People are talking about Jeffrey Goldberg's very late epiphany that Israel is not much of a democracy for Palestinians and this clashes with American values. He cited both discrimination against Palestinians inside Israel and in the occupation:Weiss claims that Jews don't want gentiles talking about them because it makes them feel "vulnerable." This is incorrect, and actually their supposed "vulnerability" is merely a guilt-peddling ploy Jewry uses to leverage itself into a position of advantage and eventual institutional supremacy.[T]here's very little Israel's right-wing government has done in the past year or so to suggest that it is willing to wean itself from its addiction to West Bank settlements, and the expansion of settlements bodes ill for the creation of a Palestinian state -- and the absence of Palestinian statehood means that Israel will one day soon confront this crucial question concerning its democratic nature: Will it grant West Bank Arabs the right to vote, or will it deny them the vote?But Walt and Mearsheimer said much of this a long time ago. They were on to Israel's intransigent refusal to end the occupation in 2006, and saw the clash with American values:Some aspects of Israeli democracy are at odds with core American values. Unlike the US, where people are supposed to enjoy equal rights irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity, Israel was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood kinship. Given this, it is not surprising that its 1.3 million Arabs are treated as second-class citizens, or that a recent Israeli government commission found that Israel behaves in a ‘neglectful and discriminatory’ manner towards them. Its democratic status is also undermined by its refusal to grant the Palestinians a viable state of their own or full political rights.At that time (and even after W&M retracted/regretted the word "blood") Goldberg said they were anti-Semitic, and so did a lot of other Israel lobbyists, in the New York Times, Yivo Institute, the Washington Post, etc. In fact, there's a basic prejudice at work here. It's OK if Jews say it, but not gentiles. That prejudice is based on the belief that Jews are outsiders, a minority, and are vulnerable. Not long after he was scolding Hannah Arendt for having insufficient love for the Jewish people, the great Jewish scholar Gershom Scholem said that only Jews could write Jewish history: "...Jewish historians... learned to insist, and rightly so, that Jewish history is a process that can only be understood when viewed from within..." Goldberg has the same view...
No, Jewry doesn't feel vulnerable when being openly discussed and debated out of fear of persecution, but rather out of fear that its murderous swindles, scams and self-serving hierarchy might be revealed for what they truly are: predatory.
Hence, Jewry creates an insular clique that treats both gentiles and any gentile criticism as anathema -- and then uses that same attitude instilled among its sympathisers, agents, enablers, hasbaraniks and collaborators to see to it that the Judeofascist question simply isn't talked about.
Here's an example of how Jewry organizationally attempts to instill the concept of its own supremacy into those gentiles with whom it comes into even casual contact as outlined by Guy Walters from a report in The Telegraph:
At the end of July, The Independent carried a piece by Christina Patterson in which she observed that many of her fellow inhabitants in Stamford Hill were intolerant of her presence. “I didn’t realise that goyim were about as welcome in the Hasidic Jewish shops as Martin Luther King at a Ku Klux Klan convention,” she wrote. “I didn’t realise that a purchase by a goy was a crime to be punished with monosyllabic terseness, or that bus seats were a potential source of contamination, or that road signs, and parking restrictions, were for people who hadn’t been chosen by God.”By adopting an air of superiority and entitlement when it comes to dealings, or even contact, with gentiles, and then viciously leveling charges of "hate" and "anti-Semitism" when gentiles defend themselves, Jewry seeks to portray itself as invincible, beyond criticism, unaccountable and never to be questioned or confronted. It's all part of its "chosen" pose, wherein it seeks to impress the concept of its own choseness not only upon its fledgling Jewish supremacist cult members, but upon any competing or critical gentiles as well in order to intimidate criticism and create a competitive advantage.
Thanks to these words, Patterson has earned herself a place in the Top 10 Anti-Semitic Slurs of 2010 compiled by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre...
...the Wiesenthal Centre has resorted to that old trick of selective quotation – always a top tactic for someone with an agenda. If you read the rest of her column, it’s clear that Patterson’s beef is not just with the behaviour of Hasidic Jews – she doesn’t like little girls wearing hijabs, or young women wearing niqabs. She also has little time for the revolting practice of clitoridectomy, which is inflicted on some 500 to 2,000 British schoolgirls every year. Taken as a whole, the entire column is about the limits of multiculturalism, and examines how, in her words, “certain practices, in different religious communities [...] conflict with some of the values in British society”. Patterson makes it clear that she can just about tolerate bad manners in the name of multiculturalism, but not much more than that. That seems a reasonable position to take, and is an opinion that should be freely expressed.
So I have to put a question to Weiss: Why do you relentlessly advance the fallacious concept that Jewry's defensiveness, haughtiness and air of entitlement is a reaction to past gentile persecution born of insecurity when in fact it's merely another cynical ploy in its ongoing arsenal to impose its own supremacist agenda? As you well know, supposedly Jewish "defense" organizations like Wiesenthal are simply elaborate swindles, fronts and shields for diaspora Jewish nationalism, so why do you credit Jewry in general as being motivated by earnest fear as opposed to a self-serving agenda? Given all the evidence, there's no reason to believe organized diaspora Jewry in general is any more earnest than Wiesenthal's diaspora Jewish nationalist troupe.
All of which raises the question of diaspora Jewish nation treachery vs. Israeli Jewish nation treachery. Which is worse? Weiss' grand pose is that if only the U.S. were to cut Israel loose (and it sank into the mire) the entirety of American Jewry would happily assimilate into America and we would all saunter in to a Utopian multicultural future paradise together.
First off, American Jewry has already demonstrated the limits of (tribalistic) multiculturalism through its self-serving underhandedness, economic predations, political intrigue, and downright criminalism (painstakingly documented on this blog and elsewhere). Secondly, given its nature, why does Weiss believe the entirety of American Jewry would ever truly cut Israel loose, and if Israel were to ever go down, would forgive America for abandoning her? No, Zionist Jewry would immediately begin planning a subversive and bloody campaign of treachery and revenge into which it would enlist as many Jews as possible.
The better answer is to repatriate Jewish-Zionist "American" Israel-firsters to the object of their relentless scheming, illegal intrigue, outright treason and obsessive affection: the Jewish nation itself.
C'mon. U.S.-born Jeffrey Goldberg moved from America to Israel so he could serve in the IDF, get comprehensive Zionist training and hasbara instruction, and return to the U.S. as an agent of Israel in the mainstream media. Do you honestly believe people like that are ever going to suddenly become loyal Americans? Only a liberal could be so naive (or pretend to be).
Why, even "progressive" Huffington Post writer Christina Patterson knows better.