Masha Gessen never changed. This is just a new subject for her to exercise her well-known self-hate. I don’t know if she deserves to be taken seriously beyond the fact that she is adding her voice to a growing number of self-hating Jews. My only question to them is - what do they think will happen if they get surrounded by those who do not differentiate between antisemitism and anti-Zionism? Who see Jew being a Jew regardless of his or her political AND religious views? Or will they simply deny their ethnicity as well in favor of their goal which is becoming difficult to decipher beyond trying to “save their skin.”
One need not be a religious Jew or one steeped in Jewish community to understand Israel is the only country in the world that won't murder or exile Jews. One just needs to know history.
I resent that journalists like this have sullied the good name of those of us who are progressive/liberal/leftie;care about human rights/concerned about racism-fascism-xenophobia, etc. They are self-delusional sell outs looking to be embraced by a mass of antisemitic human-rights poseurs.
Thanks for this piece. I too have been struck by the over-the-top journalistic defense of Mamdani’s problematic statements and associations. As happened when Bernie started to rail against Hillary as “establishment” and I protested, it’s distressing to feel a divide opening up between me and people whose views I respect. I’m listening and reading with as much of an open mind as I can muster, but I keep getting stuck on the question: Why doesn’t he just condemn “globalize the intifada”? Is it for political purposes—e.g. not wanting to be disowned by the NSA? Out of stubborn-ness? (I can sort of get that; when people push on me, I can get more entrenched, too) Or is his attachment to the phrase deeper and more “principled” (according to a certain world-view, which is, for me, where the trouble lies.) His supporters are adamant about him not being antisemitic. But I actually haven’t used that term in connection with him; like “misogyny” it either covers way too much territory or too little. And I’m always suspicious of any labels the Republicans are throwing around. But I don’t need a label to have felt very, very uneasy (worse than that, but I don’t want to sound “hysterical”) when he refused, three times, to condemn “globalize the intifada”—no, worse than that, fell into typical politician word salad in order to avoid answering the question. Why won’t he do it? What stops him? That’s a legitimate concern, especially given his past statements and associations.
No. He believes in the intifada. He does not believe that Israel should exist as a Jewish state. He’s an Israel annihilationist. Therefore the intifada can be globalized.
Michelle Goldberg's comments reveal that she believes that content is as important as charisma. Jews have been there before -- and it doesn't turn out well. Let's believe someone when they say something negative and not twist it to fit a "yes, but..." narrative.
Masha Gessen never changed. This is just a new subject for her to exercise her well-known self-hate. I don’t know if she deserves to be taken seriously beyond the fact that she is adding her voice to a growing number of self-hating Jews. My only question to them is - what do they think will happen if they get surrounded by those who do not differentiate between antisemitism and anti-Zionism? Who see Jew being a Jew regardless of his or her political AND religious views? Or will they simply deny their ethnicity as well in favor of their goal which is becoming difficult to decipher beyond trying to “save their skin.”
One need not be a religious Jew or one steeped in Jewish community to understand Israel is the only country in the world that won't murder or exile Jews. One just needs to know history.
I resent that journalists like this have sullied the good name of those of us who are progressive/liberal/leftie;care about human rights/concerned about racism-fascism-xenophobia, etc. They are self-delusional sell outs looking to be embraced by a mass of antisemitic human-rights poseurs.
He's a good looking guy with a winning smile.
May that be the extent of his winning.
People have lost their minds to defend such an inexperienced fantasy figure. Build-a-Mayor like making a Sims character.
You should reframe this well-argued piece as an Op Ed to The New York Times. Since the Times opposed Mondani editorially, they just might publish it.
Thanks for this piece. I too have been struck by the over-the-top journalistic defense of Mamdani’s problematic statements and associations. As happened when Bernie started to rail against Hillary as “establishment” and I protested, it’s distressing to feel a divide opening up between me and people whose views I respect. I’m listening and reading with as much of an open mind as I can muster, but I keep getting stuck on the question: Why doesn’t he just condemn “globalize the intifada”? Is it for political purposes—e.g. not wanting to be disowned by the NSA? Out of stubborn-ness? (I can sort of get that; when people push on me, I can get more entrenched, too) Or is his attachment to the phrase deeper and more “principled” (according to a certain world-view, which is, for me, where the trouble lies.) His supporters are adamant about him not being antisemitic. But I actually haven’t used that term in connection with him; like “misogyny” it either covers way too much territory or too little. And I’m always suspicious of any labels the Republicans are throwing around. But I don’t need a label to have felt very, very uneasy (worse than that, but I don’t want to sound “hysterical”) when he refused, three times, to condemn “globalize the intifada”—no, worse than that, fell into typical politician word salad in order to avoid answering the question. Why won’t he do it? What stops him? That’s a legitimate concern, especially given his past statements and associations.
No. He believes in the intifada. He does not believe that Israel should exist as a Jewish state. He’s an Israel annihilationist. Therefore the intifada can be globalized.
Michelle Goldberg's comments reveal that she believes that content is as important as charisma. Jews have been there before -- and it doesn't turn out well. Let's believe someone when they say something negative and not twist it to fit a "yes, but..." narrative.
What do these do-called Jews think “from the river to the sea” means? These two morons are a disgrace.
Counterpoint: both are shiksas.
Israel perpetrated 9/11 and falsely blamed the Muslims. The evidence is conclusive.
https://edwardnathanschwarz.substack.com/p/israel-perpetrated-911?r=5e930t
Oh damn, I thought that was Tim Robinson
Great article. Thank you.