Glenn Greenwald admits that “anti-Semitism plays a role in some hostility toward Israel”.


Glenn Greenwald

There are two things Glenn Greenwald and I have in common – which is two more than I realized only an hour ago.

He has the flu, according to his latest ‘Comment is Free’ post, and I have flu-like symptoms due to a recent ill-advised flu shot.

The other more substantive commonality pertains to one acknowledgement in his post – one of seven miscellaneous observations by the Guardian’s new U.S. blogger.

In the context of complaining about the alleged recent smearing of Matt Stoller (former Democratic staffer and MSNBC producer) as a racist, Greenwald pivoted to make a broader point:

“There are few things more reckless and disgusting than publicly smearing someone as a racist – easily one of the worst things you can say about someone in America, for very good reason – purely for partisan gain. That’s especially true when you are well aware that you have no basis for the accusation.

For years, neocons did the same thing with “anti-Semitism” charges. They seized on a real and serious problem – anti-Semitism – and converted it into an exploitative, opportunistic weapon to punish those who deviated from their political views, particularly on Israel. The worst part of that behavior – aside from ruining people’s reputations by casting them as bigots without any cause – is that it dilutes the power of that term and makes it no longer effective to use when it actually appears.

That is precisely what spouting knowingly baseless accusations of racism achieves. Obviously, racism plays a substantial role in motivating some of the hostility toward the first African-American president, just as anti-Semitism plays a role in some hostility toward Israel. That’s precisely why it’s so vital to avoid casually exploiting those terms for gross partisan opportunism: because people will stop taking the terms seriously when they genuinely arise.

Few things are lowlier than tossing around those accusations purely to discredit someone for partisan gain. It happens often, but this case is particularly egregious given the accuser’s admissions in the comment section combined with the total lack of retraction or correction by that blog.

While I was shocked to read Greenwald acknowledge that “anti-Semitism plays a role in some hostility toward Israel”, I gather from his additional complaint about those who “exploit” the term “anti-Semitism” to “discredit” people that he may have been stung by criticism about his own record of advancing Judeophobic narratives concerning ‘dual loyalty’ and the danger of ‘Jewish power’.

I’ll leave you with a brief selection of quotes by Greenwald and you can judge for yourself if he has been unfairly smeared as a commentator who subscribes to anti-Semitic calumnies. (These quotes were documented in a report I wrote about antisemitism on progressive blogs for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs in 2010.)

  • “So absolute has the Israel-centric stranglehold on American policy been that the US Government has made it illegal to broadcast Hezbollah television stations.”
  • “Not even our Constitution’s First Amendment has been a match for the endless exploitation of American policy, law and resources [by the Israel lobby] to target and punish Israel’s enemies.”
  • “The real goal [of the Israel lobby], as always, was to ensure that there is no debate over America’s indescribably self-destructive, blind support for Israeli actions. [Charles] Freeman’s critics may have scored a short-term victory in that regard, but the more obvious it becomes what is really driving these scandals, the more difficult it will be to maintain this suffocating control over American debates and American policy.”
  • “The point is that the power the [Israel lobby] exercises [is] harmful in the extreme. They use it to squelch debate, destroy the careers and reputations of those who deviate from their orthodoxies, and compel both political parties to maintain strict adherence to an agenda that is held by a minority of Americans; that is principally concerned with the interests of a foreign country; and that results in serious cost and harm to the United States. In doing so, they insure not only that our policies towards Israel remain firmly in place no matter the outcome of our elections, but also that those policies remain beyond the realm of what can be questioned or debated by those who want to have a political future.”
  • “Anyone who has argued that a desire to protect Israeli interests plays too large of a role in our foreign policy has been subjected to some of the most vicious and relentless smears. Ask Juan Cole about that, or John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. Those tactics have, as intended, prevented a substantive debate on this question, as most people have feared even approaching the topic.”
  • “If you don’t…pledge your loyalty to our policies toward Israel and to Israel, what will happen to you is what just happened to Charles Freeman. You’ll be demonized and have your career ended.”
  • “It is simply true that large and extremely influential Jewish donor groups are the ones agitating for a US war against Iran, and that is the case because those groups are devoted to promoting Israel’s interests.”
  • “The dominant narrative among neocons and the media is that, deep down in his heart, [Obama] may be insufficiently devoted to Israel to be president of the United States. Has there ever been another country to which American politicians were required to pledge their uncritical, absolute loyalty the way they are, now, with Israel?”
  • “[Charles] Freeman is being dragged through the mud by the standard cast of accusatory Israel-centric neocons (Marty Peretz, Jon Chait, Jeffrey Goldberg, Commentary, The Weekly Standard’s Michael Goldfarb, etc. etc., etc.).”

 Glenn, the floor is yours. 

76 comments on “Glenn Greenwald admits that “anti-Semitism plays a role in some hostility toward Israel”.

  1. Adam you yourself play a not trivial role in taking the sting out of the concept of anti semitism ( see your own how we define antisemitism )

    I have this crazy scenario in my mind.

    Imagine a converstion

    A : He just called you an anti semite

    B: Yeah

    A: Are you not bothered ?

    B: Nah

    A: But that means you hate Jews and want to persecute them and discriminate against them

    B: Nah it used to mean that but now it means I was critical of Israel and didn’t mention Luxembourg in the same sentence.

    A: Oh well I guess I might be an anti semite too

    B: I wouldn’t be surprised

    A: And Linda too ?

    B: Oh Linda deffo

    • If you don’t mind,
      I’ll respond to all of your inanities here:
      A. No one here is “redefining” anything. The definition of anti-Semitism used, here, AND in any sane forum(yourself, thereby, naturally excluding), is the EUMC guidelines for it.
      B. You have no idea what “natural language” is(Not surprising).
      What you probably meant, was Mumpsimus; wholly different.
      And yet, even going by your ridiculous “scenario” — how many people are aware, do you think, that Holocaust denial is anti-Semitic(or how many would have brought that up, in your fanciful “questionnaire”?)
      Or how many would mention conspirational lunacies about Jewish world domination, that are *also* anti-Semitic?
      All of these don’t fall under standard “Jew-hatred” qualifiers.(In fact, most Holocaust deniers, try to assure us of their benignity constantly — suggesting that they’re “not anti-Semitic” at all).
      C.
      If you conducted the same “polling”, in Nottingham, or better yet, Northern Ire., regarding the verb “to Jew”(very frequent in their vernacular). How many will “recognise” that as offensive, or anti-Semitic?
      Most(and I recall that myself, having lived in those midsts) would harangue you with tales about how their greengrocer “Jewed ‘em down”, or how their father/mother-in-law were notorious “Jews” — i.e. skinflints…
      Still keen on viewing Colloquialisms/popular opinion as accurate representatives of the meaning of words? Is that what “Jew” means to you, R. Armbach?
      D. I’m surprised you can reproduce. Don’t you need one of your own species for that?

      • The meaning of a word or expression is not arrived at by bums on seats around a table. It is the sum force of the use of the word. And since only 0.0000000000000011111111111 recurring per cent of the population have heard of the EUMC nonsense you therefore condemn virtually the whole world to insanity.

        I would think that you would get the same understanding of the expression in Nottingham or Belfast.

        I perfectly understand what natural language is. It is language that has evolved naturally as opposed to an artificial language e.g. aristotelian deductive logic.

        • You clearly keep digging yourself deeper.
          Wittgenstein was the one to postulate “use-related” gravitas behind words. It doesn’t mean that application actually determines “meaning”.
          That’s why I specifically mentioned Mumpsimus as a possible avenue for a lack of understanding, bordering on plain Solecisms.
          EUMC nonsense? And you’ve decided that, how? Is your pub now a diploma-mill too, that you’ve decided to compete with the EU’s top-legislators and jurists? (By your understanding of the Philosophy of Language, I think they’re pretty much in the clear; and by the way, it was Plato who researched Logics in Language, not Aristotle).
          But, that’s one of the reasons this blog exists: (to) Promote awareness of the EUMC, &c.
          By the way, have you, and/or your “offspring” asked, how many people *know* that Holocaust Denial/minimisation is anti-Semitic?
          Or Conspiracies about Jewish world domination?

          • Don’t be silly, classical, deductive ,syllogistic logic was an Aristotelian contribution, it is often referred to as Aristotelian logic as a convenient shorthand.

            I am familiar with Wittgensteins language game ideas on meaning ( I used to sleep with The Investigations under my pillow in case I had trouble sleeping. I could read a bit of it.)

            The meaning of meaning is a massive subject, we can’t really go there. Suffice it to say the meanings of words and expressions are not established by bums on chairs around a table.

            • And I don’t have to compete with top legislators and jurists. The meaning of words and expressions are not their area of expertise. I have Joe on the Clapham omnibus and the dictionary compilers on my side. Might I recomend the Shorter Oxford ?

              • I talk about the Philosophy of Language, and the *Logic of languages*(not logic, ipso facto; the former was first presented in his(Plato’s) Republic) — and you give me Syllogisms.
                Needless to say, if you don’t know what you’re talking — you ought to shut up.
                “Bums around a table”? So far, the only “Bum” I see here, is you…
                Once again(though I tire of asking):
                Is the fact that Holocaust Denial/Minimisation won’t be widely recognised as anti-Semitic by the “general public”(I don’t know what sods you’ve been conversing with), render it not so?
                How about Conspiracy theories about Jews & World Domination?
                The “Blood libel”?
                All of these probably won’t even register, in your average publican’s mind. Yet they exist, all the same, and are damningly anti-Semitic…
                The EUMC remains accurate, is used in Intl, Pan-European Orgs., and describes anti-Semitism, with its modern offshoots to a “T”.
                Now, I wonder why you, of all people, object, R. Armbach…
                I wonder, why…?.

                • I merely offered formal logic as an example of a synthetic as opposed to a a natural language. It is you that is going off all over the place. There are of course other examples. One is a private language which, yes I know is a contradiction, a private language is no language at all. ” A word means whatever I mean by it ” was a sure sign humpty dumpty was nuts.

                  Then of course we have the closed system of the club that the regular paranoids that swirl around a modern day blog site make up. A slight difference here of course. Here we have ” a word means whatever we mean by it . A sure sign that more than one person is nuts ?

                  Maybe one day I might give you a teach in on the difference between a concept and its extensions.

                  Funnily enough I have a bit of time on my hands now that a particular mission is well and truly accomplished.

                • And here is something else for you to contemplate. I doubt that in a calmer more considered environment we would disagree on very much. But then such an environment isn’t available.

                • Frankly, judging by your rather rambling phraseology, I’d say one has a clear conception, who, here, is in fact “nuts”. I hope you’ve pre-ordered your straitjacket.
                  The idea, that meaning or reason, is conferred by utilisation, was first raised by Wittgenstein; that’s all there is to it. It hardly forms the basis, for the interpretation of any word, in any given language.
                  Many an erroneous and fictitious definition have become rooted in many languages. As well as many novel coinages, that *simply* did not exist previously, and therefore, can’t even rely on previous terminology and usage.
                  Finally, it would surely be a sad day, for any person, who should have the misfortune of coming under your tutelage.
                  I wouldn’t trust you with teaching anyone to tell time, let alone instruct anyone on anything important;
                  Even when you have absolutely no understanding of a particular topic, you insist on further ensnaring yourself in your ignorance.(Incidentally, Linguistics happens to be my trade).
                  Fortunately, Psychology beat me to describing your paroxysm: it’s something known as Dunning-Kruger.
                  One can also observe how you persistently refuse to answer my rather simple query:
                  What to make of Holocaust Denial/Minimisation, Jewish-world-power conspiracies, &c, which don’t fall under your definition of anti-Semitism?
                  The EUMC, drafted by Europe’s top experts in the field, naturally remains.
                  And you remain too — albeit, an idiot.

                • Erm I don’t have a definition of anti semitism. Might I recommend the shorter Oxford. Oh and philosophy, more particularly epistomology and modal logic,happens to be my trade

                • You really have bet all your chips on this EUMC garbage haven’t you ? My only wish is that your chips don’t include your house.

                • Wow, the EUMC is really eating you up, isn’t it, “Mr. Epistemology”?
                  You really can’t stand the thought that anti-Semitism *can*, and often does, play a role in vitriolic, vituperative, “criticism”(slander, is actually the operative here) of Israel.
                  Now, is there any wonder why you termed the PSC/&c :”anti-Occupation”?
                  Your thinly-veiled “RZ” mask, is slipping.

                • And I did have second thoughts about the anti occupation thing but I pandered to your earnest plea to leave it as it was

    • Sounds like the same excuses I hear from people who claim that ‘the race card’ is so overused that they don’t have to worry about being called racists anymore, tee hee.

      In other words, the bullshit of a bigot with an justification.

    • That definition might well be applied by a few over-sensitive individuals on this planet – but Adam is not one of them.

    • rz, if the charge, by Greenwald, that “jewish money” is corrupting the political system isn’t antisemitic than I really don’t know what is. Likewise, the idea that our gov’t is being strangled by Israel-centric lobbyists and politicians, who literally control policy, isn’t antisemitic, I don’t know what is. If these characterizations were advanced by Pat Buchanan, everyone in the US would rightfully condemn them as right wing antisemitic smears. Just because Greenwald fancies himself a liberal commentator doesn’t make him immune from chargers that he engages in classic Judeophobic narratives.

      • Aam I am not talking about what is or isn’t antisemitic just commenting on your statement ” how we define.. ” { it )

    • Or it could mean that despite your left wing credentials, your ‘solution’ to the ‘Israeli problem’, has far more in common with traditional European racist concepts towards Jews than you would care to acknowledge.

      • Not at all groovy. My position is perfectly clear and unchanging.

        Viz ( apologies to Finkelstein ) Israel is a state. Thats the law. Nowadays states are expected not to engage in colonial enterprises beyond their internationally recognised frontiers, and the civilised ones don’t. Were Israel to go with this it would, so far as I am concerned, be game over. Move on.

  2. “That’s precisely why it’s so vital to avoid casually exploiting those terms for gross partisan opportunism: because people will stop taking the terms seriously when they genuinely arise.”
    And guess who is exploiting this, according to Greenwald, this beacon of morality?
    He just continues Anti-Semitism by calling out those unknown (?) exploiters.

  3. Look natural language is THE most democratic phenomenon in the cosmos. The meaning of a word is established by the votes of the users of the language. Try a little experiment. Go stand on any random street. Stop a hundred passers by and ask them what they understand by anti semitism. They will say….

    Hatred of Jews…

    Persecution of Jews…

    etc etc

    Pretty much what the dictionaries say.

    This much I can guarantee. Israel won’t get a mention

    I know this because my daughter and I have conducted the experiment.

    I mean the idea that cifwatch can define ” anti semitism ” is a delusion of grandeur on a cosmic scale.

  4. Adam, you give us so many Greenwald quotes that it is hard to know to which to respond. Please give us some evidence to counter just one of them and I’ll happily take you up on it. As far as I can see Greenwald is correct on every point.

    • Naturally he’s correct in every point according to you. Why should an antisemite disagree with an Israel- hater?

    • Agreed – I’d love to see some counter-arguments to those quotes. It’s pretty preposterous (although a much-loved tactic on this website) to dismiss such arguments as de facto anti-Semitic, without engaging with the substance of them. Let’s take this one for example:

      “The dominant narrative among neocons and the media is that, deep down in his heart, [Obama] may be insufficiently devoted to Israel to be president of the United States. Has there ever been another country to which American politicians were required to pledge their uncritical, absolute loyalty the way they are, now, with Israel?”

      - that narrative is plainly evident to anyone who has picked up a newspaper during the current US presidential election campaign. But it’s anti-Semitic to point it out? And if there has been another country to which American politicians have been required to pledge their uncritical loyalty, well, which one is it? And if there isn’t – you’re saying it’s still anti-Semitic to point it out?

      Help us out here – we’re really trying to understand…

      • There are several problems with that statement.

        The most obvious is that no-one is “pledge their uncritical, absolute loyalty the way they are, now, with Israel” and even staunch supporters of Israel have at various time made their criticism public.

        The issue arises because there are possibly only two other countries in the world that face the same sort of existential threats as Israel – South Korea and Taiwan. I think if you check you will find absolute determination on behalf of the vast majority of US lawmakers to protect those two countries, just like Israel,

        But those countries do not come in for the constant, obsessive criticism that Israel does – often, oddly enough, under the umbrella excuse that “Israel claims to have the same values as the West” – yet the activities by Western countries that one can justifiably condemn – e.g., the intervention in Libya, or, if you are of that mindset, Iraq and Afghanistan – dwarf anything that Israel has done in terms of war, racism, etc. etc.

      • that narrative is plainly evident to anyone who has picked up a newspaper during the current US presidential election campaign. But it’s anti-Semitic to point it out?

        and

        And if there has been another country to which American politicians have been required to pledge their uncritical loyalty, well, which one is it? And if there isn’t – you’re saying it’s still anti-Semitic to point it out?

        Lying about it as you and fellow travelers like Walt, Marshemer, Cole, Greenwald etc. do is anti-Semitic Chris. The American politicians pledge allegiance to Israel because the vast majority of the US electorate expect from their representatives to support democratic Israel and it has nothing to do with some shadowy cabal of Jews blackmailing and bribing them.

      • The invention of a dominant narrative among the media by Greenwald. He only alleges it but doesn`t prove it and therefore it`s more or less an Anti-Semitic conspiracy thesis or a damage in his mindset he is putting forward, that otherwise gifted one.
        No one media judges Obama`s fitness for presidency by his devotion to Israel, this is just another smear, fitting you.

        • You can’t invent a dominant narrative. If it were dominant you wouldn’t have to invent it. If you invented it it wouldn’t have been dominant.

          Maybe you mean adopted ? The thinking around here is as woolly as some people’s hats.

          • Hmmm …. I think what Fritz Wunderlich means is that Greenwald is claiming that said narrative is dominant.

          • Sure, Greenwald invents a “dominant narrative”, which nobody else knows, outside of Anti-Semitic circles of otherwise gifted people.

      • Chrisjamescox,
        Being with eappi.org and all that lot. It does not surprise me that you buy into Greenwald’s narrative. It’s always creepy when the humanists and peace loving spiritualist show up and tell the Jews what’s up.
        It’s also interesting to have non Jews working for an antiisrael outfit defining anti semitism. What’s next? A white American explaining to an African American what racism ‘really’ is?
        Looking at your twitter account and seeing the who is who of anti Israel activists……nice touch.

        • The wider point for Greenwald is that given the option, if he found a reasonably sane sounding neo nazi jihadist he’d support THAT guy. We’re supposed to pretend not to notice these things about Greenwald. If we point it out we’re called, what? Zionazi Lobbyists, Likudniks, paid shills of “the Lobby”, disloyal Americans and worse. And if its on his own blog, the self professed ‘champion of absolute free speech’ suddenly pulls the ban hammer out and censors like mad anyone who deviates from his line.

          You see it might be overreaching to claim all criticism is antisemitism, but the naked fact is that for Greenwald and people like him, it really is. It’s intended to be antisemitic. It’s simply dressed up in a suit and tie a la David Duke talking about ‘white rights’. But when all your friends are nazis and everything you say and do is nazi and all the events you support are nazi claiming that you yourself are not nazi but merely an advocate of ‘free speech’ are silly, infantile and stupid. Moreover it’s patronizing and dull even to the people who agree with you.

      • “It’s pretty preposterous (although a much-loved tactic on this website) to dismiss such arguments as de facto anti-Semitic, without engaging with the substance of them.” – chrisjamescox

        ” you can judge for yourself if he has been unfairly smeared as a commentator who subscribes to anti-Semitic calumnies. ” – Adam Levick

        So how is “you can judge for yourself” in your words “to dismiss such arguments as anti-Semitic?”

  5. http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=289898

    Lévy: Jews of Diaspora and Israel are under attack
    JEREMY SHARON
    10/31/2012

    Prominent French-Jewish intellectual Bernard-Henri Lévy declared on Tuesday night that Jews in Israel and around the world are under attack from the twin threats of anti-Semitism in the guise of anti-Zionism, and total war against the State of Israel.

    Speaking at a conference on the future of the Jewish people organized by the Jewish People Policy Institute (JPPI), Lévy labeled the phenomenon of anti-Zionism as “the new mutation of the anti-Semitism virus.”

    “The challenge we have to face is the new shape of old anti-Semitism, a new system of legitimacy to express anti-Semitism that revolves around hatred of Israel and anti-Zionism,” he said.

    Hatred of Israel, denial or partial denial of the Holocaust, and the identification of Palestinians as the only legitimate victims, he explained, form the basis of the anti-Zionist and anti- Semitic onslaught.

    In addition, he said, Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas are planning a total war constituting a serious threat to the State of Israel and the Jewish people.

  6. On a general point re. this article: making claims about the pro-Israel lobby and its alleged influence does not necesssarily mean you “subscribe to anti-Semitic calumnies”.

  7. RealZionist, it’s easy. Go through Greenwald’s quotes and change the word “Israel” to “Muslim” or “Islamic country” etc, and imagine how much time the Guardian would give him.

    It really is that simple.

  8. Greenwald has chosen a bad example in Charles Freeman.

    Freeman condemned himself by making a series of unfounded accusations against Israel, and by his apologies for the worst aspects of the Saudi regime. He’s in Saudi Arabia’s pocket, and too dangerous to be given high-level responsibility for US security.

    The lobby we really need to worry about in the US is the Muslim lobby, funded by Saudi billions, and backed up by their stranglehold on the world’s oil supply.

  9. ““The real goal [of the Israel lobby], as always, was to ensure that there is no debate over America’s indescribably self-destructive, blind support for Israeli actions. [Charles] Freeman’s critics may have scored a short-term victory in that regard…””

    Not sure why you included this as an example of Greenwald’s anti-semitism, Adam. The truth is clear:

    - in 2009 Freeman was nominated as chairman of the National Intelligence Committee, having previously been critical of Israel policy;
    - He became subject to a barrage of abusive lobbying from right wing Israeli supporters;
    - He withdrew his name from consideration for the post, considering that it would be impossible to do the job properly while being hounded by the Israeli lobby.

    You can see Freeman’s version of events here:

    http://www.thenation.com/blog/interview-charles-freeman

    • Very unusual that a man considered fit for the chairman of the National Intelligence Committee grants an interview the left “Nation”. Could be the first time.
      Normally the intelligence community in the USA considers “The Nation” as a bunch of conspiracy crackers.
      Freeman was criticised for his tight ties to Saudi-Arabia and his views about China.
      He could have also stated that it was the Exil-Chinese lobby which was behind his downfall from grace as a lot of dissidents wrote to the Houses and the President protesting against him due to despicable remarks about the Tienamen massacre.
      But The Nation and he preferred to lobby the Jewish Lobby Conspiracy.

      • “Very unusual that a man considered fit for the chairman of the National Intelligence Committee grants an interview the left “Nation””

        So you think being interviewed by a ‘left’ publication such as The Nation, disqualifies Freeman from being considered as chairman of the National Intelligence Committee. That says a lot about your political position but little about Freeman’s. The US is ostensibly a free country with a free press and its citizens are free to speak to anyone who will listen.

        There were objections to his appointment from Chinese dissidents but the idea that this was a significant influence on his withdrawal is laughable. The Chinese dissident lobby is to the Israeli equivalent as is a gnat to an elephant. Freeman, as an ex-ambassador to Saudi, pointed out the positive aspects of retaining their friendship but never denied the negative characteristics of their regime. Again the notion that his position on Saudi Arabia led to his withdrawal is a joke.

        • After this interview with The Nation the intelligence community think Freeman is disqualified.

        • sencar,

          You liken the Israel lobby to an elephant. In other words, you subscribe to the anti-Semitic delusions of Greenwald et al. That tells us a lot about your political position, but nothing of Freeman’s. That you managed to put neatly to the side, out of sight, because there’s jewish supporters of Israel to fry.
          That’s just another reason why many of us disregard the things you say.

          • Jeff, I compared the Israeli lobby to that of Chinese dissidents, using an analogy to point out that the former is much more powerful than the latter. Are you seriously suggesting that this isn’t true?

      • No,no, Fritz. Ignore the others. If even one Jew or supporter of Israel was involved in any way, then the Jews were behind it.

  10. “The dominant narrative among neocons and the media is that, deep down in his heart, [Obama] may be insufficiently devoted to Israel to be president of the United States. Has there ever been another country to which American politicians were required to pledge their uncritical, absolute loyalty the way they are, now, with Israel?”
    I had to pick up this citation once more, because this conspiracy fantasy is normally put forward by right extremists and Neonazis who believe that all mainstream media are in Jewish/Zionist hands, and that the neocons are a sort of outlet of the Elders.
    Is Greenwald all about in his mind?

  11. Glenn Greenwald is one of the so called progressive media’s biggest and most vocal antisemites. He is an open supporter of neo Nazis under the aegis of ‘free speech’, he had legally defended neo Nazis and white supremacists in Illinois state court. His prior column at Salon.com were a near daily regurgitation of support for genocidal Iran, Holocaust deniers and the extremist of the extreme far right and far left. He wrote for and wit Pat Buchanan. He quipped in his own blog on Salon that one of the great regrets of his own life was that he’s not old enough to have marched with the Nazis in Skokie Ill in the 1970′s when they planned that massive rally there – which also was the town with the largest number of Holocaust survivors in the US at that time. Further, in his time @ Salon when he would personally vet every comment to his own blog he would freely permit antisemitic hate speech and calls for genocide to be posted. Any reader who objected was permanently banned, again, calling that ‘free speech’. He is a frequent and vocal supporter of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iranian regime. He has applauded European antisemites like Mark Elf and spend nearly a year writing the praises of Wikileaks including specifically, praise of Assange’s colleague, well known holocaust denier and antisemite “Israel Shamir” (which is a pseudonym for a fairly well known Swedish Joran Jermas) even after it became public knowledge that Wikileaks and “Shamir” were working with Belarus to identify and round up political dissidents.

    To round things out, review Greenwald’s own writings which are a collection of antisemitic conspiracies and libels. He blames the Jews for practically everything that’s wrong in the world all over the world, that they secretly control the US government, the banks and media and so on. It’s no wonder that Greenwald is often cross posted by Alex Jones, Counterpunch and Lyndon LaRouche supporters.

    A good rule of thumb is that whatever that cryptonazi Greenwald is saying it’s a lie, it’s evil and there’s something antisemitic behind it.

    • Are you the same Empress Trudy that told us that the BBC is months away from demanding that all Jews must be forced to leave the UK ?

      • Antisemitism is more or less mainstream official policy of the BBC now. Oh it’s all moderated and PC and updated but it’s more or less the same. For example, in Huffington Post this week, Holocaust denial is now a permitted topic for their ‘moderated’ comment policy. The Beeb isn’t far behind.

  12. Everyone is truly tired of seeing anyone who speaks about Israel being called an anti Semite. Zionism isn’t a race. Israel has entirely de-legitimized themselves by constantly screaming racism. the world, especially the USA, is tired of Israel

    • “the world, especially the USA, is tired of Israel”

      The World is tired of Israel, how did you come by this remarkable piece of intelligence?
      Are you truly enough of a megalomaniac to believe you speak on behalf of the World?

      Before you ask I speak for myself and no other, not even my next door neighbour never mind the World

      • Through the same process that Holocaust deniers still worship Hitler even though it would make him a bit of a piker, no? It’s psychotic fools who spend all day screaming how much they hate Israel and the Jews who NEED us. Without us to hate they’d have to get out of bed tomorrow and kill themselves.

    • “Zionism isn’t a race.” This is the one true statement in you comment, alas, no one disagrees with it. Everything else you say is false. Among those who are least tired of Israel is you, obviously.

      “Israel has entirely de-legitimized themselves by constantly screaming racism. ”
      Are you joking, an idiot, or just hanging around with idiots who’ve told you this? Screaming racism at each and every turn, on any occasion regardless of appropriateness, I’m afraid, is the invention and number one preoccupation of the hard left. You would need to sow your eyelids shut and pour glue in your ears not to know this.

  13. Or you could subscribe to the not outlandish belief that Greewald, who always unfailingly picks the side of fascists, racists, tyrants and monsters isn’t one wholeheartedly himself but he rents himself out as one for the filthy lucre. It wouldn’t be the first time in the history of the world antiwestern antiamerican antisemitic ‘pundits’ whored themselves out for a paycheck either.

  14. Pingback: Glenn Greenwald criticizes Bibi AND Obama’s “policies” of intentionally killing innocent Muslims

Comments are closed.