Michelle Goldberg’s Jewish Problem, and Ours
Indeed, that ideology thrives today in Husseini’s descendants, who continue to adhere to the tradition and the Islamic and Nazi ideas he developed in the war years. It includes demonization of Jews, denial of the Holocaust, hatred of any Jewish state in supposedly Arab land, and a desire to cleanse the world of Jews based on both reiteration of classic German anti-Semitism combined with Islamic theology. While this strain of anti-Semitism lives on and is extremely dangerous and even ignored, Goldberg warns instead of what she calls an actual alliance between fascists and Zionists.
As she argues: “But alliances are necessarily two-way. If the European far right is increasingly cozy with Israel, it’s in part because Israel itself has lurched to the right and now shows increasing tolerance for fascism.” Here is a country with gay rights, Arabs in the Knesset, a thriving democratic debate, scores of small factions of all kind, confronted with an Islamic theocracy-Hamas-threatening to destroy it from its very borders. And yet, Goldberg points not to the very real threat posed by radical Islam to Israel, but to the invitation to Israel of the Dutch anti-Islamist Geert Wilders.
She even quotes an editorial in the Jerusalem Post which she calls “shocking,” because its editors made the obviously sound judgment that “while there is absolutely no justification for the sort of heinous act perpetrated this weekend in Norway, discontent with multiculturalism’s failure must not be delegitimized or mistakenly portrayed as an opinion held by only the most extremist elements of the Right.” Evidently Goldberg cannot read clearly, since the editorial says the view is valid, and is not one limited to extremists of the far Right.
Goldberg might well have looked at the column appearing in the leftist Israeli daily Haaretz by Alexander Yakobson. As he points out, Russian Jews who migrated to Israel are now playing a retrogressive role in Israeli society, one that stems from the baggage of their life in the Soviet years. Hence, they are trying to prohibit freedom of expression. Nevertheless, Yakobson points out,
For decades now, we’ve been hearing ad nauseam that democracy is in danger and fascism is at the door. And throughout this time, there were more than a few negative, worrying omens and developments that justified those warnings. But there is no doubt that Israel today is a much freer and more democratic state than it was in the 1970s, when the fad of foreseeing the imminent end of Israeli democracy first appeared.
Again, Goldberg obviously has little acquaintance with what fascism is. Like others on the Left, she tosses the term out to use in opposition to Israeli policy of which she disapproves.
In her second column yesterday, this one at Tablet, Goldberg reassures leftist Jews that they have no cause to worry; Jews will never desert the Democratic Party and vote Republican. She is probably right about that. As Dennis Prager wrote in a column arguing why they should do just that, since, in all things that Jews should be concerned about as Jews—such as the ritual religious observance of male circumcision, there is a “threat to Jews posed by the Left.” As Prager writes:
Of course, not everyone who is on the left- and certainly not the traditional liberal- is an enemy of Jews. But aside from Islamists, virtually all the enemies of the Jews are on the left.
Indeed, the campaign to delegitimize Israel, one in which Goldberg is involved although she probably does not realize it, comes entirely from the ranks of the Left. The news media, the universities and the magazines “drum into the minds of their students, readers, listeners and viewers that Israel is one of the worse societies on earth.” And this anti-Israel propaganda is what Goldberg carries on, in the name of sanity. As Prager writes:
Yet, most American Jews still walk around thinking that Christians and conservatives are their enemies when, in fact, they are the best friends Jews have in the world today. From the present conservative Canadian government, which is probably the most vocal pro-Israel country at present, to every major conservative talk-show host in America (including the fiercely pro-Jewish and pro-Israel Glenn Beck, who has been libeled as an anti-Semite), to the leader of Holland’s Party for Freedom and member of the Dutch parliament, Geert Wilders (one of the most eloquent pro-Israel voices in Europe today), to the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page — the Right is where the Jews’ friends are.
Of course, to Goldberg Beck is an anti-Semite and fascist, as of course, is Geert Wilders. To prove his point, in her Tablet article, Goldberg seeks to deny that as various polls show- not just conservative ones- enough of a Jewish constituency is drifting away from Obama that although most Jews will probably vote for him in 2012, in key areas like Florida, enough Jews have outspokenly noted their grave disappointment about Obama’s Middle Eastern policy. In key contested areas in which a large Jewish constituency votes, even a small number of Jewish defectors from the Democratic ticket could result in a Republican presidential candidate winning the state in question.
And, a few days ago, former Mayor Ed Koch of New York City endorsed the Republican candidate for election to the Congressional seat formerly held by Anthony Weiner. Koch argues on the grounds that Obama and the Democrats must be taught a lesson by Jews, who should put into the House a pro-Israeli Republican rather than a Democrat who stands by Obama’s anti-Israeli policies.
Goldberg instead uses the shibboleth that Evangelicals only support Israel because they want to convert Jews to Christianity before the end times, and liberal Jews “don’t trust people who want to turn their country into a Christian nation, even if these people swear to protect the Jewish state.” Goldberg seems unawares that not all evangelicals are motivated by the desire to convert Jews. Reverend Hagee’s Christians United for Israel, for example, makes it quite clear that their dedication to Israel is not motivated by the dream of conversion.
Michelle Goldberg openly advocates on behalf of promiscuity. She is thoroughly secular. This is the number one reason why such an individual is hostile towards conservatives. All the other alleged excuses are mere rationalizations. Their embrace of a secularist agenda carries over into other areas like the defense of the West and Israel. Goldberg is also a very poorly educated young lady who obviously obtained a phony degree. Grade inflation is the norm today. The Goldbergs don’t have to earn their credentials in the softer disciplines. They just have to please their left-wing professors.
“Goldberg attributes his [Brevivik's] actions to none other than his supposed belief in Zionism!”
She does nothing of the sort. She only states quite rightly that Brevivik considered himself an ardent Zionist, although she also quotes him as warning his comrades against the “nation-wrecking multiculturalist Jew” – a phrase that RR himself might adopt, considering his views.
RR: ‘Jews should not be surprised when a candidate they vote for, like Barack Obama, moves to “throw Israel under the bus.”’
They should also not be surprised when the Right misrepresents Obama’s views. Recently, for example, I received a robo-call from the Republican Jewish Coalition, asking for my opinion of Obama’s Mideast peace plan, which the call said was based on Israel’s “indefensible” ’67 borders. Not a word about land swaps. Surprise, surprise.
Readers should also take note of the following in RR’s blog:
“What if the ban on circumcision introduced as legislation in San Francisco had passed? … Would turning Jews into criminals because they had their children circumcised get Goldberg to accept the very real threat to Jews that comes from the precincts of the Left?”
Of course, the “real threat” of this legislation was also aimed a Moslems, but including them would dull the point of RR’s attack.
The November 2009 Clinton statement in its entirety said:
“We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements.”
Hence, the President’s statement fairly can be read as only adopting the “Palestinian goal.”
These are Palestinian goals? Then what do you imagine are Israeli goals? No land swaps? Actually, if these were indeed the goals of the Palestinians, peace would have been achieved a long time ago.
Joseph: The proponents of the San Francisco circumcision ban issued a propanganda comic book, which portrayed “Captain Foreskin” defending baby boys from “Monster Mohel”. So tell me again how this was “also aimed at Moslems”.
Well y’see, Rich, Moslems also circumcise their male babies. So maybe a comic book doesn’t tell the whole story.
the proponents knew that, y’see, that’s why their comic book does tell the whole story
Well, y’see, that’s why the comic book does tell the whole story.
Hard to counter comic book arguments. Maybe this will make it clear: The proposed law would have criminalized circumcision regardless of the religion of the child and regardless of any comic book. Period.
Even had a ban on circumcision become law, Jews and Muslims alike would not have obeyed it.
However, enforcement of the law — arresting offenders, trying them in court, punishing them — to the extent it were possible at all, would have been confined to Jewish offenders exclusively, for two simple reasons:
1. San Francisco would be scared shitless to arrest and prosecute Muslim offenders.
2. The law couldn’t say so, but was aimed at Jews, as the propaganda cartoon brazenly showed.
In any case, San Francisco would soon learn to be be scared shitless to arrest or prosecute Jews also.
Even if a ban on circumcision did become law, Jews and Muslims alike would not have obeyed it.
However, enforcement of the law — arresting offenders, trying them in court, punishing them — to the extent it were
possible at all, would have been confined to Jewish offenders exclusively, for two simple reasons:
1. San Francisco would be afraid to arrest and prosecute Muslim offenders.
2. The law couldn’t say so, but it was aimed at Jews, as the propaganda cartoon brazenly showed.
“… enforcement of the law … would have been confined to Jewish offenders exclusively….”
Nothing like a little crystal ball gazing to buttress your argument – an argument that doesn’t get stronger by being repeated twice (although it was a good idea to remove the threatening sentence).
Ronnie: it would be well to remember that seder’s (if not the first) have been celebrated in the White House during the Obama administration. Not only is this intrinsically significant, it is noteworthy because of the (legitimate) irredentist sentiments of the Passover celebration.
Hey Hank: Given Obama’s unprecedented anti-Israel history why isn’t it more reasonable to assume that this “seder” in the White House was either a cheap PR ploy or part of the movement by leftist Jews to capture the symbol of the seder on behalf of their causes?
When I saw pictures of Obama “celebrating” the seder I thought, “hmmm … Pharaoh gives a seder”.
Hank, perhaps you can give your thoughts as to how Obama interprets the prayer and vow, “Next Year In Jerusalem!”? In the event you have never been to an authentic seder, it is the climax of the evening.
Since some readers may have taken RR at face value and neglected to read Goldberg’s piece, I think it’s important to emphasize the following:
‘While Jean-Marie Le Pen, the founder of France’s ultraright Front National, is a Holocaust denier, his daughter and successor, Marine Le Pen, is working to cleanse the party of its reputation for Jew hatred, telling the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that it “has always been Zionistic.” In the early 1990s, the British National Party organized a violent neo-Nazi gang called Combat 18. In 2009, the party’s leader, Nick Griffin, boasted that his was the only British party to support Israel’s war “against the terrorists” in Gaza.
‘Earlier this year, Newsweek ran a story about this phenomenon titled “Europe’s Extreme Righteous: Far-right European politicians find love—and common cause—in Israel.” It opened with three politicians, “a Belgian politician known for his contacts with SS veterans, an Austrian with neo-Nazi ties, and a Swede whose political party has deep roots in Swedish fascism,” visiting the Holocaust museum Yad Vashem. They met with members of the Knesset and signed something called the Jerusalem declaration, which affirmed, “We stand at the vanguard in the fight for the Western, democratic community” against the “totalitarian threat” of Islamic fundamentalism.’
If RR sees fit to make common cause with Geert Wilders, the British National Party, Le Pin’s party, etc., that’s his business. But most Jews will understand that sometimes my enemy’s enemy is also my enemy.