Blaming the Jews
Everyone knows that the Jews control Hollywood. Everyone also knows that Jews are ‘Israel-firsters’. Which means that those who are not ‘Israel-firsters’ are going to have a tough time making it in the movie industry. Take Tilda Swinton. Even falsedi’s resident film critic, the Highbury Gaon, said that We Need to Talk About Kevin was brilliant. Never mind that the ‘Hollywood Reporter’ has a perfectly reasonable explanation for why she hasn’t been nominated for the Oscars (as George Orwell might have put it, just because it’s nominated for the Oscars it doesn’t mean that it’s good, and vice-versa). The reason she wasn’t nominated for the Oscars was because she once wore a Palestine scarf in ‘British Vogue’. Because the Jews control Hollywood. And the Jews are Israel-firsters. And because Israel-firsters are so committed to the cause that they won’t let a brilliant and deserving actress be nominated for the Oscars. And of course wearing a Palestine scarf means that Swinton must be the most deserving of the ‘Best Actress’ gong.
No more evidence required. You can count on less than one hand the number of times I’ve called out anti-Zionists for anti-Semitism on this site, but if the allegation insinuated by Phil Weiss isn’t anti-Semitic, then nothing is. Unless, of course, he has more evidence that he’d like to share.
PS I am Love came out before the appearance in Vogue, and she wasn’t nominated for that either.
PPS Steven Spielberg wasn’t nominated for War Horse. Any keffiyehs in his closet?
25 comments25 Comments so far
Leave a reply
”Everyone also knows that Jews are ‘Israel-firsters’.”
I certainly get told by a lot Jewish Zionists (and their non-Jewish counterparts) that the overwhelming majority of Jews support Israel. I also know what condemnation Jewish critics of Israel suffer (strange when one considers that most Jews weren’t in favour of a Jewish homeland prior to the Holocaust). I also know what kind of carpet bombing with smears of antisemitism critics of Israel receive and that this is due to the perceived identity ‘Israel = Jews’ (if one starts from that premise then indeed most criticism of Israel is criticism of the Jews)
But the Mondoweiss Hollywood critic’s assertion is indeed spurious, I thought that from the moment I read it.
It’s rather ironic you chose HP as a vessel for your rebuttal (or did they choose you? Make sure you don’t catch something!): there even expulsion of a Holocaust denier from the PSC is proof of the PSC’s antisemitism, now with extra Holocaust denial for maximum effect!
Where do you get the idea that most Jews before the Holocaust weren’t in favour of a Jewish homeland? Please tell me on what basis you’re making that statement.
Tilda Swinton used to go out with Richard Barnbrook, who was – until he was expelled – one of the leaders of the British National Party.
So what if an ‘overwhelming majority of Jews support Israel’? Diaspora populations are known for supporting the countries that share their nationality/ethnicity, and Jews aren’t an exception. ‘Israel Firster’ implies that Jews will place the concerns of a foreign country above that of the nation they dwell in, and surprise surprise, Jews don’t like that suggestion.
None one other than arch-Zionist Geoffrey Alderman (Jewish historian) stated this without hesitation on a panel show (‘The Agenda’, IIRW on Press TV) about 6 months ago. But it’s otherwise well documented. Maybe you should read up on it?
‘Israel Firster’ implies that Jews will place the concerns of a foreign country above that of the nation they dwell in, and surprise surprise, Jews don’t like that suggestion.
A rather narrow and self-serving ‘implication’ on your part, IMHO.
Note that Weiss didn’t write “Everyone knows that the Jews control Hollywood. Everyone also knows that Jews are ‘Israel-firsters’.” That’s content added by Alex Stein. Although I don’t believe Swinton got discriminated against for wearing a pro-Palestinian scarf, that idea isn’t all that far-fetched in a country where the potential next keeper of the nuclear launch codes makes statements like “Palestinians being invented people” and “terrorists” to great applause.
Anti-Palestinian/anti-Muslim feelings run very high in Holy Land II and the vast majority of these rabid racists aren’t Jewish but most of them support Israel unconditionally. Another feather in Zionism’s cap, I guess: that it attracts some of the worst racists imaginable, Jewish or Gentile alike. At least in that respect it’s a unifying force!
The BNP and its offshoot the EDL (New! Now with added Jewish wing and support from Jonafun Hoffman!) support Israel, so that’s a moot point as far as I’m concerned.
It’s not well documented, it’s complete nonsense. If you can find me anything more substantial than Geoffrey Alderman apparently saying so on Press TV, I’ll be happy to read. As for the other stuff, I think we’ve covered enough ground on the issue of ‘by your friends shall we know it’ etc etc.
Although no evidence is available, one wouldn’t have to invoke ‘Israel Firsters’ or ‘Jews control Hollywood’ to explain why Swinton could have been discriminated against, not by Jews but by non-Jewish supporters of Israel who see red whenever ‘Palestine’ is mentioned. There is no reason to believe there are none of those in the world of Hollywood, rather its logical to assume roughly the same quota of such people exist among the Hollywood crowd.
That puts your ‘it’s antisemitism’ assertion into some doubt. That’s a substantive point, Alex.
I’ll get back to you with evidence that with regards to poor support for a Jewish homeland pre-Holocaust as soon as I can.
But you need to ask yourself why someone like Geoffrey Alderman, who considers claims of ethnic cleansing committed by Israel to be a ‘blood libel’ (asserted on ‘Epilogue’ when discussing an ‘anti-Zionist’ book) would so calmly and without hesitation make claims of that nature.
To be clearer that should have read:
I’ll get back to you with evidence with regards to ‘poor Jewish support for the creation of a Jewish homeland pre-Holocaust’ as soon as I can.
First you said it was spurious, now you are saying it makes sense. Now, anything could be possible, but that doesn’t change the fact that making the allegation without evidence is of far more significance. Irrespective of what the views of the movers and shakers in Hollywood are, I don’t believe that the type of scarves Tilda Swinton wears would have anything to do with it. And until there is evidence to prove the assertion, the hypothetical remains an anti-Semitic smear, one deliberately put out there by Weiss.
As for Alderman, I don’t believe that he said that. But even if he did, I’d like to know his evidence. He might have said that most Jews didn’t want to go and live there, which is something entirely different, and probably accurate. But the notion that most Jews pre-Holocaust didn’t want a Jewish homeland doesn’t make much sense.
”First you said it was spurious, now you are saying it makes sense.”
Nope. Read it again. What I’m saying is that if evidence of discrimination existed, it could be explained by anti-Palestinianism, rather than having blaming ‘the’ Jews. Not the same thing at all.
”As for Alderman, I don’t believe that he said that.”
And yet that was precisely what he said. It was a substantial part of the program, I remember it well. I’ve no reason to lie: at the end of the day it’s a moot point considering that so much of worldwide Jewry now does support Israel. He had no problem admitting (it’s no ‘admission’ as far as I’m concerned) that pre-Holocaust, Diaspora Judaism was overwhelmingly not in favour of the creation of a Jewish homeland. He added that the Holocaust was the great game-changer.
The evidence doesn’t exist. So it’s irrelevant. What’s more noteworthy is that Phil Weiss makes the charge and is still taken seriously.
OK – I accept that Alderman said that. But that doesn’t make it true. I still await the evidence.
I find most of the above debate between Alex and Gert rather tangent to the thrust of the article. Being a Jew, and somewhat of a history buff, here’s my 2 cents: The majority of American Jews (and almost the whole of the Reform Movement) were indeed either indifferent to, or out right opposed, to the creation of a Jewish State, before the out break of WWII. The policy of the Reformed Movement was: (sic) Jews should be loyal to the nations they call home; that “dual loyalty” was something which should be avoided.
Sad but true…
Stuart – I don’t think that’s true, but it certainly wasn’t true of Eastern Europe, where most of the world’s Jews lived.
Alex:
Alderman also stated, and I’m paraphrasing from memory but he did use the term ‘anti-Zionist’: ‘before the Holocaust most Jews were anti-Zionist’. The slightly unusual context for the term ‘anti-Zionist’ is what got stuck in my mind re. that particular panel discussion.
You’re right in saying that just because Alderman says so it is true. And I’ll concede that his statement and my echo of it does not do a complex and longish part of history (Herzl’s Zionism in the 20th Century, pre-Shoah) full justice.
But I do believe it useful, where justified, to prick through myths and from my reading the ‘eternal Jewish longing for return to Zion’ is largely mythological.
I think Lenni Brenner’s Zionism in the Age of the Dictators which is packed full with examples of, to put it simply, ‘assimilationist’ Jewish movements defeating Herzl’s Zionism, is a good starting point.
One the examples is Poland, where in 1938 the Bund obtained 17 out of 20 Jewish seats on Warsaw’s local council. The Zionists obained precisely one. Source is Isaac Deutcher’s Non-Jewish Jew and other Essays. See also the shifting of the 1st Zionist Congress in 1897 from Munich to Basle because Munich’s Jewish community opposed it being held there (Nathan Weinstock’s: ‘Zionism: a False Messiah’).
With regards to pre-Shoah attitudes; I’m sure there are loads of studies here that I’m not up to date on. Most of the mainstream texts do cover it reasonably – like Berkowitz’s book on Zionist Culture, Shimoni’s on Zionist Ideology, and Alain Deikhoff’s book. Other mainstream historical writers who are probably worth a look in include Jonathan Frankel and Jehuda Reinharz. I’m not saying they’re good on Zionism or anti-Zionism, but they are more likely to produce easy to find texts and do give space to the fact of Zionism’s abject lack of popular support pre-WW II. So does Tom Segev in The Seventh Million, by way of contrast to the impact of the Holocaust. Less mainstream, but very interesting authors would include Daniel Boyarin and maybe George Mosse – both are interested in sexualities, muscularism, militarism and nationalist ideologies more generally, looking at Zionism as a project mobilising these motifs (or failing to mobilise Jews around these motifs). There is a great deal more – if none of the above useful, let me know and will try to dig something out more specific.
There’s corroborating stuff also in Mike Marqusee’s book on the journey of an anti-Zionist Jew. Jewish identity changed continuously and the old ‘national’ myths about a return to Zionism became just ritual sayings. Bernard Lazarre, who was a Zionist but broke with Herzl in 1898 was the original Dreyfusard (he saw that Herzl was dabbling with the enemy like Drumont, the most infamous anti-Dreyfusard) said of the ‘return to Jerusalem’ prayer that all it meant was that ‘next year we will be free’.
Whenever they had the opportunity, Jews went anywhere but Palestine. There were some 2.5 million Jewish refugees from Czarist Russia between 1850 and 1914. Just 50,000 went to Palestine and of them about half came back (i.e. 2% max).
And perhaps all this reflects the fact that even today, when making Alyah is easier than ever before, still only about 40 % of worldwide Jewry lives in Israel.
Ooopsie:
You’re right in saying that just because Alderman says so doesn’t make it necessarily true. Of course.
Gert – some of your examples may be interesting, and I suppose we could take some time to look at them more closely, but none of them back up your original statement (at best the evidence is anecdotal). As for the final point re. Jews actually coming to Israel, it’s pretty meaningless. Jews, like anyone else, would prefer to go wherever it’s easier to make a living, and that place hasn’t normally been Israel. Sadly (or happily, for you) a bunch of my friends have ‘returned’ from Israel in recent years: all of them are Zionists, all of them would prefer to live in Israel, but they simply can’t develop their careers there as they would like to. I hope that won’t happen to me, but one can never rule this out.
Oh, well, and here was me thinking that making the desert bloom would at least create loads of economic activity!
You don’t think there are other factors that may influence slowed Alyah/reverse Alyah? General uncertainty? A general feeling the country isn’t really going in the right direction? The constant veering further to the right? An almost non-existent degree of antisemitism in most of the host countries?
As ever, you’re imposing your world-view on everything you read. For the record, there’s relatively low unemployment in Israel, and the country hasn’t been as badly effected as some other countries (for example the UK) by the recession. Unfortunately, though, the cost of living remains disproportionately high, and salaries relatively low. If you don’t have a firm grip on the language, it becomes harder to find meaningful work, not to mention the fact that there are obviously fewer opportunities in a country of seven million people than there are in one of sixty million.
As for the second point, when it comes to my friends, it’s almost exclusively down to their careers (or occasionally their partners). I don’t know enough about current aliyah/reverse aliyah statistics to be able to comment further.
OK, your examples.
1) The Bund winning more seats on Warsaw’s local council is anecdotal at best. First, it’s Warsaw (where Jews tended to be more assimilated than the rest of Poland), and second because it was an election for a local council and not a referendum on whether or not Jews supported statehood. I accept, however, that the Bund had a fairly decent following in pre-war Europe, although – as I think you acknowledged – the Holocaust put paid to most of their arguments.
2) Again, it’s anecdotal. I don’t know anything about how Munich’s Jewish community operated (incidentally some of my family came from there); but I think one can assume that there was no democratic vote. And 1897 is very early in Zionist terms.
3) Your authors and suggested reading do indeed sound interesting, but there’s nothing there to indicate that they’ll be able to prove the original claim.
4) Similarly with the Lazarre stuff. It’s not even anecdotal, it’s just individual opinions.
5) I’ve dealt with this already, I think. Of course Jews – like anyone else – went where they felt they’d be economically more successful. This does not mean that they opposed Jewish statehood. As we both know, the Jews who chose America over Palestine were kind of important in supporting Jewish efforts towards statehood.
6) 40% is wrong. It must be very close to 50% now, and will be a substantial majority within our life-times, if not sooner. Israeli growth rate is very healthy; diaspora Jewry rather less so. The reasons for this are obvious.
I saw your latest comment last night. I see you’ve been gnawing at some of my arguments.
Very well, then. Am I right in assuming to according to you most Jews were in favour of a Jewish homeland in that tumultuous pre-Holocaust period? If so, what positive evidence or proof do you have for that assertion?
I suspect that most Jews were in favour of a Jewish homeland while not necessarily wanting to move there themselves (and presumably there were many disagreements as to what Jewish homeland actually meant). I doubt that there were many opinion polls taken on the subject, though, but we can draw some conclusions based on geography (based on what we know about Zionist history etc). I suspect that Jews in Eastern Europe were largely supportive, with Jews in Western Europe more ambivalent. I suspect that American Jews were divided and Sephardi Jews probably didn’t know too much about it as it wasn’t so relevant to them. But I don’t know any of this for certain, and I will certainly keep my eye out in the future to see if it makes sense. But the idea that a majority of them actively opposed it seems very far-fetched, based on what I know.
Ok. Read and noted.