descriptions. You can tell us which incidents you take issue with as being not antisemitic.

      Is it the one where an orthodox man received an electric shock from a Shocker as he was entering a shul?

      Is it the one where a 59 year old teacher wearing a kippa and tzitzit was attacked by three men who screamed "Dirty Jew, death to the Jews, we're going to fuck your race" and drew a swastika on him?

      Was it this one from Nice? "A young Jewish woman in her car with her mother was attacked by a driver who slapped, insulted, and threatened her. "Dirty sh***y Jews, dirty French girls. We're gonna blow up everything, watch
      the news, synagogues are going to blow up, it is war!" He also tried to pull the victim out of her car and added: "I know where you live, dirty Jew, I'm gonna kill you!"

      This one? "A man was pushing the wheelchair of his son with Down's syndrome when he was insulted by an individual who said: "You kike, you Jew! Ah, the Jew!" A second individual appeared and punched him two or three times on the right side of the face, and escaped."

      Maybe this one: "Three masked men forced their way into the apartment of a Jewish family; they sequestrated one of the sons and his girlfriend for an hour. The attackers demanded money, ATM cards, and jewels, and said: "You Jews, you are rich. You're gonna tell us where the money is." The young man was tied up, the young woman was raped, and the apartment was burglarized. The three attackers were arrested and placed in custody. One of the attackers had identified the victims' apartment a month earlier and came to ask for some sugar."

      Or this one: "During a bar mitzvah, an individual shot numerous lead bullets towards the synagogue from his balcony. A worshipper was hit, but not wounded. The congregation has been the target of Antisemitic attacks by this neighbor for a year. The police were called and the man was held in custody.

      The incidents, by the way, are all incidents that were reported to the police by the victims, so enough of your red herrings about who can bring prosecutions.

      Maybe they're all coincidences, because as Froggy says, who can tell which people are Jews and which are not? It's just a coincidence when someone calls a Jew a dirty Jew or a kike. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

      and therefore if an incidence not supported by enough convincing evidence by the police, it should not be included."

      Right, so for an incident of antisemitism to take place according to an NGO, there has to be a full police investigation and a finding of "enough convincing evidence", because Jews in France can't be trusted as witnesses and because otherwise, people like you will assume that 851 antisemitic incidents didn't really happen as antisemitic incidents because the Jews of France are just "paranoid." Do you ever listen to yourself? Would you ever use this standard for hate crimes reporting for anyone else?

      "i’m sort of done w/it."

      Yeah, that's your general approach when someone highlights what nonsense you're peddling.

    • "I think a lot of Americans are seeing this and disgusted, per Paul Pillar."

      Maybe a few progressives are disgusted by the intrusion of the Israeli Prime Minister into the political system. But I don't believe that they're disgusted by the argument, made by virtually all of the Iran deal's critics, that the deal is bad for US interests, principally because it would empower an enemy and set off an arms race in the Middle East. I think most Americans understand those concerns.

      I also think that most Americans understand the concerns of American Jews for fellow Jews in Israel. There are 15 million Jews. 6 million of them live in Israel. Iran is led by religious fanatics who regularly say nasty things about Jews. People on your blog seem not to care about that; look at the disingenuous acrobatics your moderator is going through to deny the seriousness of the antisemitism problem in France. And you keep letting her do it, even though you doubtless know that she's full of it.

    • "it’s just that what CRIF thinks isn’t necessarily the same as what the police think."

      So, your rejoinder to my statistics is to cite (for the umpteenth time) the minority opinion on a story about a riot in Paris from 2014 that has nothing to do with the statistics themselves. Sorry, that doesn't undermine anything that I've said here.

      "this incident was a case of a bunch of jdl thugs instigating a riot."

      It was not. And even if it were, this is A SINGLE INCIDENT, and the narrative you've tirelessly promoted here, of a few dozen LDJ members "inciting a riot," with several hundred protesters, and it is controversial; the pushback by LDJ members is reported here because it's UNUSUAL. The narrative blaming the LDJ has only ever been the narrative of one party - the anti-Israel protesters who stormed the synagogue. Just about everyone else tells a different story, which is that pro-Palestinian protesters were rioting and out of control, and that a few LDJ members came to protect the synagogue. There is a long history of this revisionist history, and unfortunately, Annie, you're a part of it now. When you were supposedly speaking to all of these French people, did you speak to any of the eyewitnesses quoted in these articles?

      "Bernard Abouaf, a journalist for the left-leaning Radio Shalom, was with friends nearby when he received a call on his mobile that the synagogue was being attacked. He rushed to the scene. 'There were a hundred or so pro-Palestinian activists rushing towards the synagogue. There were 40 Jews outside defending the 160 people who were trapped inside. Let me tell you, I have never in my life defended the JDL [Jewish Defense League],' he said. 'But that evening, if they hadn’t been there, the synagogue would have been destroyed, with all the people trapped inside.'

      "Abouaf insisted that I sit with him to watch a video that had spread widely after the incident, under a headline announcing that Serge Benhaim – the president of the synagogue – denied any attack had taken place. The video shows a young journalist, Julien Nény, repeatedly asserting in an interview with Benhaim that the violence had been instigated by the notorious Jewish Defence League; his questions to Benhaim focus on the reputation of the JDL for violence rather than on the events of the afternoon. Under Nény’s insistent questioning, the quietly spoken Benhaim repeats that 'that version of events is wrong.' Eventually, the spooling, repetitive question-and-answer becomes hard to follow. It was only after watching the video four times that I understood: Benhaim is repeatedly denying, in the same phrase, Nény’s repeated suggestion that the violence had been provoked by the JDL. His endlessly looping denial ends up being twisted by Nény’s bullying persistence into the opposite of what he is saying – it sounds as though he is denying that the synagogue was attacked. It’s an impressive journalistic sleight of hand, so successful, indeed, that it made its way round the world, written about by journalists who may have simply read the headline and not even bothered to watch the video – evidence, perhaps, of a surprisingly widespread taste for the notion that antisemitic violence is a chimera, faked by Jews and supported by the government as part of a strategy to demonise Muslims in France and elsewhere."

      "there’s a guy operating out of natanya, israel directing the anti semitism hot line in france."

      We know who Sammy Ghozlan is; he was featured in Marie Brenner's article. It's interesting that you say he's "operating out of Netanya" while omitting the reason why: he lived in France for 40 years, and left last year because he no longer felt safe. Gee, maybe he sold his house because he didn't feel European enough.

      The numbers are from CRIF, which got them from the Interior Ministry. They're not from Sammy Ghozlan. Again, CRIF's statistics are based on the records of the French Interior Ministry.

      You're still braying on about the right of NGOs to report crimes, as if this had anything to do with the numbers, which have been consistently rising for the last decade and a half, and on which there is really no disagreement.

      "and the reason it matters how much crime their is in france is because if 98% of the violent crime in france is carried out against people who happen to be christian, but none of it is categorized as a “hate crime”, but all crime perpetrated against jews is, then of course the incidences of “racist crime” are going to tilt towards being anti jewish."

      I'll ask you for the fifth time now. Do you have any evidence to show that all violent crime committed against Jews is being classified by CRIF as hate crimes? You don't, because they aren't doing that, and because if you did, you would have presented it by now, instead of posting the same Telegraph article for the umpteenth time.

      "and there have been famous cases in france of falsely reported anti semitic crime — based on lies."

      Another ridiculous line you keep repeating. Because there were a couple of incidents where people made up stories, the entire decade and half of rising antisemitism in France is somehow a made-up story. It's so disgusting and so hypocritical. It's like saying that because Black people sometimes fabricate hate crime reports to the police, there's no racism against African-Americans, or because Palestinians sometimes fabricate incidents with IDF soldiers, there's no discrimination against Palestinians in the West Bank.

      No one is denying that there are one or two incidents that have been fabricated; there are always a few incidents like that, and people like you always spend more time on them than the overwhelming majority of incidents because you want to diminish the reality. There were 823 antisemitic incidents in 2014, according to CRIF. Do you have evidence that they were all fabricated?

    • "eljay, hops keeps making this 40% claim."

      It's not my "claim." It's CRIF's statistics, which rely on hate crime stats from France's Interior Ministry. Here's a piece from a source that is not especially pro-Israel. The rate of antisemitism in France is 7 times what it was in the 1990's, and that's regardless of whether the conflict in the Middle East is hot or not.

      "a country where the law allows recognized anti-racist associations to initiate criminal proceedings even when the public prosecutor declines to do so . "

      This has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the statistics.

      "nd what happens to people who make racist charges against jews in france? they have a private militia (JDL) that meters out retribution as they see fit."

      Do you have a SINGLE IOTA OF EVIDENCE to back up your ridiculous claim that the LDJ systematically takes revenge on people who make accusations against Jews in France? Even if you did, how on Earth is that a response to the fact that Jews in France are the victims of racist violence out of all proportion to their percentage of the French population?

      "of all incidents of violent crime in france, what percentage are jews the victims? do you know? – he doesn’t think it’s important"

      That's because the question is offensive, ridiculous, and completely beside the point.

      ", nor is he even curious.

      of course there is racism against jews in france"

      What? I'm not curious because it's an established fact that there is racism against Jews in France. They're 40% of the victims of hate crime violence! Antisemitic acts doubled from 423 to 851 from 2013 to 2014. Thousands of them are leaving the country every year! What the hell is wrong with you? Why is it that you think being pro-Palestinian means denying antisemitism?

  • NY's Center for Jewish History to host Ayelet 'Little Snakes' Shaked in conversation with Bret 'Hiroshima' Stephens
    • You could display an iota of honesty and journalistic ethics and mention that she's coming as part of an exhibition at CJH on Shmita to discuss Israel's approach to the Shmita year, and not to discuss her political activism.

      You could also do some background research, which would enable you to learn that CJH is actually five separate institutions, one of which is Yeshiva University's Museum, and that it's that institution that is bringing her to speak.

      You're not interested in seeing any antidote. You just want another platform for Max Blumenthal, who has more than enough platforms to spout his vitriol about how Jews and Nazis are the same without being given another one within the Jewish community.

      And despite what you say, Walt and Mearsheimer's antisemitism isn't mainstreamed, not remotely. If it were, you wouldn't devote post after post on this blog to raising BS complaints about the New York Times.

  • Why did a Jewish Day School student cry hysterically when she learned about the Deir Yassin massacre?
    • "The children of survivors weren’t there. It wasn’t their experience. Their parents aand grandparents were/are the victims."

      Really. So what is your experience with the children and grandchildren of Holocaust survivors that you're able to opine on how they feel and what they experience? Have you read the literature? I grew up with a number of the grandchildren and know some of the children. You think that when someone is asked to shovel a dead body into an oven, or watches his friends die of starvation, or watches children marched into a gas chamber, or goes through living in a Nazi ghetto, that it doesn't have an effect on the way they raise their children?

      Mooser: a Holocaust survivor is generally defined as any Jew who lived for any period of time in a country that was ruled by the Nazis or their allies.

      Keith: Goldberg is not a sociologist. He's a journalist. And journalists are not great with statistics. This is one example.

      An analysis of pretty much the same studies Goldberg uses suggests that Jews in the 1980s were worried about future antisemitism, because at that time, while antisemitic attitudes were down, antisemitic incidents had risen. They also note that the statistics have to be taken in context; the statistics show that Jews worry about antisemitism, and not that they think that there is a great deal of antisemitism. Antisemitism was certainly not at the top of the list of concerns for most Jews; most ranked church-state issues higher.

      antisemitism%20serious%20problem%20perception&f=false" rel="nofollow">

      "but have no compunction about trotting it out at a moment’s notice to counter any and all criticism of current Israeli government policy or actions."

      Nonsense. Jews do not "trot out" the Holocaust to counter criticism of the Israeli government and its actions. But if that bothers you, then maybe you should criticize the far more common practice of anti-Israel activists trotting out the Holocaust to justify their critiques of Israel.

  • Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel clarifies position on campaign to cancel Matisyahu show
    • Still waiting for that list of Rototom performers whose political affiliations were examined and who were asked to sign statements regarding their political views. There isn't one.

      This is a defense of antisemitism, pure and simple. And it will hurt the BDS movement in a major way.

  • Videos: 'Vanity Fair' story about anti-Semitic pogrom in Paris is falling apart
    • "When you lie about people, slander them, make accusations against them (and others) that are exagerated or untrue, and diminish the sufferings of others, don’t expect people to like (or trust) you."

      When you write stupid things about how Jews couldn't be experiencing antisemitism because they look like other French people, don't expect to be taken seriously anywhere else except Mondoweiss.

    • "You are completely callous regarding the French lives that were lost, unless those French lives were Jewish lives."

      Oh please. Give me a break. No one is ignoring the fact that other French lives have been lost or that Mohammed Merah killed other people before killing Jewish schoolchildren and a rabbi in Toulouse. We're talking about antisemitism here. Is it supposed to change reality somehow if Merah attacked Jewish schoolchildren allegedly because he couldn't find a soldier to kill? The man shot three Jewish children at point blank range, including one as he crawled away on the ground. Are you honestly trying to tell me that he attacked the school by coincidence. Yeah, it's all a big coincidence. Toulouse is a coincidence. Hyper Cacher is a coincidence.

      You're unable to accept the reality of antisemitism in France.

    • The same people, included the Jewish Establishment in France, which is supine and beholden to the French government, denied that France had an antisemitism problem when Marie Brenner first wrote about it in 2002. They were wrong then, and they're wrong now. What you don't understand is that there are really two Jewish communities in France. One is the official community as represented by CRIF, a group of highly assimilated Jews who are interested in preserving their close connections with the French government, and the other is the North African community, which actually has experienced most of the antisemitism because they live in the banlieues alongside poor North African Muslims. It's primarily Jews from the North African community who are leaving.

      Brenner's source for a lot of this is Sammy Ghozlan, a North African immigrant who was also featured in her 2002 article. Ghozlan runs an organization that actually records antisemitic incidents.

      Do an image search for hypercacher and quenelle, and you'll find pictures of people standing in front of the market sticking up their middle finger with the caption, "Allahu Akbar," and another with a picture of the ISIS flag.

      The quenelle has also been performed in front of the Toulouse school where several Jewish children and a rabbi were murdered in 2012.

      There are, to date, zero instances of Jews from the JDL or any other Jewish organization in France, killing Muslims, and precious few of Jews attacking Muslims in any way. The story in France is crystal clear. It's the Jews who have security issues, not the Muslims.

      You've either been completely silent here on French antisemitism, or, when the subject has been raised, you've questioned every account. It's just another example of your callousness toward the lives of Jews in Europe.

      In any event, even if activists like you are too cowardly to do anything about it, the French government seems finally to have gotten the message (of course, it took terrorist attacks targeting French citizens, rather than just Jews for it to happen, but better late than never).

  • Omar Barghouti on Matisyahu: 'Perfectly reasonable to oppose performance by any bigot'
    • " Matisyahu does not even allow women on stage."

      Again, it's a totally unsourced claim, and even if it were sourced, it would be completely beside the point; Matisyahu has never tried to ban women from performing at the festivals that he performs at.

      Keep digging to defend antisemitism, folks...

    • "Interestingly enough, your comment over there is proof that you did not read the arguments at all. So why would someone here spend time on you?"

      I read the piece, which is the definition of whataboutery, when it's not completely incorrect. In the addition, the author, Dan Sieradski, clearly has a personal history with Matisyahu and a bone to pick with orthodox Jews that is coloring his piece.

      But let's take Sieradski's silly argument at face value. Yeah, Rototom has a right to discriminate against Matisyahu because orthodox Jews impose litmus tests on non-orthodox Jews. Makes perfect sense. I guess we can discriminate against Muslims because Sunni Muslims don't believe that Shia Muslims practice Islam correctly. It's also not true that Jeff Wiesenfeld subjects every speaker at CUNY to a pro-Israel litmus test. But even if it were, that notion that it justifies an antisemitic witchhunt against Matisyahu is silly. This is exactly how antisemitism always goes down. Because one Jew did something somewhere, all Jews deserve to be targets.

      And Sieradski is at best misleading when he refers to the festival as private. It has government financing, and again, whether the festival is private or not, it doesn't have license to discriminate against acts on the basis of religion.

      This was a golden opportunity for BDS to make clear that it did not endorse the boycotting of individual Jews or antisemitism. It failed miserably, and the true face of BDS has been exposed.

    • Simply provide evidence that other performers at Rototom were subjected to similar treatment. You know you can't. One day, BDS will reckon with the antisemitism of its followers, and the violence of those in the BDS movement who, faced with that antisemitism, offered apologetics, rather than condemnation.

      If you had any sense, Ben, you'd recognize this for what it was, and if you had any honor, you'd condemn it.

  • It's not bigoted to call out the Israel lobby over Iran Deal
    • "+1 Eljay! Absolutely spot on. That’s precisely the tactic used."

      And precisely not the point, unless you're looking to treat Jews differently from everyone else.

      And of course, the idiocy of Eljay's statement shows once again how Christianity, which is the religion of the vast majority of people living in West, is treated differently for that reason alone; the hegemonic majority usually doesn't recognize its privilege.

      "I don’t think he did. He was prating about antI-Semitism. As he usually does. Round and round in a circle."

      I think RoHa isn't qualified to speak on antisemitism, which, judging from his other comments here, he knows nothing about, other than that Jews are the ones to blame for it.

    • Talknic, that's got to be the dumbest defense of antisemitism that I've ever read. What putrid nonsense.

  • Defying Obama on Iran deal, Schumer cites Hamas
  • Obama tells Americans it is 'abrogation of my constitutional duty' to defer to Israel on Iran Deal
    • Today's speech supported Israel's qualitative military edge and called Iran's behavior "offensive and incendiary." It also said that no one could blame Israel for being skeptical of Iran, a regime that had adopted an ideology of "antisemitism" and had "denied the Holocaust." The President supported enhanced security cooperation between the US and Israel. It's good to hear that all of you are supportive of all of this.

  • AIPAC taking all but 3 freshmen Congresspeople to Israel in effort to sabotage Iran deal
    • "Ah, good to know all that increasing antisemitism you prate about is BS. I was worried."

      Be worried, since you evidently can't read or remember what I say. AIEF has been around since 1990. Recent spikes in antisemitism are mostly in Europe, not in the United States, and they are more than well-documented at this point, despite the denialist rhetoric from the usual suspects.

    • "But it’s not even the zionist state who pays,
      it’s the American taxpayer !"

      The American taxpayer is not paying for any AIEF trips. To the extent that the United States provides aid to Israel, it's quite popular with the American people, with polling consistently showing that the vast majority of Americans favor keeping the aid at current levels or raising it.

      "Thanks, hophmi, I didn’t realize that congresspeople are always going on free trips to Israel."

      They take new Congresspeople every couple of years. As Ben Norton made clear, Congresspeople are free not to go (sometimes they've already been to Israel), but most opt to go. And it's perfectly reasonable. One can't fully appreciate the challenges Israel faces, particularly with regard to security, without visiting in person. You constantly hear people talk about the helicopter tour and about how it helped them understand why giving back land is not so simple. You also have to remember that Israel has religious significance for Christians as well as Jews, and that is another reason why it's a popular destination for members of Congress.

      "Does any other country take U.S. Congresspeople on expensive junkets on a regular basis?"

      Many American organizations take US Congresspeople on expensive junkets on a regular basis. It's like any other issue. If the Arab lobby were better organized in the United States, perhaps they'd sponsor trips to the West Bank or to Arab countries, although I suspect Arab countries have a lot less to show Congresspeople than Israel does.

      It appears that Taiwan, Germany, and Turkey are the most frequent destinations for members of Congress besides Israel. The West Bank is also quite popular; in 2014, 40 members of Congress visited.

      "Why would AIEF spend so much money if they don’t expect to get something out of it?"

      Well, I expect, like every other nonprofit that takes Congresspeople on a junket, they do expect something out of it. In this case, they expect Congresspeople to walk away with a greater understanding of why the America-Israel alliance is so important. By the way, Congresspeople also meet Palestinian leaders on these trips and often go into the West Bank, so it's not the one-sided Likudnik thing you're thinking that it is.

      "When the general public becomes aware that pro-Israeli groups give pricey gifts like this to our Congresspeople, will “antisemitism” increase here?"

      I'm quite sure, Kris, that the American people are well aware that their Congresspeople go to Israel. The Congresspeople themselves make no secret of it, because most Americans are supportive of the relationship the United States has with Israel. So your assumption is faulty. Antisemitism won't increase because Congresspeople visit Israel. In fact, since AIEF was founded in 1990, antisemitism has dropped.

      One of the big fallacies of the anti-Israel narrative is that support for Israel, and the work non-profits do to organize that support, is some big secret. It isn't, and it really never has been. One reason you guys make very little headway in American society is that you're not willing to come to grips with the truth, which is that large majorities of Americans support Israel, and want their representatives to support Israel. Representatives don't need to hide that support. They promote it.

  • If Americans support Iran deal, 56-37, what gives Israel the power to 'croak' it?
    • It's crystal clear what MRW is doing to anybody without their head in the sand. He really could not have been more clear. His post is overt antisemitism.

  • Israel's real fear about the Iran deal: It puts pressure on the occupation
    • "As I am preparing for my next trip, please explain me, Master, where have I gone wrong? How come I missed this obvious antisemitism?"

      Sure. Next time, instead of asking people who live in an antisemitic dictatorial police state what they think of it, ask some of the people who have left, and are no longer under that constraint. There are plenty of them in the United States. Maybe you can travel back in 1939 and ask German Jews in Berlin what they think of the Nazi regime. Or maybe ask the North Koreans what they think of Kim Jong Il. I bet they love him.

      Meanwhile here's an op-ed from someone who speaks Farsi and understands what Iranian leaders actually tell their people.

      Mahmoud Ahmadinejad held an entire conference dedicated to Holocaust denial. The regime hasn't disavowed those views; they've affirmed them. So I think I'm on solid ground here when I say that the regime is antisemitic.

    • This bears out exactly what I said on another thread. Most people here don't care about Iran's antisemitism, its support of terrorism and the killing of Jews abroad. They like this deal because Iran opposes Israel. You're really the flipside of extreme critics of the deal like Netanyahu, who opposes the deal because he fears Iran will threaten Israel, even though the deal addresses only Iran's nuclear program. You love the deal not because it does anything about Iran's nuclear program, but because it emboldens an enemy of Israel (and of the United States).

      That's why you quote Iranian state media here, downplay obvious expressions of Iranian antisemitism and its opposition, not just to occupation, but to Israel's existence altogether, and generally evince little care for the lives of the Jews that Iran threatens, let alone the lives of human rights activists inside Iran that the regime threatens. You've mortgaged your morality to a group of religious fanatics. You could, of course, issue criticism of the regime, and affirm that you don't support its arming of terrorist organizations, its killing of Jews abroad, its killing of others abroad, its killing of gays and human rights activists internally, but you don't. And that's a moral disaster for you.

  • 'We should seize it' -- Obama announces Iran deal as 'new direction' for the Middle East
    • I think it's certainly one reason people might prefer a tougher line on Iran. The President would probably say that for America, there's no great risk that even if the agreement fails, that Iran would threaten US national security, so this is worth a try. Unfortunately, that's little solace to US allies in the region for whom Iran definitely is a national security threat.

      People here have always liked the Iranian regime. They repost articles from Iranian state press, see Iran as a viable enemy of Israel, and so on. The antisemitism of the regime, its killing of Jews abroad, funding of terrorist organizations, etc - it doesn't matter to them because Iran opposes Israel. Enemy of my enemy and all that. People here very much want Death to Israel in the way they interpret the Iranian to mean it - by removing the Zionists.

      Why that entails repeating Iranian propaganda about how Iran is super-peaceful and not pursuing nukes in the way fellow travelers used to repeat Pravda, I don't know.

  • Michael Oren misrepresents 1971 synagogue bombing that changed his life
    • "This background ( Kahane in the synagogue that got bombed ) got exposed ."

      No one was hiding it. It just doesn't happen to be very relevant. In fact, it looks very much like (yet another) example of how anti-Zionists excuse acts of antisemitism.

    • This article from 2009 quotes Yossi Klein Halevi saying the Oren experienced a considerable amount of antisemitism growing up (a claim which Norman predictably pokes fun at).

      But again, denying narratives of antisemitism is very common here at Mondoweiss. One wonders why.

    • Don't know why Froggy is flat-out lying about antisemitism in France. Froggy will have to answer that question. Or she can not bother. Who cares, she's wrong; here's a long, long list of incidents, including a number of violent ones. Maybe the key is to "not look too Jewish", eh, Froggy?

      antisemitism" rel="nofollow">

      Here are the ones that made the international press.

      Ilan Halimi, from a Moroccan Jewish family, was tortured and murdered in 2006.

      In 2012, Mohammed Merah murdered four people, including three children, at the Ozar HaTorah school in Toulouse.

      And of course, in 2015, four were murdered at Hyper Cacher, a kosher market.

    • "sometimes, [antisemitism] is just not my priority."

      It's OK. You're not Jewish. I wouldn't expect it to be. That's sort of the point. That's why Jews don't want to live in a world where no matter where they are, they have to worry about what people like you think. Even in America, Jews still have to worry about what others think. That's why many Jews assimilate. It's just far easier in an essentially Christian society. It's really very much the same attitude white people have toward African-Americans; why do they keep harping on about that racism? I mean, it's certainly not going to be a white person's priority, right? Even Hillary Clinton couldn't say that #BlackLivesMatter

      The problem is that you've decided to devote yourself to an issue which is important to most of the world's Jews, and you've decided to offer your opinion on what Jews should think and how they should act, and as the moderator here, you've let in quite a number of comments which contain overtly antisemitic claims blaming Jews as a collective group for American policies people here disagree with, accusing them of collective bigotry, claiming they hold too much political and financial power, etc. You've decided to treat Jews in a way that you would never treat another minority group. It's a sort of privilege you enjoy as a gentile American. But it's a privilege that you haven't begun to acknowledge.

    • Oh please. No one denies that Ocean Hill/Brownsville was a political power struggle that unfortunately pitted inner-city African-Americans against a teachers' union that was substantially Jewish at a time when the civil rights coalition of late 1950's-mid 1960's was deteriorating. That doesn't mean that it wasn't accompanied by some antisemitism which people here seem to deny existed. Context is not an excuse for bigotry. There are always political excuses people offer for antisemitism and for all forms of bigotry.

      "And any discussion of Israel needs to deal with Jewish bigotry as well, since the primary problem for the Palestinians, and in reality for Israel as well, is the racism and bigotry of Jews."

      You're so completely wrong. The main problem for Palestinians is that they lack sovereignty, not that some Israelis may be bigoted toward them. If the Palestinians had a state of their own and control over their own destinies, I doubt they'd give a rats' patootie what Israelis, or the many Arabs who dislike them for that matter, thought of them. For that matter, I doubt the Israelis would care what Palestinians thought of Jews if Palestinian terrorist organizations weren't marking Jewish civilians for murder.

    • Froggy: Jews in France don't get abused when they don't look like Jews. So there's no antisemitism problem; why, just don't do anything to look like a Jew, like wearing a head covering or a Star of David, or a Hamza, and you'll be just fine.

      Sorry, Froggy. First of all, many, if not most, of Jews in France who experience antisemitism are not white. They're North African and they're Brown. So you are truly clueless. Second, they are the ones who tend to be the active Jews in France.

    • Froggy, I don't know where you're from, but the strife between Blacks and Jews in Canarsie in the late 1960's/early 1970's was not "the last vestiges" of Gentlemen's Agreement antisemitism.

    • In France 51% of the hate crimes were directed at the Jewish population, which is 1%. Don't tell me this Pallywood nonsense about how Islamophobia is a more serious problem than antisemitism in France. It is so far from the truth that it is malicious to keep repeating this like the false mantra that it is.

    • Shorter Annie: Michael Oren didn't really experience antisemitism. Any talk of antisemitism is "hasbara."

      Shorter Marnie: Because Jews didn't suffer as much as African Americans, they aren't allowed to talk about suffering.

      Shorter Brewer: Antisemitism in France can't be happening because antisemitism in Russia and Great Britain according to official statistics was declining as of 16 months ago, so the thousands of French Jews, mostly North African Jews, who have left France, are leaving for no reason.

      Yep, sounds like Mondoweiss, where antisemitism is purposely ignored.

    • "I have it on good authority that Kahane and his group were hiding explosives in synagogues around the USA around that time. Therefore whoever bombed that location was fully within their right to do so. It’s the same in Gaza, where it’s OK to bomb mosques as long as you have intelligence suggesting there might be weapons cached there or a terrorist set foot in there at some time."

      Another comment I seriously cannot believe was permitted here. For shame. Pure antisemitism right here.

    • "What I can say is that anti-black racism was expressed hundreds of times more often."

      Without a doubt. But that does not mean that antisemitism did not exist, and it certainly doesn't justify spinning this totally false narrative about Jews in the 1960's not experiencing antisemitism.

    • Yes, yes, I'm aware of the trend here of blaming every anti-Jewish attack on Jews. It's an old antisemitic game. And I'm sure no one here will call that out for Tue baseless accusation that it is, because underplaying antisemitism (I noticed that Phil seems to have ignored the long article in Vanity Fair about antisemitism in Paris too,

      I'm sorry, but the idea that Michael Oren was privileged because he was a middle class kid is BS, particularly since he was clearly targeted repeatedly, as he makes clear in the book, where he connects the antisemitism his family experienced to his father's Zionism:

      "In the post–World War II, WASP-dominated America in which I grew up, anti-Semitism was a constant. Hardly confined to my blue-collar neighborhood, it festered in the elite universities with their quotas on Jewish admissions, and pervaded the restricted communities and clubs. Superficially, at least, we American Jews ranked among the nation’s most successful minorities. We took pride in the Dodgers’ace pitcher Sandy Koufax, in folksinger Bob Dylan, and actors Tony Curtis and Kirk Douglas. It tickled us that Jewish humor became, in large measure, America’s humor, and the bagel grew as popular as pizza. Jewish artists wrote five of America’s most beloved Christmas songs and practically invented Hollywood. One could hardly imagine a community more integrated, and yet we remained different. Alone among the hyphenated ethnic identities—Italian-American, African-American—ours placed “American”first. And only ours was based on religion. No one ever referred to Buddhist or Methodist Americans. As Jews and as Americans we were sui generis, as difficult for us to define as for others. A graffito on the wall of my bathroom at school asked, “Are Jews white?”A different hand scrawled beneath it, “Yes, but…”Anti-Semitism completed that sentence.

      "Whether being beaten up for my identity or denied certain opportunities because of it, I often encountered hatred. And after each incident, my father took me down to our basement. There, in a cubbyhole behind the stairwell, he secreted a musty album that his brother, another veteran, had brought home from World War II. Inside were yellowing photographs of concentration camps, piles of incinerated corpses, and snickering Nazis. “This is why we must be strong,”my father reminded me. “This is why we need Israel.”

    • This is yet another example of Phil Weiss assuming that every American Jew had the same experience he had, and grafting his own experience onto everyone elses's, which is one of the fatal problems of his activism. First of all, Weiss is lying. Oren did not grow up in particularly privileged circumstances. His family was far from wealthy. But since Phil Weiss apparently grew up privileged, he assumes Oren did as well.

      Meir Kahane and the JDL also became popular because Jews in NYC neighborhoods were frequently the targets of attack by others in NYC. He was not just about Soviet Jewry, although you would think that people here could appreciate an extremist like Kahane, who gained a following criticizing the inaction of American Jewish organizations on a major human rights issue, the oppression of Soviet Jews.

      Jews who lived in Canarsie in the 1960's and 1970's were frequently beat up in school, for instance. Ocean Hill/Brownsville and the fights over local control led to a considerable amount of antisemitic invective hurled at Jewish educational professionals and Jewish leaders. Most Jews from that era experienced acts of antisemitism of some kind.

  • Israeli President Reuven Rivlin calls for removal of Israeli flag
    • In this world, targeting the Israeli flag, especially given what else has happened in the Middle East and widespread antisemitism in Europe, also represents something. Start somewhere else if you want to break down people's symbols. There are almost 5 dozen Muslim countries. The vast majority of them have a religious symbol on their flag, and in some countries, that's synonymous with persecution of minorities. To be silent on that, and to talk obsessively about Israel, is ridiculous.

  • Obama's disgust for Netanyahu's 'stink' signals coming era of Jewish persecution in the U.S., says 'Tablet'
    • Cohen is certainly not a serious intellectual. But since this site has a long history of denying or apologizing for every act of antisemitism that does happen, its view on the seriousness of the challenges that Jews face, particularly in Europe, where antisemitism is now, without question, a widespread problem, is just not very credible.

  • Supreme Court slam dunks the Israel lobby on Jerusalem, 6-3 (and Rubio, Oren, and Engel are angry)
    • "If those organizations are taking instructions or directions from a foreign entity, then they should be registered as agents too."

      I give you points for consistency.

      "There’s no stigma attached to it"

      I take away points for this. There's obviously a stigma attached to labeling an organization as a foreign agent, rather than as an American organization working on behalf of an American constituency. If there weren't a stigma, you wouldn't be pushing the argument so hard.

      "I think your whole problem is that you don’t think its illegal to boycott or sanction Anti-Zionist Jews"

      Let's drop this whole premise that anti-boycott legislation is aimed at anti-Zionist Jews. You know that's not the case, not in word or deed; the boycott movement is not "Jewish." I can understand the First Amendment free speech argument you're making, at least to a point. The religious discrimination argument is silly, but maybe you're previewing something here for me; maybe BDS will begin pushing itself as a Jewish religious creed. That should be fun to watch. Too bad denominational Judaism is approaching a nadir.

      Neither anti-Zionism nor Zionism count as religious creeds, sorry to say; while tenets of both might find support in Jewish religious texts, political ideologies are not elevated to religious creeds by virtue of their tenets finding support in religious texts. If that were true, just about every political ideology would be a religious creed, because just about all of them find support in religious texts.

      I know you like to refer to the people BDS is targeting as "the Zionists," but you and I both know that in practice, BDS is targeting a state, and it's not making special exceptions for those inside of the state who don't identify as Zionist, not that it would likely matter a whole lot from an antidiscrimination law POV, since the outcome would still probably amount to discrimination. BDS targets people of a certain nationality because they hold that nationality. Academic institutions cannot base employment decisions on national origin. It's simply a violation of federal and state law.

      As far as your novel argument that Hillels that abide by the partnership guidelines prohibiting local Hillels from sponsoring BDS proponents are violating DHS regulations: it is really interesting to see you use Title VI in a way that you've rejected many times in the past to support your other novel argument, which is that targeting anti-Zionist organizations is a form of religious discrimination under Title VI. Once again, I urge you to test this theory by filing a complaint. Generally, as far as I know, Title VI claims based on challenges to Zionist organizations on campus really haven't succeeded. Jewish students on campus are generally worried about anti-Jewish acts on campus, whether they're bigoted statements, or swastikas, or, in more difficult cases, instances where the rhetoric of the anti-Zionist movement strays into antisemitism by suggesting that Jews are dually loyal, or that a Jewish cabal is hurting America, etc.

      While someone like me suggests that anti-Zionism is a form of antisemitism, there are two reasons, and neither is an assertion that anti-Zionists are per se antisemitic by virtue of being anti-Zionists. The first is that anti-Zionists often say antisemitic things, such as suggesting that Jews are dually loyal, that Jews have too much financial and political power in society, and they blame Jews for the Iraq War because some of the President's advisors were Jewish; all this is consider antisemitism by most people outside of the anti-Zionist community because it hold Jews collectively responsible for what individual Jews do. The second is a structural argument; the notion that with all of the problems in the world, particularly in Islamic countries and communities, that Israel will be the center of attention for the human rights community and that we will, seventy years after the Holocaust, now launch a boycott of the state that was formed by Jewish refugees, and that we will do this mostly at the behest of European activists who hail from countries that were directly responsible for the Holocaust, and who delight in comparing Jews to their former oppressors, strikes me as a form of antisemitism.

  • Obama equates Israel's creation to African-Americans gaining right to vote
    • "why can’t people be honest about the price paid by the Palestinians? I know the answer.”

      They certainly can say it. They just can't solve the problem on the backs of the Jewish refugees who established Israel as a refuge from worldwide bigotry, especially when there is a worldwide rise in antisemitism, and life for Jews in Europe is becoming increasingly untenable.

Showing comments 326 - 301