Friday, April 24, 2009

Quotable: "99 percent of American Jewry"

... anti-Zionists would be hard put to find any affirmatively identifying Jew who would not view them as mortal enemies. Studies and opinion polls have shown that 99 percent of American Jewry identifies with the right of Jews to the Jewish state.

For religious Jews, as we have seen, Israel and Jewish nationhood are part of their religious creed. An anti-Zionist is therefore an enemy of religious Jews. As for secular Jews, anti-Zionists oppose the one aspect of Judaism which they passionately affirm--Israel. The only Jews who could see anti-Zionism as anything other than an expression of antisemitism affirm neither Jewish nationhood nor the Jewish religion.

Source: Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin. The Nine Questions People Ask About Judaism. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1986) p. 125.

Notice that Prager and Telushkin use the ambiguous phrase "identifies with." I actually think this speaks to a certain mindset among some American Jews. While they may not be full blown Zionists themselves, they give prime consideration not to questions of right or wrong but to the well-being of Jews.

To cite one prominent example, although typically characterized as an anti-Zionist, in 1914, Henry Morgenthau, Sr. used his position as the US ambassador to the Ottoman Empire to have an American warship, the USS Tennessee, sent to Alexandria, Egypt "ostensibly to protect American citizens. In fact, it made possible the evacuation of many impoverished Jewish refugees, including about one hundred prominent Zionists who had been released from prison. Among them were the young David Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, who were destined to become, respectively, Israel's first prime minister and second president."

Ben-Gurion was no impoverished refugee but a commited Zionist who voluntarily migrated to Palestine to participate in the Jewish takeover. In a memoir, Ben-Gurion said he "never suffered anti-Semitic persecution" in his native Poland.

Earlier, Morgenthau had arranged for the another American warship, the USS North Carolina, to ferry $50,000 in gold from Jewish financier Jacob Schiff to "Zionist authorities" in Palestine. This same Schiff, another "anti-Zionist," used his financial power to, among other things, help bring about the defeat of the Russians in the 1904-05 Russo-Japanese War.

Addendum: In the incident involving the USS North Carolina, Morgenthau made the arrangements "through the good offices of his friend, Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels." According to the final report of the 1898 Wilmington Race Riot Commission, prior to his Navy appointment, Josephus Daniels was "a hearty supporter of the Democratic Party's white supremacy platform" and was "enlisted ... as editor of the Raleigh News and Observer to be the 'militant voice of White Supremacy.' " Inasmuch as Zionism is run through with strong elements of Jewish-White supremacism it is not surprising that Morgenthau would befriend a known racist like Daniels. Birds of a feather ...

See also:
Last revised: 24 October 2009

Labels: , , ,

since you consider 99% of jews to be zionists, i was going to ask why you don't rename your website "jews out." but then i remembered, you're trying to portray yourself as not antisemitic. duh!
The quote says, "99 percent of American Jewry identifies with the right of Jews to the Jewish state" and, as indicated in the post, it is the opinion of Dennis Prager and Joseph Telushkin, not me.
Yes, they wrote it. But you quote it because it is your opinion. Why else would you use the quote? Should we not think that you simply use it to promote hostility towards Jews under the rubric of calling them zionists?

I would love to be proved wrong.
Actually, it's not my opinion. Prager and Telushkin are Zionists and they don't pretend otherwise. I think they have overestimated American Jewish support for Israel and they do not cite any sources for their claim. In any case, they don't say that 99% of American Jews are Zionists and I don't believe or say that either. I discussed the ambiguity in their assertion, not its validity. It is a ridiculous to assert that one necessarily subscribes to whatever opinion one quotes.
of course you are agreeing with them, and in order to disguise your antisemitism as antizionism. here is why: your whole comment can be summed up in one sentence: "supposed antizionist jews are actually zionists." which is how you rationalize your animosity towards jews. rather than rationalizing your hatred for jews on "racial" grounds, you try to rationalize it on "cultural" grounds (jewish religion, etc). that is how all "acceptable" racism appears today, as cultural racism. and that is what you are pushing.

once again, please prove me wrong.
I don't feel any particular need to try to prove anything to you and it seems that you're pretty impervious to anything I say. But I am curious what, to your mind, would constitute proof that I don't agree with Prager and Telushkin? You ask me to prove you wrong, what would that take?
You are writing attacking American Jews in general. You write: "While they (ie. American Jews) may not be full blown Zionists themselves, they give prime consideration not to questions of right or wrong but to the well-being of Jews." You go on to target not Jewish persons who identify with zionism, but rather a Jewish American who, according to you, is "typically characterized as anti-Zionist" - Morgenthau. And you portray him as subordinating questions of right and wrong to the question of what is good for the well-being of Jews. This is an age-old anti-Jewish epithet. And you are applying it to American Jews in general, maybe even 99% of them. Therefore, your post is antisemitic.
You misquote me. The post refers to "some American Jews." Do you deny that "some American Jews ... give prime consideration not to questions of right or wrong but to the well-being of Jews"? Don't you see anything wrong with Morgenthau using American warships to carry out his own private foreign policy initiatives in support of Jewish colonizers in Palestine?

I notice you did not answer my question in my last comment. That's your right but I take that as indicating I was correct about your imperviousness and, so, our discussion, such as it is, is probably at its end.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?