I would’ve come out sooner, but I had to call my opponent and concede. And it took a while to find Ed Gallrein in Tel Aviv.”
—Rep Thomas Massie, (R-Ky) after losing his primary against a Trump-endorsed candidate.
I would have more respect for Massie if he just came right out and called his opponent a “Jew-lover.”
Nothing could more emphatically validate President Trump’s decision to oppose Massie, who has cemented undying infamy at Ethics Alarms by insulting a victorious opponent in his concession speech. Such lack of civility, respect and decorum only exacerbates the decline of civic comity in Washington, and there is no excuse for it. Being a poor loser shows poor character, and an inability to meet one of the key markers of virtue in Rudyard Kipling’s “If”: “Meet with Triumph and Disaster and treat those two impostors just the same.”
Naturally the Washington Post lionizes Massie in defeat, saying his lost primary was because of his “consistent unwillingness to go along to get along,” and that “Massie’s independence earned the enmity of President Donald Trump, who deployed his political machine to crush Massie and recruited primary winner Ed Gallrein. Yet the quixotic congressman, for better or worse, always seemed more driven by ideas than personalities.”
Yeah. One of those keen “ideas” was anti-Semitism. Burying the lede, the Post’s long sigh regarding Massie’s loss culminates in this admission:
“He was the only House Republican to vote against a resolution condemning antisemitism. Reasonable people might oppose U.S. aid to Israel, but Massie too often did so with over-the-top, even conspiratorial, rhetoric.”
Well nobody’s perfect.
Post Script: You want unethical “advocacy journalism”? Read the MSNow spin on Massie’s loss. Trump’s “revenge,” “a huge cost,” the whole event is presented as a platform for more Trump-bashing. No mention of Massie’s anti-Semitism, which all by itself justifies, indeed mandates, his loss. But then the MSNow gang is angry about all those dog-rapes…
Ethics Alarms 
The problem with politicians “going along to get along” is that they always seem to be going along and getting along with special interests in DC who are opposed to my interests. They never seen to have to worry about going along with my agenda to get along with me.
I have not paid attention to this specific incident, though on various political shows the incident was mentioned and that part quoted, the general idea about American politics is that AIPAC and other pro-Zionist organizations contribute lots of money to those politicians that bend to their will by “supporting” Zionism (or perhaps keeping their mouth shut about it) and if a politician opposes Zionist and Israeli control over US policy (and dares to talk about it) those same organizations arrange to support any other candidate that will allow themselves to be bought and controlled.
Therefore, the reference to Tel Aviv appears coherent and, at this point in American politics when the perverse influence of Israel in influencing American policy is now part of increasing scrutiny and legitimate concern by American citizens who live in the aftermath of 30+ years of destructive warfare and seem to be waking up to certain facts about corruption, purchase of influence and a genuinely perverse Zionist influence at the very core of American government, they are just beginning to become advocates of alternative policies and alternative politicians.
It is necessary and ethical (moral) for people to think about these things and certainly to oppose the influence of Israel and American Zionists with obviously divided loyalty.
They set it up in this way: Any sort of opposition to Israel, to Zionism, to the influence of Israel over American policy, is “antisemitism”. Though that is false it is the accusation, or the threat of it, that has almost magical power. So, it is used time and again. What then happens is that people begin to understand that their seeing and understanding of things, and their speech about it, is actually not free. That there are ‘controls’ over what they can think and express. This is a very strange and alarming thing about American conformity.
Myself, I reject these controls, so I can “disaggregate” the false assertions in narratives from the truthful elements in them. It takes a citizen with the capacity to think straight and rationally to do this. But as even most of you know (you always are talking about it!) that in the universities the youths cannot reason well. You blame the academic system but the problem is far more substantial: thought-control is everywhere. It is a most common feature of the business culture of America. Public relations does not want “thoughtful conversation” but rather impulsive decisions made emotionally. It is a very complex issue really.
Not “any sort” of opposition, Alicia. Massie, for example, rejected a resolution opposing anti-Semitism. That means he approves of anti-Semitism. That vote isn’t a “dog whistle,” it’s a direct statement.
No, it is a tactic of large-scale social manipulation. It is similar to Soviet campaigns where expressions of “loyalty” are made public affairs. Snd if you don’t “declare” your entire position is harmed. It is part of general coercion and it is disgusting 🤮.
Wrong. And intellectually dishonest. Resolutions state national values. That is a function of government. Condemning bigotry of all kinds is always an ethical government act, and “manipulating” the public away from hateful beliefs and biases is always appropriate.
You are entirely keeping out of your view, your consideration, all that I have expressed about the complexity and improperness of the US-Israel relationship. Therefore, you will not see the “declaration of antisemitism” that is demanded in its coercive, dishonest, manipulative context. That is fine, since that is where you stand. I am only telling you what I think.
As to the larger issue of bigotry, that is in fact another question altogether. I have already worked through the issue and for my own reasons.
Opposition to Zionism is a moral and ethical stance, I have no doubt. And I can easily defeat anyone who tries to imply that it is bigotry to have that position.
I would have to look up the CONTEXT of Massy’s refusal to see if it is as I assume it was (coercion and manipulation). I will report back …
You’re writing in circles. “I think like I think and there’s no point in reasoning with me” is not an ethical position. I am asking for actual logic attached to facts, not declarations. That’s not productive or constructive.
You have presented no argument that has changed or modified the views that I have formed.
Personally, my view is that you need to do a great deal more careful research about all of this.
The ‘circle’ I move in is solely concerning the very specific critiques I make. And no one has put up an argument that moves me.
I believe disaggregation is crucial.
Wait — whose ‘national values’!?
The national values of the United States as articulated by its two main founding documents. Of course.
I am willing to concede that the issue, specifically of antisemitism vs anti-Zionism, is far more complex than many people treat it. But just as it is accurate that one can be anti-Zionist while still supporting the Jews in general, it is also accurate that people use the motte-and-bailey tactic to disguise their virile antisemitism as just anti-Zionism.
Regarding money in campaigns, and whether AIPAC “controls” Congresscritters that received AIPAC contributions, there are a few items that I think should be remembered. While money can be influential, it is not determinative. We’ve seen many elections of late where pouring massive amounts of money into campaigns did not yield success. Second, while there is a correlation between lobbyist money and voting according to lobbyist desires, there is as much justification that the money goes to candidates who would already vote according to the lobbyist’s desires as there is justification that lobbyist money makes candidates change their votes to keep support of the lobbyist. Third, AIPAC might spend a lot of money on campaigns here of late, the reality is that everyone is spending more on political campaigns than ever before. In the 2024 federal elections, apparently (if Google AI is to be believed) AIPAC spent $126.9 million dollars, whereas the sum total spent on those federal campaigns was over $15 billion dollars. AIPAC might have been the biggest outside contributor, but they still accounted for less than 1% of contributions. At the same time, George Soros PACs (with Soros being no friend of AIPAC) contributed $103 million to those campaigns, so one could easily say there are plenty of offsetting money to counter whatever influence AIPAC has.
Antisemitism does need to be used carefully as an accusation, or like the terms “racist”, “fascist”, “-phobic” it will lose its meaning and just become a vague expression meaning no more than, “I disagree with you.” But antisemitism is a very real, very historical problem. It is very interesting that everywhere Jews have gone, they find themselves successful, which then draws the resent and envy of the people around them, which then inspires violence against the Jews and scapegoating them for whatever is currently going wrong.
I have no problem with worry about Israel being too influential in American politics. What I have a problem with is being so laser focused on Israel that one loses sight of all the other influences out there. From the way some anti-Zionists speak, you would think there are no other lobbyists out there than AIPAC. You would think that no other nation tries to steer American policies. You would think that the United States would have no interests in the Middle East if Israel didn’t exist. You would think that the United States dances to Israel’s tune, and Israel never modifies its behaviors when the US is not in agreement with Israel’s actions.
I personally think that the cost-benefit analysis of the American alliance with Israel is a net-positive for American interests globally. And yes, I do view that through the lens of geopolitical power. My concerns about the global dominance of the United States is that its power will be suborned to the Marxist, hedonist groups that have no eschatological view outside of sating their own addictions, and want to wield power solely to keep the gravy train running.
Excellent thoughts, Ryan! As usual…
In what you wrote, I think you have “disaggregated” some of the elements in the narratives that are so monolithic and absolute. In my own view — subjective I admit but I am not the only one — I think that the re-founding of Israel has turned out to be, and will continue to be, disastrous for Jewry. It instantaneously created the thorny issue of dual-loyalty. American Zionists, obviously the billionaire class, are seen and will forever be seen in that way. And when they openly declare, as indeed they have done, that they will use their billions to BUY media corporations within America so they can eliminate voices and opinions that expose the real truth of things — well, there you have it”divided loyalty” moving into a whole other phase.
Until Israel became the huge problem it is, my view is that classic antisemitism (better word: Judenhass) was minimal. But still it is true: Anti-Israel sentiment is a complex of views and feelings part of a wider, cultural crisis.
Again, the question is not whether the creation of Israel brought about divided loyalties, but whether this is sufficiently unique to warrant the sheer level of angst directed against it. For example, while the angst against those dastardly Papists has largely dwindled, it is still the case that Catholics struggle with divided loyalty. And Catholics have built media networks (such as EWTN) to influence the country (and the world, even!) with Papist messages, and they pour a great deal of effort into influencing campaigns (see the voting guide pamphlets from Catholic Answers, for example). Prolific Catholic Apologists continually stress the importance of Catholics voting according to the faith, not according to any political party. Catholic influence is all over the place, as they seek to steal children from the public school system, insisting that children should be educated by parents or by Catholic schools; as they work to sway the public against abortion, against contraceptives, against fornication, and all those “bedroom” issues; as they continually promote narratives to “debunk” anti-Catholic views regarding the Crusades, the Inquistions, the treatment of Galileo, and so on.
“American Zionists, obviously the billionaire class” — question for clarification. Do you mean to equate the billionaire class in general with Zionists, or are you meaning specifically that the question of divided loyalty applies particularly to the billionaire Zionists, given their influence? I had to re-read several times before I realized that you might (and probably) mean the latter. As to buying networks to “silence criticism,” that is loaded spin, and again, that is no more nefarious than Catholics have a network to promote Catholic thought and counter Catholic critics. And frankly, I’d be less concerned with a billionaire buying a network and trying to retool it for a narrative (how’s that working, Jeff Bezos?), than with a poor Catholic nun who practically flunked out of school building the largest religious media network in the world.
“Until Israel became the huge problem it is, my view is that classic antisemitism (better word: Judenhass) was minimal.” There are six million Jews who were butchered literally within a decade before the creation of the nation state of Israel that would beg to differ.
the sheer level of angst directed against it
If it is true that Israel’s government has exploited influence over US policies and created the anger snd resentment that resulted in the attack of 9/11 (many say that this causation is probable) then the US becoming subservient to Israel is definitely an issue worthy of thought. Israel is not only perceived as a “settler-colonial outpost” but it really is just that. That is a ‘fact’ and not a trope. So in my view, at the very least, the issue of such harm done to the US must be considered within the mix.
I do not think 30+ years of war in the Middle East (as many say: significantly at Israel’s interest) have resulted in positive outcomes in the American political body. And that has created tremendous resentment on the part of those who see their living conditions made worse. Not sufficient investment internally is leading to a mood of people advocating for ‘socialistic’ solutions. My perception? The American business class does not care a damn about Americans. How can they? So, the connections (collusion) between the business/industrial class and the military class can be examined. And people are doing just that. So the narrative of 1) excessive service to israel and 2) vast resources committed to BS wars of no tangible advantage to average people, is certainly part of the justifiable “angst” that has arisen and will continue.
”Sheer level of angst” is excessive rhetorical embellishment. There is genuine concern and it is 100% justified. Except — and some of your discourse expresses this — that concern is vilified. Face it! It is true.
How about the issue of Benjamin Netanyahu declaring that the best course is for wealthy Jewish Zionist to BUY the media corporations so that the ‘speech’ there can be controlled. Is there any even a slight agreement that this has many levels of implication? Why do not you of Jack (or anyone among the ultra-free thinkers here say ANYTHING about this?! To me it is alarming.
Alizia,
Part of what I’m pointing out is that the United States is not subservient to Israel. I don’t know if you’re stating things in such a fashion to be hyperbolic, but just because Israel has influence doesn’t mean the US is meekly doing Israel’s bidding. And I don’t believe the US wouldn’t be involved in the Middle East if the state of Israel didn’t exist, though counter-factuals of course can’t be proved.
Historically, it is good to remember that the Middle East has always been a hot bed of violence. It isn’t like the area was a peaceful, harmonious place until Israel arrived. Perhaps it was relatively peaceful under the thumb of the Ottoman empire, but it had its fair share of wars and persecutions and whatnot against Britain, against each other, that stemmed proximately from the dissolution of the Ottoman empire and the way the Allies divvied up the world in 1919 in Paris. But it also stemmed from sectarian violence among Muslims, without any Jewish influence.
As for 9/11 being the result of the creation of Israel and US support of Israel, I could be willing to agree that is A factor. But it is also important to remember that there has been hate and resent against the West from the Crusades, from the Reconquista, from Lepanto, from the Paris accords of 1919, from… Muslims have been at war with the West since 622. They have a mandate to fight all peoples until everyone submits to Allah and proclaims that Mohammed is his prophet.
Why am I not alarmed about Bibi encouraging billionaire American Jews to buy networks? First, I have only so much bandwidth for outrage, and I see Israeli influence in the United States far less important than the Marxist influence that has invaded most of the US institutions and will tear our country apart from within. I am worried about the US military complex and the funneling of dollars into forever wars, yes, but I’m less concerned about that than the more imminent threat at home. But I’m also less concerned because from where I stand, Israel has faced so many baseless accusations (provably so), and it does face such existential issues that it makes sense to me for them to actively counter those who will do anything, spread any lie, in order to vilify Israel. As we’ve seen when one entity (such as Democrats) have seized the majority of the communication channels, it makes sense to set up a countering network (like Fox News, and now many independent outlets) to combat the narrative. I’m also not concerned because, as the Democrats have learned to their dismay, the United States is a terrible place to lock down speech and silence critics.
For example, while the angst against those dastardly Papists has largely dwindled, it is still the case that Catholics struggle with divided loyalty. And Catholics have built media networks (such as EWTN) to influence the country (and the world, even!) with Papist messages, and they pour a great deal of effort into influencing campaigns (see the voting guide pamphlets from Catholic Answers, for example).
That is an interesting comparison but it doesn’t work well (in your argument) because if there is advocacy by Catholics, it is advocacy for moral issues and the programs of Catholic social policy.
Israel is a “settler colonial outpost” and a militarized state with nationalist objectives. (Greater Israel). And it just destroyed 70-75% of the infrastructure in Gaza in what is seen by the world as “genocidal”.
Obviously, your comparison is not a useful one to your argument.
Do you mean to equate the billionaire class in general with Zionists, or are you meaning specifically that the question of divided loyalty applies particularly to the billionaire Zionists, given their influence? I had to re-read several times before I realized that you might (and probably) mean the latter.
I am referring specifically to very wealthy American Jewish Zionists who ‘serve’ Israel and its policies. Obviously, there is not only the appearance of divided loyalty but divided loyalty in fact.
This is not even questionable, in my view.
There are six million Jews who were butchered literally within a decade before the creation of the nation state of Israel that would beg to differ.
That narrative no longer functions as perhaps it once did. The issue of the way Israel was founded is and has become of concern to Diaspora Jews in large numbers. I referred you to a main one and I can refer you to 10 more. Israel’s policies, and now those of American Jewish Zionists, are doing great harm to the position of Jewry (largely because Zionism creates divided loyalty).
That’s not a “narrative.” It is what we call “a fact.” Or history. “Until Israel became the huge problem it is, my view is that classic antisemitism (better word: Judenhass) was minimal” is an indefensible statement. You are obligated to explain and justify it. Ryan was too kind: to state that is to deny the Holacaust, which was the greatest outburst of anti-Semitism despite all the other ones over the centuries. How is that “minimal”?
This better be good.
Jack, do you prefer that I stop writing on your blog? I will comply if that is what you want.
The narrative of the Holocaust and the way that it is used (see Finkkestein The Holocaust Industry) is very different from the real history of the destruction of European Jews.
And that “narrative” is no longer working if it is used to coerce support of Israel and refusal to face the facts of Israel’s machinations on many level.
I do not know if that is the “goodness” you are seeking though.
My views are my own. They will not be changed except by way of superior argument.
Nobody is ever discouraged from commenting here, as long as they do it civilly and with minimally acceptable coherence. All I ask for is more facts and fewer characterizations.
“Jack, do you prefer that I stop writing on your blog?”
Alizia, that is passive aggressive manipulation and, frankly, utter bullshit.
When you make a declaration that is, in fact, monumentally stupid, you had better be prepared for backlash or you damn well better be prepared to support it with facts – real, not imagined facts. Stating that antisemitism was relatively minimal is preposterous and you know it.
jvb
Thank you.
Antisemitism in the United States is (or was) relatively minimal. That is a fact. Most people in America today do not have negative views of Jews. In fact most people (myself included) very clearly state and believe that Jews as a class contribute a great deal.
So, your bizarre statement that I said anything monumentally stupid … is monumentally mis-applied!
We have to “disaggregate” the narratives that circulate today. When we don’t do that we wind up with binary, monolithic, determined views like Jack’s and others. Because I critique in specific (fair, reasonable) areas, you-plural ‘hear’ things that aren’t there.
This is what you wrote: “Until Israel became the huge problem it is, my view is that classic antisemitism (better word: Judenhass) was minimal.”
Is that specific or fair or reasonable? Hardly. It is flippant and dismissive. You can couch in any word you want by adding “dis” or “dys” but that doesn’t change anything.
Israel is a “huge” problem because countries and other groups in that region want to blow it off the map along with its inhabitants. What is Tel Aviv supposed to do? Should it simply say, “Well, it’s been a good run but, you know, this sliver of land ain’t worth it. Let’s move to San Diego where the weather is a groovy 79 degrees year round with minimal humidity”?
Where do you think the “final solution” came from? Just a few dudes sitting in a bar knocking back a few room temperature beers and one of them said, “You know, this awful inflation thingy is really bad. My second beer tonight cost more than the first. Damn Treaty of Versailles! I think I have an idea to solve this problem . . . Whattayou guys think?”
jvb
Alizia,
Can you qualify what you mean by “minimal”? Is that just an absence of physical violence? Because there were a lot antisemitic attitudes in the US prior to WWII, which manifested in restricting the number of Jews in various institutes, scapegoating, conspiracy theories, propaganda, and so on. And in trying to look at the rates of antisemitic crimes in the US, I’m having a hard time finding data going back to 1900, but from the 1970’s on, it really looks like the crime rate was pretty small, but then starting exploding in 2010’s and 2020’s.
Regarding your expertise and study in this arena, the one thing that I really want to stress is that your studies don’t help you very much in public discourse if you can’t convey to us sufficiently cogent arguments. I will readily concede I haven’t studied these issues as intensely as you have. Taking any time to challenge you on these particulars is making me do more research, if that’s any consolation.
So let’s look at this “minimal” example that blew up. It maybe shouldn’t have, but the reason it did was because of lack of clarity. Little prepositional phrases do a lot of heavy lifting. Without “in the United States” to qualify “antisemitism was minimal”, it sounded like you had a universal, rather than limited, scope in mind. And even now, given my first paragraph on this reply, you’re still not being precise enough in what you’re saying.
One of the problems I find, especially when it comes to very focused research, is that conversation tends to take for granted a host of background knowledge that the general populace doesn’t know. It isn’t that they don’t have access to that knowledge, but they haven’t spent the time or effort to acquire it, yet. So when you speak about Israeli policies that are negatively affecting some Muslim groups, I’ve heard about some of the West Bank expansion issues, so I know Israel sometimes is asshole. (Yes, that’s supposed to be a play on “Do not trust China, China is asshole.”) But if you’re going to just refer to Israel’s policy as “apartheid,” I’m now not inclined to listen because my understanding of what is going on in Israel and Gaza has more to do with Gazans being toxic and Israel letting Gazans do their own thing in a quarantined area than with nationwide efforts to reduce non-Jews to second-class citizens. (But you know which countries out there treat members outside of the favored religion as dhimmi, I mean, second-class citizens?)
Yes, the information is out there for us to find, if we are so inclined. What we’re asking of you (and no, there’s no obligation for you to obliged, as I said before, but if you care this much, then please make the effort) is to distill what you have learned into specific, understandable arguments. If you want to argue that Israel has overt influence in the United States, rather than just denouncing AIPAC in general, I would like to know what you know of votes that were flipped simply through threat of withdrawing AIPAC funding. If you believe the creation of the state of Israel was a mistake, what solutions do you have for moving forward that aren’t simply railing at the sky? As for the concern over “Greater Israel,” how close is the government of Israel to being a majority onboard with the effort? Specifics are helpful.
Also, a final note on scholarship. Isn’t it interesting that Protestants can study religion, ancient languages, Bible scholarship, the Early Church Fathers, and so on for years, and they don’t all become Catholic? I don’t understand it. It seems so very clear to me that all that studying should lead to the one, definitive answer that the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus founded.
Alizia, that is passive aggressive manipulation and, frankly, utter bullshit.
No, it is not. I sense when jJack said “It better be good” that I was being unfairly challenged or tested. Say the right thing, or else.
Frankly, I know more anout Jewish history, Jewish affairs, and certainly of Antisemitism than anyone on this blog (likely including Jack). I have STUDIED these things for years.
Everything I say about Zionism are issues being hotly discussed by Jews of Israel and the Diaspora. And everything I have said is fair, rational and ethical. Period and full stop. It’s you-plural who suffer from lack of background and even of INTEREST.
These are controversial issues, and in some instances being vocal results in negative consequences.
What I said to Jack was fair, civil and polite.
“It better be good” means “When you make an extreme assertion like saying that there was minimal anti-Semitism until Israel was established, you are ethically obligated to justify and explain that statement with facts, not opinions or unsourced assertions.” The same obligation applies to anyone who comments here, and me.
Which specific policy (or policies) are you referring to? Besides the two you have mentioned on a few occasions (Venezuela and Iran).
Which specific policy (or policies) are you referring to? Besides the two you have mentioned on a few occasions (Venezuela and Iran).
The policy of fulfilling a proxy-military role in the Middle East. See, I accept the view that Israel is a “settler-colonial” nation. The policy of destruction of the Palestinian cities and communities when the State was formed.
The policy of tightly associating Jewish identity with Zionist identity and, more importantly, ideology.
You can accept that view, but it is counterfactual nonsense. 1. Israel was granted territory other parties had laid claim to. They didn’t take anything. 2. Any territory Israel has occupied subsequently came as a direct result of other nations losing wars in which they attacked Israel. Lose wars you start, lose things. Simple formula, and entirely ethical.
Michael R brought this up some time ago, but you seem to treat “Zionist” the same way a good friend of mine does…as a dirty word.
I see it as a person – maybe Jewish, maybe not – who believes that the state of Israel belongs to the Jewish people and that they have a right to govern their own affairs, free from the threat of annihilation.
That’s not negative in any way.
Of course you define it in that way! That is the ‘standard’ definition. It has innumerable problems however. All of this I can explain, or refer sources where it is explained.
No…I didn’t define “Zionist” that way. That IS the definition, and that’s how Michael R defined it a week or two ago.
What is your definition of “Zionist?”
Massie had three strikes against him:
Massie was a quirky libertarian but not a team player. As the Democrats play like a team with lock-step voting on almost everything (except Sen. Fetterman) Trump wants the GOP to do the same. No more RINO’s like Sen Cassidy (R-LA) and the Indiana state senators who voted against redistricting, no independent mavericks like Massie.
You can accept that view, but it is counterfactual nonsense. 1. Israel was granted territory other parties had laid claim to. They didn’t take anything. 2. Any territory Israel has occupied subsequently came as a direct result of other nations losing wars in which they attacked Israel. Lose wars you start, lose things. Simple formula, and entirely ethical.
They had no “right” to grant that or any territory. Zionism is a doctrine that is established in various errors. The errors infect the issue and will continue. They very definitely took lots. And if you had more serious background in the history you would know that. You have a prejudices, partial view.
Because Israel was and is a colonial-settler project, it provoked wars. But the original aggression was by way of Jews who had their eyes set on conquest. They made the bed they sleep in, so the saying goes. I am telling you the facts as they are, without prejudice. It is better if you admit that this was do. Then, you can proceed to justifications (of the realities).
Since Israel-as-project began outside of ‘ethics’ (or just appropriation) and involved serious injustices (crimes if you wish). it is and will be forever marked by that. That is all there is to it. And that is all that I do say and have ever said (or will ever say).
Alizia,
This is what I’m talking about. You write, “Zionism is a doctrine that is established in various errors.” You take for granted we know what these errors are. Take a moment to define what they are, and defend that they are actually errors.
My understanding of Zionism is that various Jews in the nineteenth century had the idea to encourage sufficient Jews to migrate to Palestine so that they might eventually be a demographic power that could restore to the Jews their own state. It progressed in fits and starts, and never really took off until the aftermath of World War II made it feasible for them to finally take control of the territory under their own government. And the only reason they could actually take control is because the UN granted them that territory anyway.
So please, fill in the details of what errors are involved here. Is it the demographics are destiny, a Great Replacement effort that was hoping to achieve its goal peacefully and just through a shift in culture? Or is it something else? Is it that some Jews held the belief that the Messiah will come when Israel is restored? I could see that argument having some weight, that following a misguided notion that would result in a massive outbreak of tension is an error. But while you’ve alluded to this somewhat, you’ve not really made the case.
In the meantime, the race between Thomas Massie and Ed Gallrein apparently is now the most expensive primary for the House, standing at $32.6 million total between both contenders. A significant chunk of that money came from out of state. (The MS-Now article Jack links to says $14 million came from out of state, but their weasel way of writing does not make it clear if that amount only went to Gallrein, or if that was the total out of state contributions. A Politico article says Jewish PACs and Trump’s PACs contributed $16 million to Gallrein, so the numbers are all over the place.) There was significant spending from Jewish lobbies, but I’m not really finding any good breakdown of who all contributed to Massie’s campaign.
Ryan wrote: This is what I’m talking about. You write, “Zionism is a doctrine that is established in various errors.”
What you are talking about makes good sense. Except I have writings on this blog over at least a month that clearly has precisely expressed those errors.
Why did “They” not have the right to grant that territory? The Ottoman Empire which controlled that territory dissolved, new ownership was claimed, land was divvied up. Were there rules established for the transferral of territory in the case of the Ottoman Empire failing which were violated?
The issue of ‘right’ has to be better explained. They did not have the right to create circumstances that led to the displacement of people living already in that land, but within their own system of law, and in the domain they controlled, they of course had the right.
Not long ago on this blog, both NK Steve and Jack openly stated that international law does not exist. I.e. that there is no such thing. I believe I understood why they said it but you have to admit it means that there are no acceptable norms, and that the powerful will make the rules according to what they can get away with. Fine. In a real sense that is a truth.
Ryan wrote: Can you qualify what you mean by “minimal”?
I have been talking about in the US predominantly. And my understanding is that antipathy for Jews generally was quite marginal. Numerous Jewish writers and historians held that view. And it seems factual to me.
There is a problem however and it is that antisemitism is baked-in the Judaism. The basic narrative is established in Genesis. I know that this idea will have this entire blog of Boomers in a mass freak-out, but that is how I see it. It is simple: a displaced proto-Jew (a Hebrew), screwed by his own brothers, is given shelter and gains status and privilege in Egypt. Once with power he creates conflicts and in the end, and with “God” making all the decisions and engineering the situation, the Hebrews make a getaway with all the gold and precious merchandise while “God” brings down horrors on their former hosts.
In my view, Judaism is itself a huge problem because it is a calamitous mythology. To be a Jew is, by definition, to be subject to Jewish fate. And that fate (you can verify this by listening directly to the Orthodox rabbis) is an issue of God. All the calamities in the Myths are brought about by God by way of the Goyim (the Nations). The hardcore Orthodox will and do say this even about the European Shoah.
When the Scriptures are examined critically (the OT) it is this dual and rather terrible Yahweh who presents as an astounding violent and cruel torturer. You can find it all in Deuteronomy.
Before you(-plural) have an absolute meltdown try to under that I am only describing what is, and what is factual, and I am not advocating any such retributions. The Construct of Judaism is based on the core notion of the superiority of the Jewish soul in this world. The Goyim are less-than-human and the Jew is (naturally) imbued with Divine qualities. These are core beliefs within Orthodoxy. I am not making this up.
Try to understand that what I do, what I am compelled by some inner directive, is simply to see things as they are and nit to lie about them. If you-plural desire to ‘live in lies’ please go ahead! We tell magnificent, embellished Stories and justify ourselves so that we do not have to ‘see things as they really are’.
Alizia,
That is a particularly twisted way of viewing the narrative in the Torah, and while everyone approaches the Bible through their own interpretative lens, I really think you have to begin with an anti-Jewish lens to end up that kind of reading.
When I look at the Exodus narrative, what seems pretty clear in the text is that God used a bad circumstance (Jacob’s sons’ envy of Josesph and subsequent selling him into slavery) as a means of saving the nations in the surrounding lands from a particularly devastating famine. Egypt, when it cooperated with Gods plans, prospered all the more. It was only when Egypt turned on the Israelites, enslaved them, and sought to exterminate them, that God intervened and sent increasingly bad plagues to convince the Egyptians to end that enslavement.
When you write, “Once with power, he creates conflicts…” That is nowhere in the text. You have to read that into the text through your own biases. Joseph, placed second-in-command in Egypt, arranged for there to be sufficient food that Egypt and its surrounding lands could survive the famine. There were no wars mentioned, no conquering of people. Instead, grateful people were able to buy grain to survive, and when they ran out of money (because the famine was so severe they could not provide anything for themselves) they indentured themselves to Egypt for the sake of keeping alive. There is no conflict at all until centuries later, when Egypt, out of fear that the Israelites were growing too numerous and powerful, sought to suppress them.
Maybe you missed it in the text, but the Egyptians enslaved the Israelites. And maybe you also missed that Pharaoh commanded all the male children born to the Israelites to be slain. They were literally trying to commit genocide against the Israelites. And your take is that the Israelites turned on their “hosts”? I really think you tip your hand here and expose the deep seated hatred of Jews (not just Zionists) that you carry. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt before, but this reveals where your heart really lies.
That is a particularly twisted way of viewing the narrative in the Torah, and while everyone approaches the Bible through their own interpretative lens, I really think you have to begin with an anti-Jewish lens to end up that kind of reading.
You are interpreting me! My reading is simply part of the Story. it is all Fable of course but a ‘treasured tale’ and as such it expresses an attitude of relationship to the exploited host. I am trying to point out to you that the internal dynamics of Hebrew fables are of themselves condemnatory. Try to see what I am pointing out. Maybe it offends you that these stories contain these elements? Well don’t blame me! I am simply pointing it out.
In a major sense, Ryan, I am anti-Jewish! Why else would I have converted?! Was that a step up … or a step down, hmmmm?
Maybe you missed it in the text, but the Egyptians enslaved the Israelites
So said the writers of the Fable.
I really think you tip your hand here and expose the deep seated hatred of Jews (not just Zionists) that you carry.
You are interpreting again. I remain clear: Judaism contains its own antisemitism. Judaism is wedded to that view of the world. It creates the reactions it receives.
All I ask is that you give it a little time. There is certainly MUCH MORE in the OT that is exalted beyond words.
Ryan wrote: So please, fill in the details of what errors are involved here. Is it the demographics are destiny, a Great Replacement effort that was hoping to achieve its goal peacefully and just through a shift in culture? Or is it something else? Is it that some Jews held the belief that the Messiah will come when Israel is restored? I could see that argument having some weight, that following a misguided notion that would result in a massive outbreak of tension is an error. But while you’ve alluded to this somewhat, you’ve not really made the case.
The principal “error” was in the way that early Zionists took over Palestine. You will have to read real histories, not pro-Israel civic religious founding myths to realize and grasp the true history. It was established (for example) that a Jew from Brooklyn had far more rights (indeed Right itself, by definition) over a genuine inhabitant of Palestine. The entire conflict stems from this.
Another major error was to have become a military outpost deeply involved in “remodeling” and “confiscation” projects in the region. The militarization is mostly a US-Israel project. A collusion.
Then there is the Greater Israel project. If you are not aware of this, or of the military plan to provoke and defeat 7 various nations in the Middle East, then please do look into it. If you agree with that project and support it, fine! I am not arguing contrarily. I am only DESCRIBING REALITY. My argument is that Israel is an enormous, unsolvable problem. It is like an infection. And now it shows world-level consequences where people are broaching the topic on nuclear bombs.
The Orthodox hope in Moshiach and Reconstructed Temple is certainly an “error” since it will involve an ethnic-cleansing and the destruction of the Al Aqsa Mosque. 🕌
I think the level of destruction and killing (murder?) of Gaza (the deaths will likely exceed 150,000 if post-illness and suffering are accounted) is simply unreal. It will not be washed away. Though you (US media) does not report longer on it, it is THERE. And it is unreal devastation.
Do you wish that I go on?
Alizia, this rant is particularly noxious. Personally I regard referring to Israel as “an infection” to be per se anti-Semitism, as the statement would be right at home in “Conspiracy,” the HBO dramatization of the meeting organized by Eichmann to decide how to deal with all the Jewish prisoners Nazi Germany had accumulated. But you get the benefit of the doubt, so I’ll take that obnoxious choice of words as an arguably passable description of how setting up a special nation designated only for Jews was profoundly destabilizing to the whole region, because it was, and Israel’s neighbors’ long refusal to accept what the UN decided was the best course of many flawed ones—a predictable result—made it more so.
But again, you are dealing in characterization, opinion (certitude) and conspiracy (ironically!) rather than legitimate argument. To say Israel set out to “provoke” the four conventional wars launched against it by its neighbors is, literally, like the Klan arguing that blacks made them engage in lynchings. The four large-scale conflicts launched against the nation by Arab nations were:
The 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the coalition of five Arab nations (Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria) that almost immediately attacked the newly declared State of Israel.
The 1967 Six-Day War, when Egypt, Jordan, and Syria mobilized troops on Israel’s borders and initiated blockades, prompting Israel to launch a preemptive strike.
The 1973 Yom Kippur War, when Egypt and Syria launched a surprise, coordinated attack on Israel.
And I’d include the 1982 Lebanon War: triggered by attacks into northern Israel by the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO).
Finally, this statement is indefensible and deliberate misrepresentation to the point of gaslighting: “I think the level of destruction and killing (murder?) of Gaza (the deaths will likely exceed 150,000 if post-illness and suffering are accounted) is simply unreal. It will not be washed away. Though you (US media) does not report longer on it, it is THERE. And it is unreal devastation.” The October 7 terror attack was an act of war. No nation should accept that kind of deranged carnage without retaliating totally, decisively and completely. To ensure that another such attack cannot occur again, Gaza and Hamas need to be permanently destroyed, conquered, occupied, cleaned out, and never permitted to be a threat again. It has always had the option of surrendering and accepting the just consequences of what it did. That it has not makes the devastation you decry 100% its own doing. Population that put warmongers and murderers in charge of their governments are accountable for what those governments do and the wars they start. This is how war works, and has always worked. I get it: Hamas is playing the same game radicals always play: force your enemy to strike back at you to gain sympathy and support. The remedy is to make the strike quick, complete, and irreversible, with the instigators’ options being surrender/capitulation or extermination. Yes, the devastation in Gaza is horrible, just like the carnage in Sherman’s march to the seas and the bombing of Hiroshima was horrible. Sorry not sorry. In all three cases, these were just results of starting a war.
so I’ll take that obnoxious choice of words as an arguably passable description of how setting up a special nation designated only for Jews was profoundly destabilizing to the whole region, because it was, and Israel’s neighbors long refusal to accept what the UN decided was the best course of many flawed ones—a predictable result—made it more so.
That is of course what I meant. Most Israelis are normal people, creative, industrious, etc. Zionism (seen from the angles I have explored) can be likened to an ‘infection’ or even a pathology. Would you like the names of 4-5 Israelis who write on this theme? Does it absolve or condemn them that they are Jews and Israelis?
Movements that tend towards fascisms (both Right-tending and Left-tending) often have pathological roots, don’t they? Israel is understood BY ISRAELIS! to be verging into a fascistic-like governing structure. Do you not read the Jewish and Israeli press? I am not inventing this for malicious reasons. I am pointing out that Israeli-Zionist ambitions (and utterly brainless Christian Zionists) are having arguably negative net results on America. There is nothing unethical in saying this!
It is quite bizarre (for me, to me). I just wrote about Judaism as itself having pathological elements (grandiosity, a sense of spiritual and moral superiority, a right to assume control) as being baked-in to the religious ideology. Is that in your view “antisemitism”? (It could well be). This is what I see, it is what I have learned, but it is not a noxiously intended view. It is simply how I see things. But that is not all that I see. Jewish ethics are the foundations of Catholic and Christian ethics (and Catholic social doctrine, utterly negated in our present, and I am firmly committed to it (or is it them?).
“Would you like the names of 4-5 Israelis who write on this theme? Does it absolve or condemn them that they are Jews and Israelis?”
You really don’t get the “Appeal to Authority” thingy, do you?
That is not the function of references. I am posing as your educator. And wish to provide references for your study. However, as Jews and Israelis I believe they have some authority. But not guaranteed.
No they don’t! One’s ethnicity neither enhances nor reduces a commentator’s reliability. You should know that.
Not ethnicity: national status. Ss members of the state.
Same issue. Their opinions are either objective and independent, or they aren’t
That is beyond obvious. I have no idea why you stress it. All the arguments have to be heard, the reasoning assessed, and then a conclusion is reached.
Because you keep demanding “read the crackpots who agree with me!”…
I’m not sure I would lump Sherman’s war crimes in the same “They started it” category. Laying aside the issues of causation, the Confederate separation could have proceeded peacefully. They did try to negotiate the removal of what they viewed as foreign military installations in their country. Many in the north wanted to just let them go their way. Lincoln and northern warhawks used Sumpter to raise an army and invade.
Aside: Sherman was no savior; he used freed blacks for manual labor (able-bodied men only, leaving their families and elderly), and abandoned them when no longer useful.