Jewish Antisemites? A Study of a Jewish Attack on Jewish Critics of Israel.

Not long ago I discussed semantics in relation to charges of “antisemitism” . I compared using the word “Jews” to walking in a verbal minefield.

An article in the “New York Times” entitled “Essay Linking Liberal Jews and Anti-Semitism Sparks a Furor” is timely because it shows that even Jews are being accused of antisemitism. The essay itself, which I’ll discuss below, reveals that the accused “antisemitic Jews” make my attacks on Israel and Zionism seem almost bland in comparison.

From the NYT:

‘The American Jewish Committee, an ardent defender of Israel. . . features on its Web site, ajc.org, [an essay] titled “‘Progressive’ Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism,” which says a number of Jews, through their speaking and writing, are feeding a rise in virulent anti-Semitism by questioning whether Israel should even exist.

‘The essay comes at a time of high anxiety among many Jews, who are seeing not only a surge in attacks from familiar antagonists, but also gloves-off condemnations of Israel from onetime allies and respected figures, like former President Jimmy Carter, who titled his new book on the Mideast “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.” By spotlighting the touchy issue of whether Jews are contributing to anti-Semitism, both admirers and detractors of the essay agree that it aggravates an already heated dispute over where legitimate criticism of Israel and its defenders ends and anti-Semitic statements begin.’


Because you can read the NYT article yourself, there is no point in my quoting more from it before I turn to the essay which is discussed in the NYT article. (This is a long post, but it can remain a valuable resource in the future; please click on the title of this post and save the resulting web page as a Favorite.)

We can tell right away that the essay “‘Progressive’ Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism” is going to be a propaganda piece because it compares medieval accusations that Jews poisoned wells with the obvious fact that Jews are “manipulators of American foreign policy.”

The author of the essay, Alvin Rosenfeld, defines antisemitism as “Hostility to Jews—because of their religious beliefs, their social or ethnic distinctiveness, or their imputed ‘racial’ differences.” He also presents the more extreme antisemitic belief “that Jews are today, as they always have been, a treacherous, conniving, untrustworthy, sinister, all-powerful, and implacably hostile people, the eternal enemy of both God and mankind.”

Claiming that a “new antisemitism” is on the rise around the world, he asks: “What does all this anti-Jewish hostility tell us? Despite the huge scandal of the Holocaust, which most Jews probably thought would prevent public manifestations of anti-Semitism from ever appearing again, the genie is once more out of the bottle.”

He indicates that the growing wave of criticism of Zionism and Israel is the major manifestation of this “antisemitism”.

His theme of particular interest to me is that some Jews, in particular “leftist” and “progressive” Jews, are joining in this socalled antisemitism. From the Forward to the essay: “Perhaps the most surprising—and distressing—feature of this new trend is the very public participation of some Jews in the verbal onslaught against Zionism and the Jewish state.” Rosenfeld calls those who deny the legitimacy of Israel’s existence “proud to be ashamed to be Jews”.

The essay states: “Apart from the United States, to which it is almost always linked by its enemies, no country on earth is as vilified as the Jewish state. Moreover, those who denounce it as an outlaw or pariah nation are found on both the left and the right, among the educated elites as well as the uneducated classes, and among Christians as well as Muslims.”

The Jewish critics of Israel whom Rosenfeld labels “antisemites” are identified one by one:

Jacqueline Rose, author of The Question of Zion (Princeton University Press,
2005).

‘As if it were foreordained from the start, “violence,” she writes,
“would be the destiny of the Jewish state” (p. 124). Moreover, the
“cruel powers” of this state have not only brought “injustice” to the
Palestinians, but have subverted “the moral mission of Israel”(p.
133), put at risk the Jewish nation’s own “safety and sanity” (p. 85),
and right now are even “endangering the safety of Diaspora Jewry”
by helping to provoke a new anti-Semitism (p. xviii). In sum, Israel
on its present course “is bad for the Jewish people” (p. 154) and also
bad for just about everyone else.’

Rosenfeld bitterly complains that Jacqueline Rose wrote, “I believe the creation of Israel in 1948 led to a historic injustice against the Palestinians” (p. xvi),” and that ‘her lexicon of descriptive terms for Zionism and its errant ways is overwhelmingly negative: “agony,” “anguished,” “belligerent,” “bloody,” “brutal,” “cataclysmic,” “corrupt,” “cruel,” “dangerous,” “deadly,” and “militaristic” alternate with “apocalyptic,” “blind,” “crazy,” “delusional,” “defiled,” “demonic,” “fanatical,” “insane,” and “mad.”’

As bad as Rosenfeld thinks Jacqueline Rose is, her evil pales in the hellish glow of his next candidate:

‘Rose’s unease is mild, though, compared to the pathological fury one finds among some other anti-Zionist Jews. As a telling example, let us review the reflections on Israel and present-day anti-Semitism of Michael Neumann, a professor of philosophy at Trent University in Canada and author of "What’s Left: Radical Politics and the Radical Psyche". Neumann accuses Israel of committing “Zionist atrocities” and of waging “a race war against the Palestinians,” a war whose purpose is nothing less than “the extinction of a people.” Toward this end, Israel has embarked on “genocide” against the Palestinians—“ a kinder, gentler genocide that portrays its perpetrators as victims.” The Palestinians “are being shot because Israel thinks all Palestinians should vanish or die.... This is not the bloody mistake of a blundering super-power but an emerging evil.” Moreover, the guilt belongs not only to Israelis, but to Jews in general, “most of whom support a state that commits war crimes.” Such support implicates all Jews, Neumann contends—so much so that “the case for Jewish complicity seems much stronger than the case for German complicity” in the crimes committed against the Jews during the Holocaust.’

Next in Rosenfeld’s line of fire is Tony Judt, described as a Jew on the left:

‘The historian Tony Judt, for instance, has published a series of
increasingly bitter articles over the past three years in the Nation, the
New York Review of Books, and Ha’aretz, in which he has called Israel
everything from arrogant, aggressive, anachronistic, and infantile to
dysfunctional, immoral, and a primary cause of present-day anti-
Semitism. “Israel today,” Judt avers, “is bad for the Jews,” and it
would do them and everyone else a service by going out of business.
“The time has come to think the unthinkable,” he writes, and that
is to replace the Jewish state with “a single, integrated, binational
state of Jews and Arabs.”’

Rosenfeld goes on to assault other Jewish critics of Israel:

‘Wrestling with Zion: Progressive Jewish-American Responses to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, edited by Tony Kushner and Alisa Solomon (New York: Grove Press, 2003) and Radicals, Rabbis and Peacemakers: Conversations with Jewish Critics of Israel, edited by Seth Farber (Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, 2005). Liberally sprinkled through the pages of the first of these books are references to Israeli “apartheid,” “racism,” “colonialism,” and “ethnic cleansing”.’

‘Joel Kovel, a professor at Bard College, who is writing a book on post-Zionist Israel, suggests that Zionism “is equivalent to a form of racism” and is unforgiving
that it brought about “the Jewish homeland at the expense of another people”.’

‘The prominent poet Adrienne Rich proposes that the very word “Zionism” is “so incendiary, so drenched in idealism, dissension, ideas of blood and soil, in memories of victimization and pursuant claims of the right to victimize” that it “needs to dissolve before twenty-first century realities.”’

‘Sara Roy, who identifies herself as the daughter of Holocaust survivors, notes that “within the Jewish community it has always been considered a form of heresy to compare Israeli actions or policies with those of the Nazis” (p. 176). Then she
proceeds to draw just such a comparison by accusing Israel of replicating
Nazi occupation policies.’

‘Journalist Esther Kaplan, commenting on the charge by a young Rutgers University
activist that “Israel is a racist state, an imperialist state—it is and should be a pariah state,” remarks: “[I]f that’s what it takes to bring down the occupation..., Israel should absolutely become a pariah state.... The time has come when Israel must be totally isolated by world opinion and forced, simply forced, to concede”’

‘Steve Quester wonders if Israelis are “going to build gas chambers and kill them all” but then backs off from that idea and imagines that the Israeli plan for the
Palestinians is merely to “terrorize” and “starve” them out. Seth Farber himself holds to the harsher view and insists on conflating Israeli “racism” with “Nazi anti-Semitism”. And Rabbi David Weiss goes him one better by claiming that the Zionists have actually
been “worse than Hitler.”’

Essay author Rosenfeld expects us to believe his conclusory rebuttal that, “No serious scholar of history would argue that Israel’s actions warrant legitimate comparison with the systematic cruelties of apartheid South Africa or the genocidal barbarism of Nazi Germany.” Although he has just lambasted a number of serious scholars of history, Rosenfeld apparently considers himself the only “serious scholar of history” qualified to characterize the actions of Israel.

He writes: “To the dismay of many [well, to the dismay of Rosenfeld, at least], Israel
itself has provided a disturbingly large number of writers, scholars, journalists, and others to feed this poisonous stream. One such was the philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz, who felt no reservations in talking about the “Nazification” of Israeli society and was fond of using the epithet “Judeo-Nazi” in referring to the Israeli army. And
Leibowitz was hardly alone in employing such corrosive language. It is a sad but familiar fact that some of Israel’s most passionate defamers live within the borders of the state and have judged it guilty of “racism,” “fascism,” “apartheid,” “ethnic cleansing,” “genocide”— vilification drawn from the same devil’s thesaurus of anti-
Zionist derisions and ex coriations that the Jewish state’s harshest enemies regularly dip into when leveling their own attacks.’

Near the end of Rosenfeld’s essay he quotes from a book by Ahron Cohen and Joel Kovel, more Jewish “antisemites”. That quotation is a fitting way to end this post:

‘Zionism ... is built on an impossibility, and to live in it and
be of it is to live a lie.... Zionism can only repeat its crimes
and degenerate further. Only a people that aspires to be so
high [above others] can fall so low.
Zionism and its deeds are the biggest threat to Judaism....
The Zionist State known as “Israel” is a regime that has no
right to exist.’

The Hypersensitive "One Issue" Mentality Strikes Again

The attack on Mitt Romney by the executive director of a Jewish organization struck me as not only laughable but also an excellent example of what I call the “one issue mentality” of many Jews. The “one issue mentality” measures and judges everything according to how it could affect Jews. The “effect on Jews” is the one issue. When Romney chose to announce his candidacy at a place supremely symbolic of American enterprise, The Ford Museum, which also happens to be in Romney’s home state, a Jewish organization applied the “one issue” test and decided that for Jews it was undesirable that Romney should make his announcement in a place honoring Henry Ford. Had Romney sought expert advice, he might be announcing his candidacy at a “Holocaust museum” or the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

The Jewish group’s criticism is not only silly; it will backfire. Now many people who never knew that Ford published a newspaper and a book critical of Jewish influences will read those very publications online! I’ve supplied a link below.

Here’s the news report.

From Forbes.com, Feb 12
The National Jewish Democratic Council "is deeply troubled by Governor Romney's choice of locations to announce his presidential campaign," executive director Ira Forman said in a statement.
"Romney has been traveling the country talking about inclusiveness and understanding of people from all walks of life," Forman said. "Yet he chooses to kick (off) his presidential campaign on the former estate of a well-known and outspoken anti-Semite and xenophobe."
Forman said Romney's "embrace of Henry Ford and association of Ford's legacy with his presidential campaign raises serious questions about either the sincerity of Romney's words or his understanding of basic American history."

Eric Fehrnstrom, a spokesman for Romney, said the candidate will go ahead with his announcement as planned.
"Governor Romney believes our country needs to put innovation at the forefront if we are to ensure a stronger, safer and more prosperous America," Fehrnstrom said. "The Ford Museum embodies that bold, innovative spirit."

Here you can read the actual articles from Henry Ford’s newspaper, “The Dearborn Independent”, which were collected into a book: The International Jew
— The World’s Foremost Problem



I suggested above that Ira Forman’s complaint would backfire by awakening a new generation to Henry Ford’s anti-Jewish ideas, and that’s true, but I question that “backfire” is the correct word. It is common knowledge (and I have seen private documents revealed in lawsuits which verify the fact) that some major Jewish organizations deliberately instill fear of antisemitism into the minds of Jews generally so that they will contribute money to the organizations which promise to protect them.

Here is more wailing, from Israel, on the same tune:

”Ha’aretz” It is worth reading because of its other complaints.

Words as Mines in a Minefield

VIEW FROM THE MOON frequently criticizes Israel, Zionists, the Israel Lobby, and certain activist Jewish organizations such as The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and the American Jewish Committee (described by the “New York Times” as “an ardent supporter of Israel”).

Most of the people within those categories are Jews. Therefore when I criticize those categories I am criticizing Jews . . . but -- and this is the important point -- not all Jews.

My difficulty as a writer comes from the sensitivity that surrounds the words “Jew” and “Jewish”. It is almost impossible for a non-Jew to use those words in the context of criticism without attracting a charge of antisemitism – an emotionally loaded smear word which is supposed automatically to defeat any opponent and any argument.

It is very convenient -- instead of pitting facts against facts -- to use the illogical “reasoning”: (a) The ADL is composed of Jews. (b) You have lambasted the ADL. (c) Therefore you are an antisemite (one who hates all Jews).

Or: (a) Israel is a Jewish state run by Jews. (b) You have severely criticized Israel. (c) You are therefore antisemitic (i.e. evincing hatred of all Jews).

“Antisemitism” is a misleading word anyway because it includes “a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia, including Hebrews and Arabs”. (Webster) As misused today, it refers solely to Jews. In that specialized sense its dictionary meaning is “hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or ethnic group.” It is more commonly intended by its wielders to mean “hatred of Jews as a group.” That was the meaning advocated by an ADL official I encountered at a deposition. Incidentally, he had difficulty choosing a word to describe Jews as a group. He rightly declined the word “race” and settled on both “a people” and “a nation”. It is interesting that he did not include “a religion” because, he said, not all Jews are “religious Jews”.

My problem is to write as smoothly as I can while at the same time making clear that I am using the word “Jews” in a particular restricted sense, depending on the context. Writing can become very awkward if words have to be qualified every time they are used. In most circumstances readers apply their common sense, but not the wielders of the battleaxe “antisemitism”.

Marlon Brando called Jewish fire and brimstone down upon his head when he said, "Hollywood is run by Jews; it is owned by Jews.” That seems a simple statement of fact, right or wrong (in that case right) as in “the Mormons are the most powerful group in Salt Lake City”, and yet Brando was declared antisemitic. Would he have been spared the charge of antisemitism if he had said, using less of a generalization, “Hollywood is run PRIMARILY by Jews; it is owned primarily by Jews”? I don’t think it would have saved him any more than the broader statement “Hollywood is run by THE Jews; it is owned by the Jews” would have put him in deeper muck. The tactic is for any criticism of any Jews to be branded with the scare word, “antisemitism”. There is no logic involved, and therefore argument over the niceties of language is pointless.

Nowhere in this blog -- when I criticize groups that are Jewish or primarily Jewish -- am I referring to all the people who consider themselves Jews. If I refer to “the Jews” wreaking havoc in Palestine or Lebanon, I am talking about those Zionist/Israeli Jews who are involved in those activities, and not to every Jew in the world.

I’m very much aware from personal experience that all Jews are not Zionists and do not support Israel, and that there are Jews who question the conventional “Holocaust” story and its use for political ends, and that there are even Jews who do not like Jews. In Washington, D.C. I worked with and was good friends with attorney Mark Lane (“Rush to Judgment”), who was Jewish and strongly anti-Zionist. He became emotional as he described his observations in Israel -- for example, Palestinian crops and orchards dying for lack of water because Arab water had been diverted to the swimming pools of the conquering Jews.

Having said clearly that I do not include Jews as a group in my criticisms of particular Jews and Jewish organizations, I am now going to write an extension of this post based on an article in today’s “New York Times” entitled, “Essay Linking Liberal Jews and Anti-Semitism Sparks a Furor”.