Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
"ISRAEL FIRSTER" : ANATOMY OF AN ANTISEMITIC SMEAR
0 views
Skip to first unread message
dsharavi
Feb 8, 2012, 9:01:55 PM2/8/12
to
“Israel Firster”: Anatomy of an Antisemitic Smear
There are many aspects to the current controversy over use of the
“Israel Firster” term. There are people who use the term – continue to
use it, resistantly defending its use – and there are those who
criticize them for it. The critics claim that adopters of the term are
continuing an ages-old anti-Semitic libel against Jews – of disloyalty
to their home country because of greater, primary loyalty to their
Jewish identity. The people who use the term have accused their
critics of “smearing” them with the anti-Semitic label for political
ends. Again, there are multiple issues buried in these counter charges
– that of anti-Semitism itself, and of disloyalty, or divided loyalty
or, as has mostly been expressed, “dual” loyalty – but first I
consider the notion of the smear.
The first definition of a smear, in its literal, physical sense is to
apply an oily, greasy substance that adheres. Extended metaphorically
to its secondary meaning, a smear is an unsubstantiated accusation
intended to label and “stick” to its object, sullying its reputation.
Note the element of unsubstantiation. There is the additional, more
uncertain element of intent.
To criticize, in contrast, is “to consider the merits and demerits of
and judge accordingly.” In other words, criticism, in its analytical,
intellectual sense, is empirical – evidence based. It is not simply a
label applied with sticky fallaciousness, but an analytical
discrimination that classifies according to identifying
characteristics.
One may use the term smear at will, and many do, but it is not just
another one of those misguided, relativistic “one person’s smear is
another person’s criticism” cases. The two acts are not the same –
they have distinct definitions – and they can be identified and
themselves discriminated.
There have been several foci of attention in this current accusatory
debate, including those initiated by a Ben Smith piece at Politico and
James Kirchick in Haaretz. Another was Jeffrey Goldberg’s blog post
responding to an email request from Glenn Greenwald. The email from
Greenwald, beginning with a typical, causal and friendly “Hi Jeffrey”
and ending with a “Much appreciated” explains that Greenwald is
“working on (yet another) piece about the CAP anti-Semitism
controversy.” Greenwald is seeking helpful information from Goldberg.
Goldberg himself, given the substance of the request, wryly noted the
“much appreciated” sign off. I’ll add to that the “(yet another)”
parenthetical. It’s all just one pro – writer, blogger, journalist –
seeking assistance from a fellow slogger in the field (oh, you know,
“yet another”) in getting some work done. What decent guy or gal would
not provide collegial assistance?
However, the specific request was the following:
Hi Jeffrey – I’m working on (yet another) piece about the CAP-anti-
Semitism controversy. Could you confirm whether, when you joined the
IDF, you took this standard oath:
“I swear and commit to pledge allegiance to the State of Israel
its laws, and authorities, to accept upon myself unconditionally the
authority of the Israel Defense Force, obey all the orders and
instructions given by authorized commanders, devote all my energies,
and even sacrifice my life for the protection of the homeland and
liberty of Israel.”
Much appreciated -
That is, Greenwald was trying (so he thought) to get the goods on
Goldberg, to establish, voila, that Goldberg was/is(?), like Sasquatch
caught by flash lumbering through the Bayou – there he is, Ladies and
Gentleman, you pays your buck, you steps right up, you get to see him,
certified, we got the goods on him – a real live Israel Firster in the
flesh.
Goldberg provided his answer in the blog post. He offered other
comments in other posts, which prompted other responses from a variety
of defenders of the Israel-Firster term, including, from Corey Robin,
one exceedingly tedious attempt at clever academic exegesis, of an
observation by Goldberg, intended to demonstratesee, we’re not anti-
Semitic, you’re anti-Semitic, nyah, nyah.
Focus on Goldberg is significant. Goldberg is a liberal supporter of
Israel. (The meaning of the word “support” when applied to Israel is
yet another issue embedded in this debate. For my purpose today, I’ll
call such supporters of Israel as Goldberg firm supporters.) Critics –
indeed, very harsh critics of Israel – consistently identify firm
support of Israel with the political right, which identification is an
essential ground to this whole debate. Neocon is another popular
label. Such as Greenwald will apply that term to any individual who
has offered any measure of support at any time to exercises of
military force by the United States. The right aids in this
identification by the typically fundamentalist belligerence of its own
support for Israel. If firm support for Israel can successfully be
isolated as a hard right position – and there has been great success
in this effort – then the ongoing campaign against the Israeli
position can gain greater strength. If a firm, liberal supporter of
Israel can be exposed as an “Israel-Firster,” then the very idea of
liberal support for the Israeli position can be dismissed as a
phantasm. The Israeli-Palestinian war of historical cases can be drawn
only in terms of Israel’s most extreme defenders, while the
Palestinian extremes are ideologically white washed, and liberal sense
is vanquished from the field.
First, then, I call your attention to Greenwald’s approach to
Goldberg, on a personal level. In the past, Greenwald has been
consistently vituperative in his treatment of Goldberg, with whom he
has no personal relationship. Yet he sends this email dressed in the
imposture of a friendly, collegial request for assistance – an email
intended to gather the information that will help Greenwald, as he
sees it, expose Goldberg as a disloyal American. Now it is true that
in the political world – and in the journalistic world, where
reporters are always seeking very, very importantinformation,
justifying all sorts of behavior for the greater good of the human
race and the future of the world – excuses are often made for what is
normally considered bad behavior. But in that normal world,
Greenwald’s phony smile of an email, with its hateful, destructive
intent, is as slimy as a human being gets. That the act he committed
with his email was not committed for money or to gain political power
is a function only of the interests that motivate his life. The
discredit it brings upon him should not be forgotten.
Second, consider that we know from the public record of Goldberg’s
service in the IDF decades ago, oath taken or not. There are about in
some form, with the details complex and varied. Dual citizenship may
easily be argued as prima facie (thought not actually certain)
evidence of dual loyalty. The United States does not formally
recognize dual citizenship; neither does it restrict or punish it in
any way. While there are no records kept of dual citizenships, the
2010 census shows the percentage of foreign-born Americans – people
with the potential of being dual citizens, and likely to feel degrees
of dual loyalty – to be 12.7%, or about 39 million people. Americans,
like people all over the world, feel multiple loyalties, to their
religious faith, their families, to causes and ideals separate from
the official policies of their national governments. Red meat GOP
candidates will almost without fail name God first among their
following loyalties to family and country. And if God led them to
believe that some other nation or group was in his service rather than
their own nation?
Beginning in 1937, during the Spanish Civil War, approximately 2800
Americans fought in Spain on behalf of the Republican cause, in the
Abraham Lincoln Brigade and elsewhere. Most were members of the
Communist Party or other leftist organizations. They served without
the support of the U.S. government, were treated with suspicion after
the war, and in some cases were even prosecuted by the Roosevelt
Administration for recruiting volunteers into the Brigade. These
volunteers into a foreign army are universally regarded with respect
and even reverence by American liberals and the broader left.
Whether Goldberg himself swore the oath in question, it is a matter of
the most common sense that any military force would require of its
personnel that they pledge allegiance to the fighting force that was
entrusting them with weapons and their cause.
Greenwald’s attempt to impugn Goldberg’s full loyalty to the United
States is vile and reprehensible on two scores. First, in the
convergence of some elements of the American left with reactionary
movements and sentiments, Greenwald’s attempt to question Goldberg’s
loyalty on the basis of an oath resounds with the questioning of Roy
Cohn and others during the McCarthy hearings:
Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist party?
Now, the question is from Greenwald, and from those who countenance
these questions about the loyalty of American Jews whom they believe
to support Israel a little too much,
Are you now or have you ever been too ardent a supporter of
Israel?
Of what other ethnic or racial group would supposed progressives
permit such questions to be asked without condemnation? And in the
matter of the most regressive right political forces in the nation –
resisting all identification of their own and others’ racist language
and insinuation (see: the current GOP presidential primary race) –
though the anti-Semitic history of “Israel Firster” has been well
documented – these so-called progressives reach to rationalize use of
an offensive term against Jews in a manner they would countenance in
no other cultural context.
Just because white supremacists used a term doesn’t mean everyone
who employs it is an anti-Semite.
Substitute “racist” for anti-Semite and search left literature world-
wide for a similar expression.
“Israel-firster” is admittedly a deliberately crude response, but
use of the term should be understood within the context of decades of
American Jewish right-wing rhetoric that has largely silenced dissent
on Israeli policies by discrediting those who dare to criticize
Israel.
Try this substitute:
“Food stamp President” is admittedly a deliberately crude
response, but use of the term should be understood within the context
of decades of militant black rhetoric that has largely silenced
dissent on Welfare policies by discrediting those who dare to
criticize their perpetuation of an African-American underclass.
Once again:
He also fails to mention that many of those employing the term
“Israel-firster” are deeply concerned about Israel’s future and about
regional stability, and are no different from members of the Israeli
peace camp – not to mention that some of them are Jewish themselves.
Or
He also fails to mention that many of those employing the term
“Food stamp President” are deeply concerned about America’s future and
about social and economic stability, and are no different from members
of the Nation of Islam – not to mention that some of them are black
themselves, e.g. Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, Herman Cain, and
Alan West.
That some people who consider themselves progressive do not cringe
with embarrassment and shame at the incoherence of these ideas and
arguments, or, in the case of those like Greenwald, at the depths to
which they plunge in their animus toward Israel, would be startling if
not for the twentieth century history that records these depths
before.
It is always so, though, that misguided, even hateful political
manifestations will be betrayed in their nature by the figures who
most publically represent them. So when we consider Greenwald’s malign
questioning of Goldberg’s loyalty on the basis of an oath he might
have made over twenty years ago, we need to consider it in the
following final light.
When Glenn Greenwald began blogging in 2005, he espoused opinions
about illegal immigration that would not be admired or popular among
his current fan base. He has been challenged about these views a
sufficient number of times to have posted an explanatory update at his
original blog, Unclaimed Territory, six years later. His explanation?
This post was written in 2005, one month after I began blogging.
It was recently dug up by some Obama cultists trying to discredit my
criticisms of the President ….
That was a 6 yrs ago: 3 weeks after I began blogging, when I had
zero readers. I’ve discussed many times before how there were many
uninformed things I believed back then, before I focused on politics
full-time – due to uncritically ingesting conventional wisdom,
propaganda, etc.
Six years is not a very long time in the intellectual life of a 44
year old man. For Glenn Greenwald and Mitt Romney, however, it is
sufficient time to reverse most of their previously, and apparently
not very reliably, conceived political views, and to now scorn those
who believe some of what they once did, including, for both men,
ironically, Barack Obama. Six years is sufficient time for Greenwald
to expect not to be held accountable for his views. In contrast, for
Greenwald, the twenty-two years since Jeffrey Goldberg may have taken
an oath that Greenwald thinks damning is no barrier to setting
Goldberg up for a smear of disloyalty (IsraelFirster) based upon it.
To repeat and clarify: criticisms are based on evidence analyzed and
subjected to judgment. A smear is unsubstantiated. The anti-Semitic
history of the term “Israel Firster” has been clearly laid out by
numerous sources. The disloyalty (IsraelFirster) of no one of
significance or party to this debate has been substantiated, only
malignly alleged in the hope that the accusation will stick.
These critics of Israel could easily back away from the expression and
continue to make their case about Israel-Palestine on the basis of the
merits they can gather. That they do not, that they aggressively
reassert their claim to the term “Israel-Firster,” – rationalizing it
in the face of all evidence – and attack those who object to it –
casting themselves as victims (rather like Rick Perry’s and Newt
Gingrich’s “war on Christianity) – clearly reflects their likeness to
their mirrored opposites. These critics defend their use of the term
because they believe that this time it is true. They believe that this
time there really are divided loyalties, there really is a cadre of
Jews exercising excessive, secretive power while aggressively
attempting to suppress any exposure of it. And like all their
reactionary forebears (like every GOP reactionary today who plays the
card of nationalist loyalty) they forget that the belief they cling to
is the belief to which purveyors of anti-Semitic tropes of Jewish
power always hold fast – it’s the essential marker of the tradition –
that what they believe is true.
And this is the belief, like a ball that is chained to the ankle,
drawing one down to the depths, by which they will be known.
There are many aspects to the current controversy over use of the
“Israel Firster” term. There are people who use the term – continue to
use it, resistantly defending its use – and there are those who
criticize them for it. The critics claim that adopters of the term are
continuing an ages-old anti-Semitic libel against Jews – of disloyalty
to their home country because of greater, primary loyalty to their
Jewish identity. The people who use the term have accused their
critics of “smearing” them with the anti-Semitic label for political
ends. Again, there are multiple issues buried in these counter charges
– that of anti-Semitism itself, and of disloyalty, or divided loyalty
or, as has mostly been expressed, “dual” loyalty – but first I
consider the notion of the smear.
The first definition of a smear, in its literal, physical sense is to
apply an oily, greasy substance that adheres. Extended metaphorically
to its secondary meaning, a smear is an unsubstantiated accusation
intended to label and “stick” to its object, sullying its reputation.
Note the element of unsubstantiation. There is the additional, more
uncertain element of intent.
To criticize, in contrast, is “to consider the merits and demerits of
and judge accordingly.” In other words, criticism, in its analytical,
intellectual sense, is empirical – evidence based. It is not simply a
label applied with sticky fallaciousness, but an analytical
discrimination that classifies according to identifying
characteristics.
One may use the term smear at will, and many do, but it is not just
another one of those misguided, relativistic “one person’s smear is
another person’s criticism” cases. The two acts are not the same –
they have distinct definitions – and they can be identified and
themselves discriminated.
There have been several foci of attention in this current accusatory
debate, including those initiated by a Ben Smith piece at Politico and
James Kirchick in Haaretz. Another was Jeffrey Goldberg’s blog post
responding to an email request from Glenn Greenwald. The email from
Greenwald, beginning with a typical, causal and friendly “Hi Jeffrey”
and ending with a “Much appreciated” explains that Greenwald is
“working on (yet another) piece about the CAP anti-Semitism
controversy.” Greenwald is seeking helpful information from Goldberg.
Goldberg himself, given the substance of the request, wryly noted the
“much appreciated” sign off. I’ll add to that the “(yet another)”
parenthetical. It’s all just one pro – writer, blogger, journalist –
seeking assistance from a fellow slogger in the field (oh, you know,
“yet another”) in getting some work done. What decent guy or gal would
not provide collegial assistance?
However, the specific request was the following:
Hi Jeffrey – I’m working on (yet another) piece about the CAP-anti-
Semitism controversy. Could you confirm whether, when you joined the
IDF, you took this standard oath:
“I swear and commit to pledge allegiance to the State of Israel
its laws, and authorities, to accept upon myself unconditionally the
authority of the Israel Defense Force, obey all the orders and
instructions given by authorized commanders, devote all my energies,
and even sacrifice my life for the protection of the homeland and
liberty of Israel.”
Much appreciated -
That is, Greenwald was trying (so he thought) to get the goods on
Goldberg, to establish, voila, that Goldberg was/is(?), like Sasquatch
caught by flash lumbering through the Bayou – there he is, Ladies and
Gentleman, you pays your buck, you steps right up, you get to see him,
certified, we got the goods on him – a real live Israel Firster in the
flesh.
Goldberg provided his answer in the blog post. He offered other
comments in other posts, which prompted other responses from a variety
of defenders of the Israel-Firster term, including, from Corey Robin,
one exceedingly tedious attempt at clever academic exegesis, of an
observation by Goldberg, intended to demonstratesee, we’re not anti-
Semitic, you’re anti-Semitic, nyah, nyah.
Focus on Goldberg is significant. Goldberg is a liberal supporter of
Israel. (The meaning of the word “support” when applied to Israel is
yet another issue embedded in this debate. For my purpose today, I’ll
call such supporters of Israel as Goldberg firm supporters.) Critics –
indeed, very harsh critics of Israel – consistently identify firm
support of Israel with the political right, which identification is an
essential ground to this whole debate. Neocon is another popular
label. Such as Greenwald will apply that term to any individual who
has offered any measure of support at any time to exercises of
military force by the United States. The right aids in this
identification by the typically fundamentalist belligerence of its own
support for Israel. If firm support for Israel can successfully be
isolated as a hard right position – and there has been great success
in this effort – then the ongoing campaign against the Israeli
position can gain greater strength. If a firm, liberal supporter of
Israel can be exposed as an “Israel-Firster,” then the very idea of
liberal support for the Israeli position can be dismissed as a
phantasm. The Israeli-Palestinian war of historical cases can be drawn
only in terms of Israel’s most extreme defenders, while the
Palestinian extremes are ideologically white washed, and liberal sense
is vanquished from the field.
First, then, I call your attention to Greenwald’s approach to
Goldberg, on a personal level. In the past, Greenwald has been
consistently vituperative in his treatment of Goldberg, with whom he
has no personal relationship. Yet he sends this email dressed in the
imposture of a friendly, collegial request for assistance – an email
intended to gather the information that will help Greenwald, as he
sees it, expose Goldberg as a disloyal American. Now it is true that
in the political world – and in the journalistic world, where
reporters are always seeking very, very importantinformation,
justifying all sorts of behavior for the greater good of the human
race and the future of the world – excuses are often made for what is
normally considered bad behavior. But in that normal world,
Greenwald’s phony smile of an email, with its hateful, destructive
intent, is as slimy as a human being gets. That the act he committed
with his email was not committed for money or to gain political power
is a function only of the interests that motivate his life. The
discredit it brings upon him should not be forgotten.
Second, consider that we know from the public record of Goldberg’s
service in the IDF decades ago, oath taken or not. There are about in
some form, with the details complex and varied. Dual citizenship may
easily be argued as prima facie (thought not actually certain)
evidence of dual loyalty. The United States does not formally
recognize dual citizenship; neither does it restrict or punish it in
any way. While there are no records kept of dual citizenships, the
2010 census shows the percentage of foreign-born Americans – people
with the potential of being dual citizens, and likely to feel degrees
of dual loyalty – to be 12.7%, or about 39 million people. Americans,
like people all over the world, feel multiple loyalties, to their
religious faith, their families, to causes and ideals separate from
the official policies of their national governments. Red meat GOP
candidates will almost without fail name God first among their
following loyalties to family and country. And if God led them to
believe that some other nation or group was in his service rather than
their own nation?
Beginning in 1937, during the Spanish Civil War, approximately 2800
Americans fought in Spain on behalf of the Republican cause, in the
Abraham Lincoln Brigade and elsewhere. Most were members of the
Communist Party or other leftist organizations. They served without
the support of the U.S. government, were treated with suspicion after
the war, and in some cases were even prosecuted by the Roosevelt
Administration for recruiting volunteers into the Brigade. These
volunteers into a foreign army are universally regarded with respect
and even reverence by American liberals and the broader left.
Whether Goldberg himself swore the oath in question, it is a matter of
the most common sense that any military force would require of its
personnel that they pledge allegiance to the fighting force that was
entrusting them with weapons and their cause.
Greenwald’s attempt to impugn Goldberg’s full loyalty to the United
States is vile and reprehensible on two scores. First, in the
convergence of some elements of the American left with reactionary
movements and sentiments, Greenwald’s attempt to question Goldberg’s
loyalty on the basis of an oath resounds with the questioning of Roy
Cohn and others during the McCarthy hearings:
Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist party?
Now, the question is from Greenwald, and from those who countenance
these questions about the loyalty of American Jews whom they believe
to support Israel a little too much,
Are you now or have you ever been too ardent a supporter of
Israel?
Of what other ethnic or racial group would supposed progressives
permit such questions to be asked without condemnation? And in the
matter of the most regressive right political forces in the nation –
resisting all identification of their own and others’ racist language
and insinuation (see: the current GOP presidential primary race) –
though the anti-Semitic history of “Israel Firster” has been well
documented – these so-called progressives reach to rationalize use of
an offensive term against Jews in a manner they would countenance in
no other cultural context.
Just because white supremacists used a term doesn’t mean everyone
who employs it is an anti-Semite.
Substitute “racist” for anti-Semite and search left literature world-
wide for a similar expression.
“Israel-firster” is admittedly a deliberately crude response, but
use of the term should be understood within the context of decades of
American Jewish right-wing rhetoric that has largely silenced dissent
on Israeli policies by discrediting those who dare to criticize
Israel.
Try this substitute:
“Food stamp President” is admittedly a deliberately crude
response, but use of the term should be understood within the context
of decades of militant black rhetoric that has largely silenced
dissent on Welfare policies by discrediting those who dare to
criticize their perpetuation of an African-American underclass.
Once again:
He also fails to mention that many of those employing the term
“Israel-firster” are deeply concerned about Israel’s future and about
regional stability, and are no different from members of the Israeli
peace camp – not to mention that some of them are Jewish themselves.
Or
He also fails to mention that many of those employing the term
“Food stamp President” are deeply concerned about America’s future and
about social and economic stability, and are no different from members
of the Nation of Islam – not to mention that some of them are black
themselves, e.g. Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele, Herman Cain, and
Alan West.
That some people who consider themselves progressive do not cringe
with embarrassment and shame at the incoherence of these ideas and
arguments, or, in the case of those like Greenwald, at the depths to
which they plunge in their animus toward Israel, would be startling if
not for the twentieth century history that records these depths
before.
It is always so, though, that misguided, even hateful political
manifestations will be betrayed in their nature by the figures who
most publically represent them. So when we consider Greenwald’s malign
questioning of Goldberg’s loyalty on the basis of an oath he might
have made over twenty years ago, we need to consider it in the
following final light.
When Glenn Greenwald began blogging in 2005, he espoused opinions
about illegal immigration that would not be admired or popular among
his current fan base. He has been challenged about these views a
sufficient number of times to have posted an explanatory update at his
original blog, Unclaimed Territory, six years later. His explanation?
This post was written in 2005, one month after I began blogging.
It was recently dug up by some Obama cultists trying to discredit my
criticisms of the President ….
That was a 6 yrs ago: 3 weeks after I began blogging, when I had
zero readers. I’ve discussed many times before how there were many
uninformed things I believed back then, before I focused on politics
full-time – due to uncritically ingesting conventional wisdom,
propaganda, etc.
Six years is not a very long time in the intellectual life of a 44
year old man. For Glenn Greenwald and Mitt Romney, however, it is
sufficient time to reverse most of their previously, and apparently
not very reliably, conceived political views, and to now scorn those
who believe some of what they once did, including, for both men,
ironically, Barack Obama. Six years is sufficient time for Greenwald
to expect not to be held accountable for his views. In contrast, for
Greenwald, the twenty-two years since Jeffrey Goldberg may have taken
an oath that Greenwald thinks damning is no barrier to setting
Goldberg up for a smear of disloyalty (IsraelFirster) based upon it.
To repeat and clarify: criticisms are based on evidence analyzed and
subjected to judgment. A smear is unsubstantiated. The anti-Semitic
history of the term “Israel Firster” has been clearly laid out by
numerous sources. The disloyalty (IsraelFirster) of no one of
significance or party to this debate has been substantiated, only
malignly alleged in the hope that the accusation will stick.
These critics of Israel could easily back away from the expression and
continue to make their case about Israel-Palestine on the basis of the
merits they can gather. That they do not, that they aggressively
reassert their claim to the term “Israel-Firster,” – rationalizing it
in the face of all evidence – and attack those who object to it –
casting themselves as victims (rather like Rick Perry’s and Newt
Gingrich’s “war on Christianity) – clearly reflects their likeness to
their mirrored opposites. These critics defend their use of the term
because they believe that this time it is true. They believe that this
time there really are divided loyalties, there really is a cadre of
Jews exercising excessive, secretive power while aggressively
attempting to suppress any exposure of it. And like all their
reactionary forebears (like every GOP reactionary today who plays the
card of nationalist loyalty) they forget that the belief they cling to
is the belief to which purveyors of anti-Semitic tropes of Jewish
power always hold fast – it’s the essential marker of the tradition –
that what they believe is true.
And this is the belief, like a ball that is chained to the ankle,
drawing one down to the depths, by which they will be known.
The Revd
Feb 8, 2012, 9:34:20 PM2/8/12
to
On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 18:01:55 -0800 (PST), dsharavi
<dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>“Israel Firster”: Anatomy of an Antisemitic Smear
It's not an 'antti-semitic'®™ smear, jew cunt. It's a semitic
<dsha...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>“Israel Firster”: Anatomy of an Antisemitic Smear
disloyalty.
YOU are an 'Israel' Firster, even though if you tried to live any
further away from the shitty little country, you'd get your little jew
feet wet in the Pacific Ocean.
The Peeler
Feb 9, 2012, 6:57:28 AM2/9/12
to
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:34:20 -0500, The Rectum, the resident psychopath of
sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, FAKING his time zone again,
farted:
>>“Israel Firster”: Anatomy of an Antisemitic Smear
>
> It's not an 'antti-semitic'®™ smear, jew cunt. It's a semitic
> disloyalty.
>
> YOU are an 'Israel' Firster, even though if you tried to live any
> further away from the shitty little country, you'd get your little jew
> feet wet in the Pacific Ocean.
Whatever it is, it certainly provides you with another opportunity to
display your outstanding idiocy in public again, "The Rectum"! LOL
--
Retarded, subnormal and extremely proud of it: our resident psychopath, The
Retard (aka "The Rectum").
sci and scj and Usenet's famous sexual cripple, FAKING his time zone again,
farted:
>>“Israel Firster”: Anatomy of an Antisemitic Smear
>
> It's not an 'antti-semitic'®™ smear, jew cunt. It's a semitic
> disloyalty.
>
> YOU are an 'Israel' Firster, even though if you tried to live any
> further away from the shitty little country, you'd get your little jew
> feet wet in the Pacific Ocean.
display your outstanding idiocy in public again, "The Rectum"! LOL
--
Retarded, subnormal and extremely proud of it: our resident psychopath, The
Retard (aka "The Rectum").
Count 1
Feb 11, 2012, 7:52:04 AM2/11/12
to
dsharavi
Feb 11, 2012, 10:34:44 PM2/11/12
to
0 new messages