Analysis: Trump’s ‘Go Home’ Invective Echoes Nazi Incitement Against Jews

The U.S. president may be Earl of Israel who deserves his own Book in the Bible – but he is also a Prince of Prejudice, Marquis of Malice and Viscount of Venom

By Chemi Shalev | Haaretz

In 1938, the German company Gunther and Co. came out with its brand-new board game, “Juden Raus” – Jews Out. Participants in the game, which became immensely popular, had to extract Jewish citizens from their German cities to “concentration points”, over which hung a banner reading “Auf nach Palästina!” – Off to Palestine. The first player to successfully relocate six Jews from Germany to Palestine was the winner.

The creation of the game had nothing to do with the Nazi Party or its officials, who actually protested that it did not sufficiently highlight their own stupendous achievements.                   

For Gunther and Co., which is still in operation, the new game was a strictly commercial venture. In its promotion, the company boasted that Juden Raus was an “up-to-date and outstandingly jolly party game for grown-ups and children.” After five years of Nazi rule, expelling Jews to“where they came from” was as natural and desirable as buying Boardwalk or Park Place.           

Donald Trump, of course, is no Nazi, but he often seems to be drawing from the same playbook. Perhaps his inspiration comes from Adolf Hitler’s collection of speeches in his book “New Order”, which Trump kept next to his bed, according to his former wife Ivana. In principle, and notwithstanding the conventional taboo on “comparing”, it is hard to tell the difference between the large signs hung outside German cities declaring “Jews, immigrate to your land, in our land we already know who you are” and Trump’s suggestion to four non-white Democratic Congresswomen to “go back” to – what he previously described as – their “shithole” countries.

Both imbibe from the same toxic cesspool of spreading division and hate, while defining the different as an alien and dangerous “other” in order to advance political and ideological aims.

Except for Ilhan Omar, who was born in Somalia and immigrated at a young age, the other three Congresswomen at whom Trump took aim have been U.S. citizens since the day they were born – Rashida Tlaib was born in Michigan to Palestinian parents, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was born in New York to Puerto Rican parents and Ayanna Pressley was born in Chicago to, well, American parents.

The four, now nicknamed “the Squad”, are at the forefront of the Democratic Party’s radical progressive wing. They are sharp-tongued and outspoken, anti-Israel to varying degrees and, it is alleged, borderline anti-Semitic.

But it is highly doubtful whether Trump would have attacked the four in unison were it not for their double faults: They are at once women and non-white. The lethal mixture has been Trump’s favorite punching bag since he launched his presidential campaign in 2015. He reserves his most vicious rhetoric for black women, from former Democratic consultant Donna “crooked and criminal” Brazile to Congresswomen Maxine “low IQ” Waters.

Besides giving air to his dark and arguably racist basic instincts, Trump’s onslaughts have clear-cut political goals:

To divert attention away from his predicaments, which currently include an escalating clash with Congress, criticism of immigrant detention camps and the upcoming brouhaha over allegations that he forcibly raped minors supplied by Jeffrey Epstein; to paint the Democratic party as veering to the left and to spark confusion and embarrassment among his rivals; to supply his frenzied fans with a fix of fear and loathing sufficiently potent to sweep him back into the White House in 2020. In Israel, this stratagem is all too familiar.

Trump seeks to taint the Democrats with The Squad’s perceived radical views and statements, though the flip side is that he is forcing Democratic leaders to stand by their sides, and is thus legitimizing the very views he seeks to undermine. He did not hesitate to draw the Israel ace up his sleeve, though he did so in his usual ludicrous way:

Trump claimed that because of the four Congresswomen, whom most Israelis have never heard of, Israel feels “abandoned” by the U.S. He must have missed Benjamin Netanyahu’s assertion that the Israeli public worships Trump for his unprecedented historic support for their country.

The injection of Israel into Trump’s squabble with Democrats, however, inflicts direct damage upon its image and standing, in both the present and future. It strengthens the partisan divide over Israel and identifies it with Trump’s vile rhetoric. It also widens the gap between U.S. Jews, who are aghast at Trump’s words and view them as a warning for the future; and Israel, which admires Trump, is indifferent to American Jewish sensitivities and stays silent about his racist outbursts. Trump is driving a wedge between Israel and the Democratic Party and is hampering the party leadership’s ability to arrest the sinister stream.

As with Israel’s Likud and their leader Netanyahu, but a thousand times over, Trump’s invectives highlight the moral depths to which the Republican party has sunk:

It has transformed from a Grand Old Party into a cheerleading squad that prostrates itself before its master, no matter what he says or does. Whether out of fear or hope for favor or both, the Republicans’ feebleness also echoes the conduct of similarly spineless political parties, who facilitated but later succumbed to the most evil tyrants of the 20th Century.

But the demons unleashed by Trump on America don’t stop at its shores. They roam throughout the globe, giving a U.S. presidential seal of approval to chauvinism, ethnocentrism, racism and hatred of foreigners and immigrants, which all fell into disrepute in the wake of the Holocaust and World War II. And since Trump always goes for broke and heads for the extreme, his emulators around the world – including the sizable Israeli contingent – can always point out how moderate they are in comparison. If Trump can depict U.S.-born Congresswomen as aliens who should leave, who can complain about Israeli transferists who believe Israel’s Arab citizens should be expelled?

Trump, Earl of Israel, Cyrus reborn, the man that Miriam Adelson believes merits a Book in the Bible in his honor, is also the Raj of Racism, Prince of Prejudice, Marquis of Malice, Viscount of Venom, Maligner of Minorities and Detester of Democracy.

The Israeli sage Shlomo Ibn Gvirol said a millennium ago that “He who sows hate will reap regret,” but he didn’t know Donald Trump, who wouldn’t know regret, contrition or even a mistake if they hit him in the face.

Many Israelis are rooting for him. Sadly, a great number also identify with his race-baiting remarks, especially when these are directed at Muslim legislators with an anti-Israeli animus. The history of the Jewish people as a persecuted minority perennially depicted as “the other”, no matter how long they’ve lived in the same place, doesn’t seem to speak to us anymore. As Israel’s venerated poet-columnist Natan Alterman once asked, in a slightly different context – “Where will we put our shame?”

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • Clyde Duncan  On 07/18/2019 at 12:38 am

    Trump on Monday defended his comments, saying he was not concerned if people thought his tweets were racist. The four hated the United States, he told reporters.

    Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Monday added his voice to those condemning an attack by U.S. President Donald Trump against four minority Democratic congresswomen, saying:

    “I think Canadians and indeed people around the world know exactly what I think about those particular comments. That is not how we do things in Canada,” Trudeau told a televised news conference in Petawawa, Ontario.

    “A Canadian is a Canadian, and the diversity of our country is in fact one of our greatest strengths … and we will continue to defend that.”

  • kamtanblog  On 07/18/2019 at 4:31 am

    Wow !
    My take …
    Hitler failed ! Why ?
    Exterminating a minority (scapegoats)
    was his mistake … taxation his WMDW
    (Weapon of mass distribution of wealth)
    Opportunity lost !


  • Clyde Duncan  On 07/18/2019 at 4:09 pm

    Donald Trump: Back To Where He Came From

    There is a method behind Donald Trump’s “go home” tweets

    The Economist

    Donald trump’s bigotry is such an established part of American public discourse that, in retrospect, one of the most febrile debates of 2016 looks naïve.

    Back and forth it went, in the months before the election, as the Republican candidate issued a slur against a Mexican-American judge and for a while refused to disavow the endorsement of a former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard.

    Was Mr Trump mainly appealing to his supporters’ economic concerns — in spite of his chauvinism? Or was his race-baiting really the main draw?

    The answer was in long before the president sent an especially offensive tweet this week, inviting four unnamed, but by inference non-white, Democratic congresswomen to “go back” to where they came from.

    It was settled before he refused to condemn the white supremacists of Charlottesville two years ago. The data from his 2016 election have been scrutinised, and the resulting analyses, detailed in books and papers, are in agreement.


    Many states, such as Georgia and Maryland, which had moved away from the Democrats in the tough times of 2012, drifted back towards their candidate in the better ones of 2016.

    The millions of working-class whites whom Mr Trump recruited in rustbelt states did not buck that trend because of economic anxiety. They were no likelier to attribute their vote to it than they had been in 2012.

    Rather, they were unified by nothing so much as antipathy to America’s growing diversity, and an attendant feeling that WHITES WERE LOSING GROUND.

    Both were expressed in hostility to immigration, immigrants and welfare spending – which many wrongly believed was being slurped up by migrants.

    No doubt these feelings were exacerbated by economic as well as cultural and sometimes personal fears:

    People are complicated and America is changing. THESE SENTIMENTS PREDATED MISTER TRUMP. Yet they had not been such a big factor in voting decision-making until he made them so, by drawing out his audience’s inner grievances, like a magnet tugging at a metal splinter.

    In their book “Identity Crisis”, John Sides, Michael Tesler and Lynn Vavreck describe the rationalisation such Trump supporters made as “RACIALISED ECONOMICS”.

    Only a small minority of voters hold old-style racist views on questions like black-white marriage, but a very large number believe that “undeserving groups are getting ahead while [my] group is left behind.”

    An earlier study by the Voter Study Group found hostility to immigrants to be the best predictor of a Trump voter.

    One by the Public Religion Research Institute found much the same. There has been no serious counter-argument. MISTER TRUMP’s RACE CARD IS THE WINNING ONE.

    Hence his inflammatory comment this week. For while the strength of the economy might appear to have given him a better electoral option, Mr Trump is intent on a repeat performance.

    There is no prospect of him toning down his rhetoric and pocketing the grateful majority of Americans who consider their personal finances to be “good” or “excellent”.

    The fact is, his behaviour and policies have already repelled a majority of voters.

    He wants the applause of his adoring base too much to change style. And his view that America is essentially a white country messed up by escapees from non-white ones appears to be irrepressible.

    Amid the continuing outrage his racist tweet stirred this week, there are three important things to say about this.

    First, Mr Trump’s campaign will be more racially divisive than it was in 2016, when he won white voters by 20 percentage points.

    He was still feeling his way then, looking for praise from the New York Times and MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”. And when he did ramp up the rhetoric he was criticised by Republican leaders.

    Even as late as Charlottesville, his inflammatory language was repudiated by elected Republicans, business leaders and senior aides including his daughter Ivanka and Gary Cohn. He has received nothing like such criticism this week.

    Moreover, his slur against the four congresswomen, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley — of whom only Ms Omar was born overseas and Ms Pressley is not even of recent migrant stock, merely black — came not from an eccentric candidate, but the president of the USA.

    If Mr Trump only repeated his divisive 2016 lines next year, they would carry more weight. And he will probably say worse, because he wants vindication, for himself and his reviled method. In the event of any setback, he is liable to double down.

    It might work again, too, which is the SECOND POINT. Mr Trump’s approval ratings are low, but resilient and competitive. Set aside the state-level polling, which is less positive for him, and he is only a few points short of the 46% he won in 2016.

    He need not be loved to make up the difference. HE NEEDS ONLY TO MAKE HIS OPPONENT MORE HATED, which was his other ploy in 2016.

    This makes Democratic voters, whose early support for Joe Biden suggests a demand for a plain-vanilla moderate whom Mr Trump might find hard to demonise, more sensible than the party’s left-wing activists.

    They see in his vulnerability an opportunity to bring about a leftward shift that most Americans do not want. One plausible, though possibly too ingenious, theory for his attack on Ms Pressley and the rest, all of whom are left-wingers, is that he wanted to boost their prestige within the party. That may in any event be the result.

    The Gipper Took A Different View

    Democrats must resist Mr Trump setting their agenda in any way. They do not need revered anti-Trump warriors. They need to be able to rebuke his divisiveness smartly, keeping in mind their own reputation for hyperventilating.

    The bill introduced by Nancy Pelosi to censure his tweet passed that test. Its citation of a line from Ronald Reagan’s last presidential address, “If we ever closed the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost,” ……………

    Also spoke to the THIRD POINT, which is the fundamental one. Mr Trump’s exclusionary vision of America is a travesty.

  • wally n  On 07/18/2019 at 4:41 pm

    trudeau??????? globalist…… “White Christians, biggest problem in Canada”, that trudeau
    Only thing that might have been worse, if the President had said “you “mother fuk… go back where you came from?”
    We are [mostly] my generation, immigrants, worked hard to survive in a cold hard country.
    I don’t understand, if you make it to one of the highest positions in the country, where does “Death to America” comes from, maybe most Americans might be forced to say bad things about you.
    Don’t know Trump, read his book, loved the Apprentice, but he seems to be a hard working, politician, that’s rear, I am waiting to see if all the talk of trying to overthrow the government is true, and it is beginning to seem….

  • Trevor  On 07/18/2019 at 6:42 pm

    How would America feel if Guyanese started telling the white representatives of Exxon-Mobil Guyana to “go home”?

    Oh wait…We would be sanctioned and US soldiers would murder us into oblivion…never mind.

  • wally n  On 07/18/2019 at 7:03 pm

    If anyone, anyone stands up in Guyana, and not Guyanese, after collecting all the benefits of the best country in the world, then says “Death to Guyana” [metaphor] maybe everyone in the country, in one voice might shout Get to f…….

  • Clyde Duncan  On 07/19/2019 at 3:50 pm

    Donald Trump is the Archetypal far-right Charismatic leader. His Magic won’t last

    Paul Jackson | The Guardian UK

    First “Lock Her Up!” and “Build That Wall!”, now “Send Her Back!”.

    Donald Trump’s record of using such slogans to normalise misogyny and stoke prejudice has become exhaustive, and ever more overtly racist.

    His Twitter feeds have even recycled content from extreme-right groups that historians of fascism like me consider deeply worrying. Yet this all proves tremulously popular.

    Academics who study fascism are well placed to see that Trump’s shoot-from-the-hip public persona is a carefully constructed device, designed to consciously and deliberately break liberal taboos, setting an example to others that they can do likewise.

    The most recent ratcheting-up of his endorsement of racist language came this week, displaying once again the powerful relationship between the leader who seeks to embody prejudice in the pursuit of power and followers who convey this power on him in their millions.

    True to form, it started with a tweet. He told four congresswomen of colour to “go home”, fuelling outrage from many who were rightly incensed by this latest attack on decency in public discourse. Then, during a rally in North Carolina a few days later, he focused on one of these congresswomen, Somali-born US citizen Ilhan Omar.

    Trump’s speech claimed Omar had smeared American servicemen involved in the 1993 battle of Mogadishu, downplayed the 9/11 attacks, called for compassion for recruits to Islamic State, laughed about Americans who were fearful of al-Qaida, blamed the US for the crisis in Venezuela, and held hard-working Americans in contempt. His audience, enraged by a description that layered outrage upon outrage, then chanted back, spontaneously, “Send her back! Send her back! Send her back!”

    Trump, meanwhile, nodded approvingly, serene and emboldened. It was a moment of true demagoguery, and far more likely to stick in the memory of his supporters than his later efforts to distance himself from the incident.

    His language, stoking anger before allowing his audience to discharge their emotions in a release of indignation, liberating them to break taboos on their own, was potent.

    It reflected his now well-established affective bond over his supporters. For them, Trump is seen as no ordinary politician. Whereas others are corrupt or get bogged down in procedure and detail, he projects a bigger picture. While others prevaricate and make excuses, he battles established elites and, if you believe the hype, ………. – even gets things done.

    In other words Trump is a populist, as he claims to be the voice of the long-ignored people. He is also a nativist, as he speaks only for certain sections of American society while assuming others are, somehow, not American.

    This is a far cry from Republican presidents such as Ronald Reagan, whose final speech in office powerfully articulated the idea that anyone could become American.

    Trump is also a charismatic leader. His appeal comes from the vision. It is mythic, not rational. While this does not make him a fascist, it certainly makes him a far-right leader.

    This charismatic quality, which is central for enabling such taboo-breaking, is particularly interesting to consider. Charisma is a much misunderstood and misused concept.

    For one of the first to describe the phenomenon, Max Weber, it was an important new component to politics in the modern era. Weber proposed the idea that modern political legitimacy was a mixture of traditional, legal-bureaucratic and charismatic styles.

    Simply put, monarchies relied on tradition, democracies on legal-bureaucratic systems and modern dictators on charisma. In reality, Weber recognised all leadership was really a mix of these elements, and democracies could certainly develop their own charismatic politicians.

    Jean-Marie Le Pen, Viktor Orbán and Nigel Farage are some recent examples of far-right charismatic leaders who have connected emotively with their audience.

    Moreover, while Weber felt charismatic leaders had exceptional personalities, he also stressed they were not objectively charismatic. Not everyone will fall for their charm. Charisma emerges not just from personal character, but ultimately from a shared belief in a mission held between leader and followers. Without emotive mass support, leaders cannot be charismatic.

    This sense of mission has redemptive qualities. It also sees the world in a Manichean us-versus-them manner. Using these mythic tropes, the mission allows charismatic leaders to project a greater sense of purpose.

    “Make America Great Again” evokes this sense of mission, and Trump supplements this with targeted attacks on those deemed enemies of the vision:

    The supposed corruption of liberal politicians is summarised as “Lock Her Up!” The pain and suffering of migrants are denied through “Build That Wall!” And now attacks on American citizens who, for some reason, should NOT be in the country can be voiced through “Send Her Home!”

    Trump’s charisma is like a Rorschach inkblot test. People can project on to it what they want to see. Some will deny he is a racist and simply view him as fighting for their interests. Others are convinced racists and will feel his presence allows them to say things they believe deeply, but are told they cannot say.

    Moreover, given its emotional resonance, his appeal is not likely to be dented by rational arguments. Outraging people who decry his racism only adds to the attraction, as does condemnation from political elites.

    However, Weber argued that charisma was difficult to sustain. The appeal of Trump will ultimately be dimmed by his own failures to achieve his mission, which is RIDICULOUS and UNATTAINABLE.

    This will lead his supporters to lose interest, when he can no longer appear as the magician figure they thought he was. We are not at this point yet, though, and it is difficult to know how long his “magic” will last and what further damage will result.

    • Paul Jackson is a senior lecturer in history at the University of Northampton and author of Colin Jordan and Britain’s Neo-Nazi Movement: Hitler’s Echo

  • kamtanblog  On 07/20/2019 at 3:45 am

    Let’s face facts !
    Potus is a bigot…as as referred to
    by his friend in N Korea “dotard”…
    With friends like that who needs enemies.

    Says simple Simon


  • Clyde Duncan  On 07/20/2019 at 4:28 am

    Has Trump forgotten that the US is a nation of immigrants?

    S McKlaire, Abu Dhabi | The National UAE

    I write in reference to your article Theresa May hits out at Donald Trump’s ‘go home’ remarks (July 15). Well done UK prime minister Theresa May for speaking out against Mr Trump’s unpleasantness towards these pioneering Democratic congresswomen.

    Trump fully deserves to be reprimanded for telling them to “go home”. Has he forgotten that America is a country of immigrants? Mr Trump’s own wife, First Lady Melania Trump, was born not in the US but Slovenia. Mr Trump’s mother is from Scotland.

    Mr Trump should choose his words more carefully and refrain from inflaming tensions in America’s fractured political environment.

    • kamtanblog  On 07/20/2019 at 4:54 am

      It is disgraceful how one lunatic leader can
      destroy a great country and its people in
      such a short space of time.
      It will take decades for those that follow
      to correct the damage. More a case of
      “damage limitation” for any future leader
      of the “free” world.

      My take

  • wally n  On 07/20/2019 at 9:46 am

    Here is a New concept….
    Win the Election {w/o Florida shuffle}
    US built with immigrants, sure, LEGAL
    Be careful, stop throwing large blanket, around fifty percent of the electorate, racist?
    Me just me, why would any one support globalists, so before you sleep tonight don’t forget, to leave your doors OPEN!

  • Clyde Duncan  On 07/20/2019 at 6:25 pm

    I kinda like this guy’s comment in an English Edition of a Spanish paper:

    Well, to be fair, there isn’t much more to be said other than variations on ‘merde’.

  • Trevor  On 07/20/2019 at 9:22 pm

    If racists in America are telling legal immigrants to “go back”, then why are Americans living like Kings and Queens in Middle Eastern s-holes like Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Oman, Qatar, Saudi, etc?

    Did you know that there are hundreds of thousands of “expats” living in those land of skyscrapers and hypocrisy?

    For example: 99% of these countries enforce their version of Sharia Law, but an American expat, especially a white female, could walk naked on the beach, and if she accuses a local of watching her too inappropriately, the local gets punished under Sharia Law, and not the American woman.

    And Trotman, for the 100th time, Guyana is not some hypocritical Arabian s-hole country who panders to “expats”! Even the Muslims from Iran don’t like those Arabian countries.

    Stop comparing Guyana’s newfound oil with the Arabian warriors.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: