There is reason to believe that the present government of Israel is not only bloated and venal, but that it is staggeringly incompetent.
The Prime Minister acts almost exclusively to protect himself, and not on behalf of the country. The evidence for this is the absurdly fat and expensive “unity” (one has to laugh) government with its 35 ministers and 8 deputy ministers. This structure exists so that Binyamin Netanyahu can continue to be Prime Minister. There is no other reason.
There are countless difficult issues facing the government, but here are three major ones. In each case, the government has – through laziness or indecision, and by its members seeking political advantage for themselves, failed to deal with them. They are:
The Corona crisis. The numbers of newly diagnosed cases, the percentage of positive test results, and the number of seriously ill are all rising precipitously. The recommendations of the Health Ministry are passed through a political filter so that various constituencies are protected from inconvenience. The 35-minister government has created a 20-member “Corona Cabinet,” supposedly to make quick decisions. But there is also a Knesset Corona Committee which needs to approve them.
The Ministry is trying to find someone who will accept the job as “project manager” [the Hebrew word is “projector”] for the fight against the disease. But so far, nobody has agreed to take the job, because they don’t believe that they will be given the necessary authority. Even the Health Minister, Yuli Edelstein, has complained that the recommendations of his ministry are “gnawed away” by the politicians.
The objective that everyone pays lip service to is to stop the spread of the disease without killing the economy. So far, the effect of the government’s actions has been to not stop the disease, although they have done an effective job of crushing the economy.
The extension of sovereignty. The offer of American support for the extension of civil law to the Jordan Valley and to Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria was an unprecedented opportunity for Israel. The window, however, is closing every day. PM Netanyahu first promised that he would act almost immediately after the election; then he said it would be at some point after 1 July. Now it seems that it has receded to an undetermined future date. The main reason seems to be the lack of agreement in the “unity” government. If this does not occur before the pre-election period in the US, it will probably be on ice until the next Republican administration (if we are lucky).
The Iranian threat. This is probably the most serious of all, even more than the epidemic. As everyone knows, Iran has been developing a murderous ring of proxy militias armed with what Maj. Gen. [res.] Yitzhak Brik estimates as 200,000 rockets and missiles in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Gaza. Several hundred of them may also have already been converted to precision-guided missiles that can strike within a few meters of a selected target. Hezbollah also has been training ground forces to invade Israel and capture civilian towns near the border.
The scenario of accurate missiles hitting our runways, refineries and chemical plants, power stations, desalination plants, military headquarters, nuclear reactors, cities – I could go on – is frightening, especially since such an attack could cripple our ability to retaliate. For this reason, the IDF has been carrying out the so-called “War Between the Wars,” a campaign of attacks on Iranian bases and supply lines in Syria and Iraq, to prevent the transfer of equipment to add precision guidance to the inaccurate rockets and missiles that make up their arsenal. Possibly some of the recent mysterious explosions in Iran are also part of the campaign to pull Iran’s teeth (including nuclear ones) before the outbreak of hostilities.
But no matter how hard we try, we can’t totally prevent the upgrading of Hezbollah’s weapons; we can only slow it down. We can bomb truck convoys in Syria, but (at least as far as I know) we have not dared to shoot down Iranian civil aircraft flying to Lebanon. Brik calls Israel’s campaign “a drop in the ocean.”
We have various missile defense systems in place, but they are limited. We do not have the ability to defend against a sustained mass attack, even with inaccurate rockets, from Hezbollah, which could launch thousands of rockets a day. Precision-guided missiles tip the balance even more in the direction of our enemies.
Brik argues persuasively that the fact that we are able to pursue the “War Between the Wars” with very little retaliation from Iran is not an indication of strength, but rather a danger sign. Iran, he says, is displaying restraint so as not to provoke a larger conflict until they are ready. Meanwhile, every day, more of their weapons are fitted with precision guidance systems. Such a conventional attack would not justify a nuclear response; and in any event, most of the missiles would be coming from Lebanon, and even vaporizing Tehran wouldn’t stop them. The IDF, Brik believes, has not sufficiently upgraded either its offensive or defensive capabilities to counter such an attack. And if Iran succeeds in obtaining its own nukes (which it might even buy from another rogue regime), then Israel would be deterred from using its nuclear option. Brik has been criticizing the IDF’s level of preparedness for some time, and the response has always been “don’t worry, we have it covered.” I am not so sure.
The citizens of Israel have an implicit contract with its government: we pay heavy taxes and allow the government to control many aspects of our lives. In return, it protects us against attacks from outside and responds to natural disasters like epidemics. We accept a certain amount of waste and even graft, because the alternative of anarchy would be far worse. But the feeding frenzy of the politicians that accompanied the formation of the “unity” government, the gobbling up of salaries, offices, staffs, cars, and more by the unnecessary ministers, as well as the personal greed shown by the Prime Minister, has brought us to a historic moral nadir. Combined with the fumbling of the major issues facing the state, it’s clear that fundamental change is needed.
But what change, and how, and – importantly – who?
I don’t have the answers. But neither do the morons who rioted in front of the PM’s residence in Jerusalem last night and threw eggs (and worse) at the police. I am sure that any cure they would propose would be worse than the disease.
Yisrael Medad is Betar to the bone. Having joined the Revisionist Zionist movement of Vladimir (Ze’ev) Jabotinsky at the tender age of 17, Medad is still enamored of this Zionist figure and his controversial ideology. So much so it seems, that he’s translating Jabotinsky’s words into English, that others might access the work of this prolific genius.
What makes the work of Jabotinsky, a journalist by profession, so controversial? For one thing, Jabotinsky was at odds with the idea of intersectionality, of combining Zionism with other ideologies. He liked his Zionism pure. According to biographer Hillel Halkin, Jabotinsky called this singular devotion to the cause “Zionist monism,” refusing to link Zionism to, for instance, Jewish agrarianization or to socialism. Which put him at odds with, for instance, David Ben Gurion.
But the disagreement went deeper than defining what it means to be a Zionist. Jabotinsky founded the Jewish Legion to help the British fight against the Ottoman Empire, but was disappointed to discover that cooperating with the British brought the Jews no closer to a Jewish State. And then the British issued the infamous White Paper. That's when Jabotinsky founded the Irgun to revolt against the British, who could no longer be seen as a benevolent force.
Ben Gurion, meantime, favored a policy of “havlagah” or “restraint," and looking the other way. He felt the Brits remained the Jews' best hope for attaining statehood.
About havlagah, Jabotinsky had this to say:
Vladimir (Ze'ev) Jabotinsky
.... I have mentioned the word "Havlagah", a rare word, never heard before in modern, every-day-life Hebrew language in the Land of Israel. It seems this word is now the most common and hated word in the Land of Israel... The Jews should not distort the facts and complain. In the Land of Israel there are young political activists from the left and the right who are not afraid to clash with British soldiers, who are forcing them to act like cowards. They do not fear about their own lives, they fear for the destruction of the 1917 Balfour declaration and the violation of the alliance between England and Jewish people... Any indigenous people will fight foreign settlers as long as they believe there is a chance to get rid of the foreign settlement danger. This is how the Arabs in the Land of Israel are acting and will act in the future, as long as they have the spark in their hearts that they could stop the transformation of Palestine into the Land of Israel... Therefore our settlement can (only) grow under a force which is not dependent upon the local population, behind an "iron wall" that the local population could not break.
Ze'ev Jabotinsky was a pragmatist. The Jews weren't going to hold their land by biding their time and twiddling their fingers. They weren't going to reclaim their territory by kissing up to the British, as they turned a blind eye to Arab terror. If the Jews wanted the land they would have to fight. And this willingness to face the truth made Jabotinsky, the boy from Odessa, a Zionist outlier, a figure of the right.
So how does a boy from New York end up in Israel, translating the works of a boy from Odessa? What makes a man devote his life to keeping the work of Jabotinsky, a man long dead, alive in our hearts? I spoke to Yisrael Medad to learn more:
Yisrael Medad
Varda Epstein: Tell us something about your background and your family, if you would.
Yisrael Medad: Both my parents were American-born, my mother from the Lower East Side and so prior to every Pesach and Rosh Hashana we were down there shopping and eating. My parents were quite American but also very ethnically and traditionally Jewish—yet of the style of Jewish at home and less so outside.
I attended synagogue and Hebrew school but we would drive up to The Bronx on Saturday afternoons. We kept kosher at home but ate at non-kosher restaurants. I remember once returning from shul on Yom Kippur (I started fasting when I was already 11 and my father had purchased me my own mahzorim (high holiday prayer books V.E.) and I came up in the elevator with someone who pressed the buttons for me as I knew it was forbidden, but my mother heard the elevator door slam just before I walked into the apartment. She asked if I used the elevator and when I responded in the positive, she slapped me. When I became bar mitzvah in 1960, we all became chozer b’tshuva (a religious returnee V.E.) but that’s another story. That my mother’s family was from Brody was a very prominent memory item.
I attended Yeshivat Chofetz Chaim and then went on to attend Yeshiva University. I joined Mizrahi Hatzair in 1962 (Yudi Henkin, now Rav Yehuda Henkin, was my madrich (adviser V.E.) but in 1964 I joined Betar.
Varda Epstein: When did you make Aliyah? What was the catalyst? Why Shiloh?
Yisrael and Batya Medad
Yisrael Medad: I spent 1966-1967 in Israel on a program called Machon L’Madrichei Chutz La’Aretz and so my earlier inclination to make Aliyah was sealed – we had a war that year which had me in a foxhole for a few days in June. My future wife, Batya, was similarly inclined and in August 1970, two months after our wedding, we boarded the Queen Anna Maria and arrived in Israel on September 5, after 12 days at sea.
We were first in the Old City of Jerusalem, then the Jerusalem neighborhood of Bayit Vegan, then London for a two-year emissary stint for Betar, back to Bayit VeGan and then in 1981 we moved to Shiloh.
We chose Shiloh for three basic reasons: we wanted a location about which no one could say Jews do not belong there; a place that needed us; and one where we felt we could make a contribution. As an example of such a contribution, in order to open the grade school in Shiloh, our oldest two daughters were required.
Varda Epstein: Can you tell us about your earlier work at the Begin Center and how you came to be translating Jabotinsky’s works?
A young Medad, right, with a fellow soldier in 1974
Yisrael Medad: My employment at the Begin Center began in 2000. Until then I was Geulah Cohen’s aide and director of Israel’s Media Watch among other jobs. I helped create the Begin Center’s Junior Knesset program, historical walking tours, a resource volume of national thinkers, and served in many other areas during the 17 years I was employed. I still remain as a research fellow.
As I had been in Betar and lectured on Jabotinsky and the pre-state underground struggle, joining the editorial committee for the new critical edition of Jabotinsky’s writings was, well, only natural. Then it was decided the volumes would be in English and I was appointed deputy editor. I had done translations of Israel Eldad, Uri Tzvi Greenberg and other Zionist figures and was quite familiar with the terminology, the historical framework, and other such necessary requirements for this work.
Varda Epstein: Last time we spoke you were working on the second volume, so you must be translating a lot of material. I know Jabotinsky was a prolific writer. Can you describe the scope of the items you are translating? Are you translating Jabotinsky’s plays and non-Zionist works and articles? Letters? How much material are you dealing with, exactly?
Yisrael Medad: Well, at present, due to the situation and budget considerations, my work is in low gear. We are trying to work off the Hebrew, and this was spurred by a decade-long research project in Russia to find the approximately 2000 articles Jabotinsky published prior to World War One. These articles were penned during his Odessa and St. Petersburg periods as one of that country’s outstanding Jewish journalists. And these works are in addition to some 1500 or so articles we have already archived, not including his 5000 letters, published separately in Hebrew (now in 15 volumes).
Luckily, the Czarist secret police kept good archives (Jabotinsky, after returning from Italy in 1903, was suspected of being a socialist and was arrested twice). We want to search for his “unknown” works in Russian, as well. Some of his letters are really memoranda of several pages which we’ll also be including.
Varda Epstein: Jabotinsky was fluent in several languages. Did he write in several languages, too? You’ve told me you don’t really know Russian, so how do you manage?
Yisrael Medad: Jabotinsky wrote in several languages: English, French, Italian, and Yiddish, in addition to Hebrew and his native Russian. There is one instance when he was in Belgium and spoke for an hour, and each quarter of an hour he changed languages: from French to Walloon to English and on to Yiddish.
The one major essay I translated on the Bund and Zionism was first translated from its Hebrew. I then used four different translation engines to discover oddities or unusual grammar, semantics, or terminology and then I needed to go through every sentence with my collaborator on the Russian aspect of the work, Yehiel Fishzon, and with additional assistance from Netanel Bunimovitch and his wife Miriam Feyga, to fine tune, as the original translator of this work into Hebrew took a bit of license at times and even left out of few paragraphs. It took some three months just to complete the work on this one essay. And the main part of my work is taken up in just adding the footnotes to such articles.
Varda Epstein: What are some of the difficulties you’ve encountered in your translation work?
Yisrael Medad: An example is when the translator wrote “v’shalom al Yisrael” (literally: “and there should be peace on Israel”). Is that actually what Jabo wrote? No. He wrote: “на Шипке все спокойно (everything is calm on Shipka).”
It took me a week to write this footnote: “Jabotinsky employs an idiom expressing irony about those who are trying to hide a deplorable or dangerous state of affairs. It originated in the official reports of Lt. Gen. Feodor Radetsky on the battle for Shipka Pass in the Balkan Mountains, Bulgaria in December 1877 during the Russian-Turkish war. Despite his sentries freezing to death on duty, men blown off the mountain by strong winds and one-third of the soldiers falling ill, Radetsky’s dispatches assured: “Everything is calm at Shipka.” Besides that, recognizing exactly to what event Jabotinsky was referring to is daunting.
Varda Epstein: Why Jabotinsky?
Yisrael in a TV interview
Yisrael Medad: He is the most intelligent, well-read, most cultured Zionist thinker I know and one who, besides being a novelist, poet, translator, diplomat, soldier and a host of other life’s professions, was the most calumniated. Presenting his works, even in a small quantity, beyond the mostly political works that have already appeared, is a matter of saving a soul.
Varda Epstein: When do you expect the work to be completed?
Yisrael Medad: After my own 120.
Varda Epstein: Can you describe your projected readership? Who benefits from your work and how so?
These are good books but in many places tend to be too critical and there is a need to put out the raw material. And there is the nefarious Dmitry Shumsky who corrupts Jabotinsky in too many instances.
Jabotinsky is today as relevant in the issues and themes he wrote about as a century or 80 years ago. Peter Beinart wrote recently of a semi-binational state entity of Israel-Palestine but did he reference Jabotinsky’s 1940 plan in his “Arab Angle – Undramatized?”
Varda Epstein: What do you see yourself doing next, at the end of this very long project?
Yisrael Medad: To continue doing more of what I do: blog, compose op-eds, research, translate, be funny and enjoy the family.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
It’s been an interesting week for Israelis, mostly in the bad sense of the word. The news about the application of civilian law (not “annexation”) to parts of Judea, Samaria, and the Jordan Valley is that there is no news. Whatever Netanyahu is planning, if anything, is a secret. Unlike many “secrets” in this country (e.g., the contents of police investigations of Netanyahu), there are no leaks. Naturally, the European Union, the American Reform Movement, the Palestinian Authority, and others continue to react to what hasn’t happened in ways ranging from alarm to death threats. Meanwhile, nothing is still nothing.
A somewhat bright (and loud) spot is a series of explosions and fires in Iran, almost one a day, some in locations critical to its nuclear and missile programs. Did Israel have anything to do with them? Who knows? There are highly speculative reports from various sources that mention everything from cyberattacks, to local regime opponents, to F-35s. Maybe the US is doing it? Regardless, it’s wonderful to wake up to reports of advanced centrifuges wrecked and missile factories burning.
Also loud but not so wonderful have been the rocket attacks on Israel’s south from the Gaza strip. Nobody was hurt, and the IDF bombed underground rocket launchers belonging to Hamas in retaliation. It could be that Iran-linked factions in the strip were responsible, in retaliation for what Israel did or didn’t do in Iran, or perhaps for a recent IDF strike on a weapons convoy in Syria. The “War Between the Wars” continues with little letup. In fact, right now (Wednesday morning) I’m hearing military aircraft. Training or operational? Yes.
In the “I can’t believe she’s still here” department, Australian sex criminal Malka Leifer, who escaped to Israel in 2008, has now appealed to the Supreme Court to delay her extradition yet again. Her extended saga of court hearings and political interference has caused great embarrassment to Israel and pain to her victims in Australia. When a district court judge recently ruled that she was mentally fit to be extradited, we thought we’d finally seen the last of her. Not yet.
The biggest (and worst) news is the explosive growth of the second wave of Coronavirus infections. Yesterday there were 1,473 new cases, by far the greatest number since the start of the epidemic. New deaths and serious cases are up. And the percentage of positive results from the tests being performed is rising. There are outbreaks in nursing homes and a mental hospital. Yesterday, the Director of Public Health in the Ministry of Health, Prof. Sigal Sadetzki, resigned. In her letter of resignation, she sharply criticized the government for creating layers of bureaucracy that made a quick response to changing conditions impossible, and for making decisions based on political considerations rather than professional ones. She was especially critical of the way the public schools were reopened after the first wave, in many cases ignoring guidelines for separating students and teachers into small groups, and almost all at once instead of more gradually as her ministry had recommended. She also noted that the government has adopted guidelines for the number of people at weddings and other events that far exceed the ministry’s recommendations. With the new government, we got a new Health Minister, and a new Director-General of the Ministry (Sadetzki’s boss). They are not up to speed yet, and it shows.
Another example of politicization: MK Moshe Gafni of the Haredi United Torah Judaism party threatened to withdraw his party from the coalition if yeshivot – which have experienced a wave of Corona cases – were closed, as the Health Ministry and National Security Council had advised. The yeshivot stayed open, Gafni’s party stayed in the government – and Sadetzki quit. Naftali Bennett, the former Defense Minister (whose party, Yamina, now sits in the opposition) established his own private “civil corona cabinet” which has already made several very sensible suggestions. Unfortunately, some years ago when he was Netanyahu’s Chief of Staff, he reportedly told Sara Netanyahu that “I work for your husband, not for you.” Netanyahu, following his wife’s instructions, has carried on a vendetta against him ever since, and does his best to prevent Bennett from having influence or getting credit for anything.
Sadetzki’s complaints about the government are on target, but her own ministry is also guilty. The Health Ministry was charged with managing the epidemiological part of the Corona response – researching the people and places with which confirmed patients had contact, tracking down and quarantining those who have been exposed. They couldn’t keep up, and so breaking the chains of infection has been impossible. The Ministry claimed that this work can only be done by qualified public health nurses, and there aren’t enough of them. Bennett suggested that trained and supervised students could do much of this work, and finally they are starting to do this. I am reminded of how Israel won its War of Independence with soldiers that had only months ago been released from internment camps, and before that had been in Nazi concentration camps. El Al, Israel’s flag airline was privatized in 2003. Known for high prices, excellent security and safety, indifferent service, and very high labor costs, it suffered a massive financial blow as a result of the epidemic. Now it will be bailed out by the government, which will probably result in its re-nationalization. There is simply no alternative, because Israel cannot depend on foreign airlines for its transportation lifeline to the rest of the world.
In short, the economic situation of most Israelis can be described as rotten. Official unemployment numbers after the beginning of the second wave of the epidemic aren’t available yet, but some analysts say it is probably close to 10% now. In January, it was only 3.6%. The restaurant and events (weddings, etc.) sectors are crushed, all retail is suffering, and tourism is close to zero. The increasing Corona numbers imply that things are not going to improve any time soon. Government programs to compensate those without income have been slow in starting and have many gaps. Workers in performing arts have been holding demonstrations and blocking traffic to protest. Even where businesses are operating, customers are scarce – they are worried about exposure to the virus or they just don’t have extra money.
Last week I said that I hoped the overconfidence acquired by our success in dealing with the first wave of Corona would be replaced by intelligence. I don’t see that happening yet. On the other hand, someone is doing a great job blowing up stuff in Iran and Syria.
Bloggers,
compared to journalists, can say more about antisemitism. That’s because the
two disciplines—blogging and journalism—are different. In journalism, one has
to adhere to journalistic standards and avoid bias. But the blogosphere offers
possibilities beyond those standards.
In
a blog I can say what I like—things you just can’t say in a straight news piece.
As a blogger I write the things I think my readers should know—things that may not
be politically correct. My responsibility as a blogger lies only in remaining
faithful to my standards and sensibilities and those of my host. The reader’s
responsibility, on the other hand, lies in accepting or rejecting my words, or
skipping past them altogether.
This
was the basis for The
Comprehensive List of Antisemitic Celebrities. The freedom of being able to
say what a journalist cannot. As a blogger, I don’t have to pussy-foot around a
topic and stay within narrow journalistic confines. I can say more about a
subject, more about antisemitism. I can say what I think. I can go out on a
limb and say, “This too, is antisemitism.”
A List Was
Born
I
had wished for a reference like my list for a long time and when I mentioned it
to others, they said that they too, would like to have such a list. The idea percolated
for at least a couple of years. I was afraid that it would be a herculean task;
that making such a list would be biting off more than I could chew.
But
a couple of weeks ago, I decided to research the topic and see where it went. I
started with the most recent news piece, the now-infamous Chelsea Handler
Instagram post of Farrakhan speaking about racism that so many of her celebrity
buddies liked. The Instagram post is gone, and Handler has apologized.
A
journalist would have reported only the facts of the incident, without labeling
the behavior of Handler and the others. But a blogger is allowed to express an
opinion. And in my opinion, Handler, and all the meek little celebrities who
liked her post, aligned themselves with a known antisemite. As supposedly “woke”
people, I deemed it appropriate to include their names in my list.
Levick
says we should be careful about what we label antisemitism. That we shouldn’t
throw slings and arrows at people and media outlets, but at their behavior. Because
we don’t want to mimic the current cancel culture zeitgeist in which a
misbehaving celebrity loses his/her job and is shunned within both professional
and personal spheres based on spurious charges and slander.
IHRA Is
Subjective
It
makes sense. But as a blogger, and possibly even as a journalist, it’s my right
to say that the IHRA definition is subject to interpretation. This is perhaps
why IHRA saw fit to follow the definition with a list of examples covered by
the definition. The examples are prefaced by this introductory text (emphasis
mine):
“Contemporary
examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and
in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context,
include, but are not limitedto:”
In
other words, the contemporary examples of antisemitism listed on IHRA’s own
page are not comprehensive, not final. The page suggests that we may have to
always be watching things to see if what we see is or isn’t antisemitism
according to the IHRA definition. And that leaves the process in the public’s
hands, to some degree. Which makes the process of determining what does and
doesn’t fit IHRA, at least somewhat subjective.
Strictest
Sense
Now,
as a journalist, I would have to interpret behavior as antisemitic only
according to the strictest, most narrow sense of the IHRA definition. I would
have to give benefit of the doubt and try to think if there’s something in the
behavior that I can use as an out, a way to say “This is not necessarily
antisemitic,” before casting aspersions.
And
as a media consumer, I wouldn’t want it any other way. Don’t interpret my news.
Let me read the facts and decide on my own.
But
as a blogger, I can go broader. I can go all Potter Stewart
and say I know antisemitism when I see it. And my readers expect that of me, as
long as I make my case. I can say “This
is what happened. I think it fits the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Here’s
why.”
As
long as I’m using the IHRA definition as my guide, I’m within my rights to
expand on the examples given on the IHRA page, to interpret behavior according
to my understanding of the IHRA definition. Which is why, as a blogger, I can
say more about antisemitism.
Labeling
Behavior, Not People
In
terms of pointing out antisemitic behavior, rather than naming and shaming, I
see Levick’s point. It’s Parenting 101. You don’t label the kid. You say the
behavior is bad. You don’t say, “Bad boy!” but “It is bad to throw your food on
the floor.”
But
I think this misses the point of my list. “The Comprehensive List of Antisemitic
Celebrities” is not meant to name and shame celebrities, but to offer
information to the reader. It’s my way of saying, “Here’s something you may
want to know about. If this is interesting or useful, fine. If not, next week
I’m writing about squirrels sovereignty.”
In
cancel culture, a call to action goes out. Fire him/her. Boycott this/that.
Protest. Loot a store. But there was no call to action in the “comprehensive
list.” I didn’t tell the reader what to do with the information or whether to
do anything at all. That is the reader’s own business. Which is very different
than the #metoo hashtag campaigns or the aggressive tactics of, for instance,
BDS or BLM.
The
fact is, the “Comprehensive List” includes no instructions on how my readers
should relate to the information it contains. I didn’t suggest a boycott of
Handler, Aniston, Portman, or Silverman. I suggested no action at all. I didn’t
even mention how I personally intend to use this information, if at all. It’s
just something to know.
Follow Your
Conscience
A
person’s private behavior is their own matter. When I found out Alice Walker
was an antisemite, for instance, I decided never to give her royalties, again.
That I would not watch “The Color Purple” or read the book. But I never
suggested to anyone that they should follow suit.
The
same is true of how I see a certain unnamed media outlet. Once I decide a
particular outlet is anti-Israel, I don’t write for them. I don’t read their
articles, but always look for an alternative source for the information. But that
doesn’t mean others must do the same. My advice? Follow your conscience.
Blogging
is da bomb. I can say that because I have done lots of writing in my time. All
kinds of writing. Straight news pieces, blogs, marketing content, op-eds,
classroom resources, and more. But I am content in my spare time to blog.
Because only in a blog can I share the truth that is in my heart.
It’s Something—Take
Note!
It’s
where I can go beyond the strictest, most narrow sense of a definition to say:
“There’s something here, something a journalist might not want to touch. But it’s
something, so take note!”
That
is the freedom that comes with being a blogger. I can say what a journalist
cannot. But what you do with the information is your own business.
Believe
it. Don’t believe it. Agree or disagree.
It's completely up to you.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
Recently the European Union announced that it would reopen its borders to visitors from some other countries. Israel was not on the list (neither was the US). Many Israelis reacted indignantly, but objectively our Coronavirus situation is not good.
On June 30, Israel marked the highest number of new cases of Coronavirus since the beginning of the pandemic, with 803 reported. After succeeding to extinguish the first wave with an economy-crushing lockdown, the re-opening was marred by some strategic mistakes, for which we are beginning to pay the price. Here is a graph of new cases per day:
Although there has been a recent increase in the daily number of tests done, a Health Ministry employee said on 16 June that “the proportion of positive tests was higher than before,” and therefore the increase in reported new cases was indicative of a new wave of infection.
I don’t pretend to be an expert, but some of the reasons were obvious. In the educational system: it was necessary to reopen the schools, because Israelis have a lot of children, and it’s very difficult to get people back to work when there’s no solution for child care. The usual safety valve for parents, retired grandparents, was not available due to the danger to them from the disease. The first mistake was to open all grades almost at once. It would have been possible to open the lower grades first, which would have freed the parents to work, while reducing the risk. What followed was a sharp spike in the 10-19 year age group and a smaller one in the 0-9 group at the start of the second wave in early June.
The Education Ministry devised a plan that would separate students and teachers in the schools into “capsules” which would be isolated from one another, students would sit 2 meters apart, masks would be required for students and teachers, and so on. The second mistake was not following the plan. I am not sure if it proved unworkable, or if teachers and administrators didn’t take it seriously enough, as some said. But in many schools, compliance was lax. Schools in which cases of Corona occurred were closed, but the damage was done.
Coronavirus transmission is believed to be primarily by droplets released when an infected person sneezes, coughs, talks, or sings. These droplets may remain in the air for a few minutes. It is also thought that the more viral particles a person ingests, the more likely they are to become sick, although it is not clear if this affects the severity of the illness. Transmission outdoors where droplets may be blown away or dehydrated by breezes and diluted in a larger volume of air, is much less likely than in a confined indoor space. Masks may not be fine enough to prevent viral particles from passing through, but they do greatly impede the much larger droplets; they are useful both when worn by the person who is infected and by others nearby. There is also the possibility of droplets impinging on a person’s eyes, so a face shield is useful in addition to a mask.
Israelis love “life cycle events” like circumcisions, bar mitzvahs, weddings, and so forth. Big weddings are the rule, often held in large event halls. There are even websites that help you decide how much money to give according to the type of event, your relationship to the principals, and so on. These events are often held indoors, and the Health Ministry allowed event halls to reopen when the first wave subsided. There are guidelines on the number of people allowed at an event, but they were liberal. Religious services, which were initially sharply restricted, were reopened with more relaxed guidelines. These actions may have been premature, and some restrictions have been re-imposed.
What everyone wants to do is to find ways to protect the population without destroying the economy. The best way to do that (at least, until a vaccine or effective treatment is developed) is to identify each and every sick person and isolate them before they can infect others. This requires a) the ability to do enough tests, b) a rapid turnaround of test results so that it is possible to identify someone as a carrier of the disease before they can infect others, and c) trained people to investigate the sources of infection so that those exposed can be tested. While the number of tests has been increasing, the turnaround time has been poor. In the early part of the second wave, when many cases were detected in schools, the labs were unable to keep up with the tests. As far as investigations are concerned the Health Ministry reports a serious shortage of personnel trained to do this; and it has been accused of poor management as well. They have just hired several hundred medical students and paramedics for this function; it’s mysterious why this took so long.
The public, which was relatively disciplined during the first wave, seems to have decided that “the Corona is over,” and that masks are best worn around the chin, to be moved up when a police officer, who might give them a ticket worth 500 Shekels ($146), is nearby. The latest news is that specific cities and neighborhoods will be placed on lockdown in order to try to break the chain of infection.
PM Netanyahu got good marks for his handling of the crisis during the first wave, when he made good decisions such as closing the country’s borders quickly. The removal of restrictions, however, has not been handled so well. Employment has not snapped back – unemployment stands at near 21% – and the epidemic has moved into a second wave, which could be as bad or worse than the first one. Some industries, like tourism and performing arts, have been devastated and little has been done to help them. Of course, everything isn’t his responsibility, but he is known for micromanaging what he believes are areas of importance, and many Israelis feel that he doesn’t believe that they are of importance.
It isn’t helping that after the scandal of the obscenely bloated unity government of 36 ministers and 9 deputy ministers, and after the unity negotiations produced unprecedented perks for the Prime Minister and his alternate, Bibi got the Knesset to pass legislation to exempt him from taxes on work done on his private residence by the government. He did not improve his image when he remarked that although he deserved the tax break, his “timing was wrong.” No kidding.
***
Israel’s approach to the Corona has been very – Israeli. First, we tried to overcome it by brute force. Then we became overconfident. And now, hopefully, we’ll try to be smart.
Is it antisemitic to like a post of a Louis Farrakhan video
that has nothing to do with Jews? Or is liking such a post just plain ignorance of the fact that
Farrakhan is an ugly antisemite? A sign of cluelessness?
Is it antisemitic to criticize Israel and its
duly elected leadership? Or could it be an honest opinion or about not knowing
any better: not realizing you’ve been fed a load of propagandist hogwash?
By
letting lesser antisemites earn the label, do we dilute the significance of our
cause?
The article in question begins with the statement that
building such a list is probably impossible. First, there’s the question of
whom to include. Some wanted me to include, for instance, Barack Obama, who took
pains to hurt Israel whenever possible. Obama is no longer a politician, and
since he is famous, he certainly qualifies as a celebrity. Keeping things simple,
however, meant sticking to a narrow definition of the celebrity as entertainer: singers, actors, and the like.
Speaking of Obama, some said that if we’re going to include
actors for liking Handler’s
Farrakhan post, we should include all the actors who supported Obama.
Others said we should include all the entertainers who
supported the Iran deal, which surely poses an existential threat to the Jewish
State.
Satisfying IHRA
Some commentators, notably CAMERA
UK’sAdam Levick,
felt that some of the celebrities listed had clearly crossed the line, while
others hadn’t, and that the inclusion of the latter diluted the significance of
the word antisemitism, by conflating the former with the latter. Levick
referenced the IHRA
working definition of antisemitism, stating that this should be the only
accepted criteria for such a list. While I respect and appreciate Levick’s
thoughtful disagreement, I find that interpreting a celebrity’s behavior
according to the IHRA definition is somewhat subjective.
In fact I had referenced
the IHRA definition in building my list, in particular noting the examples
listed below the definition for illustration purposes, including the following:
“Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of
Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel
similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as
antisemitic.”
Mental Boxes
Keeping the above in mind, prior to including a name on the
list, I asked several questions, ticking off mental boxes:
Had the celebrity leveled similar accusations against other
countries? Or are the accusations made only against Israel?
Is the celebrity voicing benign tourist-type complaints about the
weather or the food in Israel? Or is the celebrity with the public platform
singling out Israel for criticism by insulting Israel’s leadership and/or
accusing Israel of malfeasance in relation to its Arab population and its legal
maritime blockade of Gaza?
If the latter, it seems to me such criticism of Israel is
dissimilar to criticism of other countries, and directly targets the Jewish
State based on anti-Israel propaganda, alone. But should we blame celebrities for
believing what they read in the media? For not taking the time to read more
varied reports from which a truer, more positive picture of Israel might
emerge?
Yes. Because in antisemitism, as in life, ignorance is always a choice.
Especially when it comes to singling out the Jewish State from one’s very
public platform.
Liking A Public Figure
The same is true of liking a post of Farrakhan speaking out
against racism—a post having nothing to do with this public figure’s very vocal and infamous expressions of antisemitism. If you’re going to put yourself out there and like
a Farrakhan post, you better know what you’re liking. And by now, who doesn’t
know who Farrakhan is, and what he represents? And if you don’t, why don’t you?
You’re an adult. You are putting yourself out there in the public eye on a
variety of causes, using your celebrity to stump for presidential candidates
and to advocate for change.
The use of a public platform is a responsibility, and like
all responsibilities, requires a familiarity with current events and a thorough
study of the subject in question. If you like a Farrakhan video, you better
know all about the man. That, in essence, is your job as a celebrity voicing
support for a movement or a cause.
When Israel is singled out for criticism—or when a celebrity
favors a post highlighting the views of a notorious antisemite—I believe the
IHRA working definition of antisemitism has been satisfied.
Natalie Portman's Calculated Insult
Take Natalie Portman. The Jewish actress, who was born in
Israel (hence an Israeli citizen), received the coveted Israeli Genesis Prize
but refused
to attend the awards ceremony because she “did not want to appear as
endorsing Benjamin Netanyahu, who was to be giving a speech at the ceremony.”
But Portman announced her decision not to attend six months after she had confirmed her attendance
to the Genesis Prize Foundation, and a full nine months after the award was
announced. From the Genesis
Prize website:
“This announcement was made almost six months after Ms. Portman confirmed her
attendance at the Genesis Prize ceremony. Prior to accepting the Genesis Prize,
Ms. Portman was made aware that the Genesis Prize is a partnership between our
foundation, the Office of the Prime Minister of Israel, and The Jewish Agency
for Israel. Moreover, we informed Ms. Portman that the Prime Minister of Israel
presents the Genesis Prize and also delivers a keynote address at the award
ceremony.”
So Portman accepted the award knowing that Netanyahu
partners with the foundation, presents the prize, and delivers the keynote
address at the award ceremony. But she let everyone think she was coming to
Israel to accept the prize, then used her public platform, at the last minute,
to insult the elected leader of Israel and to bash Israel’s policies on Gaza.
In fact, Portman kept changing her mind: was she not coming to the awards ceremony to insult Bibi or
to make a point about Israel’s
policies in Gaza? Whatever the reason, it was a concerted attack on Israel: an insult, planned and calculated to embarrass Israel—to make Israel look bad.
Dave Lange (Aussie Dave) of Israellycool
feels that Portman is within her rights to criticize Israel and Netanyahu, in
part because she is an Israeli citizen. I disagree. Portman doesn’t live in
Israel, doesn’t vote in Israeli elections and uses her celebrity to accuse
Israel and Israel’s duly elected leadership of malfeasance. Her last-minute
announcement regarding the Genesis Prize was planned, timed, and calculated to
demonize Israel and its democratically elected leadership. Portman’s dissent
with Israel’s prime minister and the policies of the Israeli government are
based on a narrow, unflattering view of the Jewish State, an obvious byproduct
of anti-Israel propaganda/biased media reports.
Comparing Israel to the Nazis
Portman’s statement (quoted in the above-linked Israellycool
piece) regarding her decision to skip the awards ceremony further fulfills the
IHRA working definition of antisemitism by accusing Israel of “atrocities” and
appearing to compare Israeli actions in Gaza with Nazi activity during the
Holocaust:
“Israel was created exactly 70 years ago as a haven for
refugees from the Holocaust. But the mistreatment of those suffering from
today’s atrocities is simply not in line with my Jewish values. Because I care
about Israel, I must stand up against violence, corruption, inequality, and
abuse of power.”
IHRA examples of antisemitism include: "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
Portman seems to own her Israeli citizenship when she can use it to hurt
Israel. But when she stumps for Obama in Ohio, she’s suddenly “Very Ohio,”
though Obama’s intention to fund the mullahs’ nuclear program, with its
expressed intention of obliterating the Jewish State, was well known.
Will the real Natalie Portman please stand up? Actually, I
believe she has. Which is why she stays on the list. Of course, part of the
problem of creating the list was how to document antisemitism while keeping
things simple.
Portman Email Chain Scandal
Each celebrity’s name was linked to a single news item. In
Portman’s case, I could have listed many more such items. There was, for
example, that public temper tantrum about having her email address outed on an email
chain about Gaza. Was Portman only upset about having her address exposed,
or was she upset at being included in an effort supportive of the Jewish State
of Israel? From Gawker:
“Kavanaugh and Rotholz's forwarding habits were irritating
enough to Portman that she'd previously asked Kavanaugh to remove her from the
list: ‘you should not be copying me publicly so that 20 people i don't know
have my personal info,’ she admonished the producer. ‘i will have to change my
email address now.’
"’Sorry,’ he replied. ‘You are right jews being
slaughtered for their beliefs and cannes members calling for the boycott of
anything Israel or Jewish is much much less important then your email address
being shared with 20 of our peers who are trying to make a difference. my
deepest apologies.’ (Grimace emoji.)”
Antisemitic Or Just Clueless?
Moving along, many voiced disgruntlement at Jennifer
Aniston’s name being included on the comprehensive list of antisemitic
celebrities. Her name is linked to a story about all the celebrities who liked
Chelsea Handler’s Instagram post with Farrakhan’s video about racism. She liked
a post?? Why does that earn her the sobriquet of antisemite?
Because ignorance is a choice: lather, rinse, repeat. Farrakhan
is a notorious public figure who has said so many horrible things that simply appearing in a photo with him is enough to damage
reputations. The Southern Poverty Law Center called his organization Nation of Islam, a "hate group" (and so apparently did Martin Luther King).
If Aniston doesn’t know about Farrakhan, she should. She has a
duty to know before approving any message issuing forth from his mouth. But just for the record, here are a few choice Farrakhan quotes (see HERE for more examples):
“Satanic Jews have infected the whole world with poison and deceit.”
“The Jews have control over those agencies of government. When you want something in this world, the Jew holds the door.”
“Jews were responsible for all of this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out, turning men into women and women into men…. White folks are going down. And Satan is going down. And Farrakhan, by God’s grace, has pulled a cover off of that Satanic Jew, and I’m here to say your time is up, your world is through. You good Jews better separate because the satanic ones will take you to hell with them because that’s where they are headed.”
What makes anyone think Aniston would be woke enough to know about Farrakhan? Aniston has, in the past, used her celebrity
platform to take a stance on other political issues, which suggests she keeps up
with current events. Aniston’s political activism goes back to at least 2003
and the Second Intifada, when she, along with ex-husband Brad Pitt, created
their “One Voice” peace
initiative.
Aniston: Describing A False Equivalence
At a time when Israeli civilians, including children, were
being blown to bits on buses by suicide bombers, I found it particularly
insensitive when Aniston and Pitt, in their joint statement, drew a false equivalence between Arab and Israeli society, suggesting that Israeli children,
like their Arab counterparts, were growing up learning to hate:
"The last few years of conflict mean that yet another
generation of Israelis and Palestinians will grow up in hatred. We cannot allow
that to happen."
A quick glance at the work of IMPACT-se, shows that the opposite is
true. Arab school children are inculcated with hate by their teachers and their
textbooks every day in their UNRWA classrooms. Israeli
textbooks, on the other hand, contain no such incitement or racism. Because
this is contrary to Jewish values and the values of the Jewish State. Which is
why Arabs are found alongside Israelis in every Israeli sector and sphere,
including in the Israeli parliament, where Arabs make up the third largest party in the
Israeli Knesset. Which is why accusations of Israeli “Apartheid” are equally
spurious. (Also: Israelis were not blowing up buses of Arab civilians in 2003
or at any other time.)
Aniston and Pitt, with their false assertion that another generation of Israeli children are growing up in hate, fulfill this IHRA example of antisemitism: "Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such . . . "
Some might suggest that Aniston is merely clueless for
liking Handler’s Farrakhan post, or for suggesting a false equivalence between
Israeli and Arab children. But actions have consequences and if you use your celebrity
platform to prove you are woke, you better actually BE woke, by being
conversant with current events and the varied perspectives on these issues. Is
Farrakhan worthy of a like when he speaks out against racism? Is he an upright
human being one should like or quote? Are Israelis actually growing up “in
hatred” or is that something you say to make you feel better about Arab terror?
Silverman: Defending An Assailant Of IDF Soldiers
Sarah Silverman was another addition to my list to which
some readers took exception. Silverman’s name was linked to her support for
then 17-year-old Ahed Tamimi, who was arrested for physical and verbal abuse of
IDF soldiers. Linking to an Amnesty International campaign for Tamimi’s
release, Silverman tweeted, “Jews have to stand up EVEN when—ESPECIALLY when—the
wrongdoing is BY Jews/the Israeli government."
The IHRA definition of antisemitism includes this example: "Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation."
Is it wrong to arrest a 17-year-old who assaults the military? Would it be
wrong in America? Or is it only wrong when Israeli soldiers are on the
receiving end of the assault?
This is “as a Jew” criticism of Israel at its worst. Tamimi
has been assaulting Israeli soldiers for years. From the link I supplied with Silverman’s
entry:
“Many Palestinians consider her a political icon as she has
a history of confronting IDF soldiers. Ahed Tamimi had first came to public
prominence when, aged 11, she appeared in another video threatening to punch a
different soldier.”
Exploiting Fame
Dave Lange has been documenting Ahed Tamimi’s behavior at
Israellycool for years, dubbing Tamimi “Shirley Temper” due to her youth, her
big blond frizz, and her temper tantrums. The Tamimi family is notorious for
using its children to attack the State of Israel. The whole family is involved
in one way or another in this effort. Why not? This is, after all, the same clan that is
responsible for masterminding the Sbarro Pizzeria Massacre. Which is why none
other than Arnold
Roth, responding to Silverman’s tweet, wrote:
“Entertainers exploiting their fame are often a poor choice
for clarifying what’s moral or good. Sarah, did you stand up for our daughter
Malki and the other 15 Jewish lives extinguished by Ahlam Tamimi, Ahed’s cousin
and role-model-in-life? Do you stand with Ahed’s call to kill?”
If Silverman is going to stick her neck out and criticize
Israel, she has an obligation to know all the facts, from every angle. A simple
Google search would have led her to Lange’s comprehensive coverage of Tamimi’s antics. Is it fair for
Silverman to single out the Jews and Israel for criticism in regard to Tamimi’s
arrest? In my opinion, her tweet is antisemitism according to the IHRA
definition. Because a girl of 17 with a long, documented record of assault, no
matter in which country the assault occurs, and no matter the religion of the
victims she assaults, should be held culpable.
When celebrities use their public platforms to demonize
Israel on the basis of propaganda, that's antisemitism. If you're going to
single out the Jewish State, you better be basing your assertions on fact, or
we'll call you out on them. Otherwise, it's gratuitous hate.
Criticism Of Israel, Alone
Is Portman leveling accusations against the democratically
elected leaders of other countries? Is she turning down awards from other
countries based on what she thinks about their leaders? No. Her accusations extend
to Israel, alone.
Is Aniston merely clueless? No. She is a person who follows current events
enough to start a peace initiative on behalf of people who don’t live in her
own country.
What about Silverman, who fights for the freedom of a girl who has been made
into an anti-Israel propaganda tool by her family? Does Silverman have a right
to criticize Jews and Israel for detaining this “girl” who is now on the cusp
of adulthood? Context is everything.
Silverman used her celebrity to call for the release of a
person with a long record of assaulting Israeli soldiers. That cannot be
understood in a kind light. Silverman is singling out Israel. We don’t see her
demanding the release of anyone else assaulting soldiers in any other country.
No. She only holds the Jews, her own people, to account. Only the Jews are not
allowed to pursue justice in response to physical assault, according to
Silverman.
Shades Of Antisemitism
I do understand that there are levels and gradations of
antisemitism. I understand those insisting on nuance and proof. Because there
is a difference between making a political statement and outright Jew-hatred. There's
a difference between Mel Gibson calling Jews "oven dodgers" and
liking a tweet that has nothing to do with Jews.
The point of making a comprehensive list, however, is that
it should be comprehensive. The idea of such a list is to let these people know
we see them. We know what these celebrities are doing. And their behavior is
unacceptable, no matter how rich, talented, and beautiful they are.
When celebrities use Israel to virtue signal, they turn
Israel into a common icon for everyday condemnation and abuse, in which Israel
becomes the pivot on which all attacks turn. Celebrities use Israel to get
attention. Because when they demonize Israel, they know they will receive
applause and approbation. And this is disgusting.
It's Not Torah M'Sinai
The “comprehensive list of antisemites” is not Torat Moshe M’Sinai. My suggestion is
that you use it as a tool to take a stand and defend your values. One commenter
suggested as much: “I think the list is fine even if—especially if—it's as
blunt a tool as those used by the critics. Let them stand on their own values
and defend them. We are in an either/or world now. Take a stand and live with
it.”
My feeling is that the links on each name in the list tell
us to be careful about these people at a minimum. We need to be careful about
people who like a post featuring a notorious antisemite, even if that “like”
was totally innocent and clueless. There are all kinds of (poor) excuses for
bad behavior. But ignorance is no excuse at all. Just as we wouldn’t give the
Nazis a pass because they had “no choice” or because they were swept away by
Hitler’s charisma.
Some say that being cavalier in my determination of who is
and isn’t an antisemite is not strategic. Guilty as charged. I am not a
strategist. I believe in speaking out against even a hint of antisemitism. You
don’t have to be a Mel Gibson to make it onto my list. At the same time, there
has to be something to look at. One friend wanted me to include John Travolta
because of an old (dismissed) lawsuit in which the complainant alleged Travolta
said Hollywood was run by old Jewish homosexuals "who expect favors in return for sexual activity."
The case was dismissed. It’s hearsay. I have no reason to believe
this report and neither do you. It’s a rumor, it’s only slander: an anecdote.
So Travolta stays off the list. Unless you have something real to show me.
Ignorance Is A Choice
Clueless about the antisemitism of Farrakhan? Ignorance is a
choice. So is speaking out against what you don't know about. Of the famous
four sons of the Passover Seder, the last is an ignoramus. The famous
commentator Rashi calls him “evil.” Because . . . wait for it . . . ignorance is a choice.
Which is why some of those who made it onto my list are,
according to one commentator, “just ignoramuses and dolts, not antisemites.
Useful idiots. But, still, stupidity is not an excuse when the issues are not
trivial. They are taking a position, and should be called on it.”
I concur. Antisemitism is an important topic and we should
be able to discuss it with due frankness. We need to be aware of our enemies,
their supporters, and their enablers. Sometimes the three are
indistinguishable.
If we lived in a kinder, softer world, we could ignore the threat and be fine.
But considering the times, we need to take note. And when push comes to shove, it
doesn’t much matter if a celebrity is motivated by ignorance or hatred. Liking
a post about Farrakhan is as bad as admiring Hitler’s paintings. It’s fruit of
the poisonous tree.
You may disagree with this or that entry on the comprehensive
list of antisemitic celebrities. But the IHRA working definition of
antisemitism tells us that when you slander Jews, it's wrong. The IHRA working definition of antisemitism tells us that when you take a position against Israel, singling Israel out for criticism, it’s wrong. It stands as a basic denial of the right
of the Jewish people to be a people, it's a denial of the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and self-defense. It’s siding with
the enemy narrative. As such, there is no practical difference between
anti-Zionists and antisemites.
Speech Has Consequences
One commenter wrote that in Judaism, we have a commandment
to guard one’s tongue. “Because there is [the] realization that [the] consequences
of one’s speech can be far-reaching and extremely damaging to others.”
We need to let people know that when they like a post
focused on a notorious antisemite it makes us nervous. We need to let them know
that when they single out Israel or the Jews for criticism, it’s wrong. Jews are made of
DNA like every other people and we have a right to be treated as normal people.
Our country has a right to be treated as any other normal country.
In this light, creating a comprehensive list of antisemitic
celebrities serves as an attempt to dissociate ourselves from those who, with
their unthinking actions and words, put the Jewish people in greater danger.
Perhaps their deeds are unwitting. All the same, they aid our mortal enemies.
We cannot afford to stick our heads in the sand, and ignore the things they do,
clueless or not.
I will end this by saying thank you to all who helped to
form the debate. I think the discussion helped to refine my own views. Thank you for
letting me learn from you. I am sure you can see yourselves in this piece.
And to the world at large, know this: when you like a video of an antisemite or speak out against Israel and
only Israel, or without fully knowing the facts, it makes you a willful ignoramus.
Which makes you an antisemite. Because ignorance is always a choice.
No matter how famous you are.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
Israelis are sometimes criticized for saying “yehiye b’seder” [it will be OK] without sufficiently considering the consequences. But there is such a thing as decision paralysis, when you can’t act because you never feel that you have enough information. Sometimes that’s worse than a less-than-perfect decision. I think the opponents of Israel’s application of civilian law to parts of Judea and Samaria and the Jordan Valley are trying hard to induce decision paralysis.
Today (Wednesday) there is supposed to be a meeting in the White House at which Trump Administration officials reportedly will decide whether to green-light the move. Of course it will be a good thing if the US recognizes Israel’s action, especially if that means that it will issue an official statement that Jewish communities outside the Green Line are part of Israel.
But on the other hand, there is a feeling that the US is trying to micromanage Israel’s behavior. Perhaps, it is suggested, the “green light” will only include several communities near Jerusalem. Or maybe a phase-in that will take several months. Or maybe the US will require Benny Gantz’ explicit agreement. Or – who knows?
Gantz, incidentally, is remarkably unclear about his position, if he indeed has one. Here is how Noa Landau, a left-leaning journalist for Ha’aretz, describes it:
Not unilaterally, yes unilaterally. Only with the international community’s (unobtainable) consent, only with Jordan’s (unobtainable) consent. Only the Jordan Valley, only the settlement blocs. Only as part of the broader Trump plan, only a limited symbolic step. Only with a gesture to the Palestinians – but who needs the Palestinians anyway? Just don’t ask us to elaborate.
There is great pressure being applied from many quarters, both against PM Netanyahu and against Trump, to oppose this step, which is almost universally referred to as “annexation of [part of] the ‘West Bank’”. As Eugene Kontorovich argues [$], it is not “annexation” because the territory in question
…isn’t legally the territory of any other state, nor has it been since Israel’s independence in 1948. Neither the U.S. nor the European Union recognizes the existence of a Palestinian state, and Israel’s sovereign claim to the territory is superior to any other country’s. Putting this move in the same category as Russia’s seizure of Crimea is entirely misleading.
The Union for Reform Judaism (URJ) in the US is asking its members to lobby Congress against the plan, “out of a concern for Israel’s safety and security, for the preservation of Israel’s democratic character, and for the place of Israel among the nations of the world.” Its talking points come directly from the Israeli Left, which has been consistently defeated at the polls since the disasters wrought by the government of Ehud Barak in 2000. But don’t liberal American Jews know better than Israeli voters?
The Obama Gang has weighed in as well. Here’s Gangster Susan Rice: “So when it comes to annexation, I think the obvious argument against it is that it all but makes that objective of a two-state outcome impossible…”
What she means, of course, is that it makes impossible the Gang’s version of a two-state solution, in which Israel, including Jerusalem, is divided along the 1949 armistice lines. But that was always so, because it would render Israel indefensible, precisely the opposite of their contention. The Gang also envisioned the expulsion of tens of thousands of Jews from the territory in order to make a Jew-free Palestine possible, and Israel giving up control of Judaism’s holy places – which worked so well [not] under the Jordanians.
But a demilitarized Palestinian autonomy in less than all of the territory is far less dangerous. It does not require expelling Jews (or Arabs), and very few Palestinians are incorporated into Israel. That’s the Trump Administration version of the two-state solution.
Opponents of the move worry a great deal about the response of the Arab countries, especially Jordan, and the Europeans. I must note that if I have misgivings about the US micromanaging Israeli policy, I am even less likely to be influenced by the public pronouncements of Arab leaders who have been pumping anti-Israel venom into the veins of their subjects for decades, and now – when they depend on us for their security – are afraid that they will be overthrown if they don’t show sufficient enmity toward us. Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states all know who will help them when they are in trouble, and who wants to hurt them.
The intersectional Left is fond of asking people to “check [their] privilege.” To the Europeans, I say “check your history,” you who practiced viciously exploitative colonialism for hundreds of years, who started world wars, and who either participated in the genocide of the European Jews, prevented their escape (Britain, I am looking at you), or turned a blind eye. It hasn’t been long enough to give any weight to your moral pronouncements.
Returning to President Trump, I think that moving this deal forward is of great importance to him, to show both his allies in the Middle East and his pro-Israel domestic supporters that he keeps his promises. The fact that his political enemies are mobilizing against him in force – particularly the Obama Gang – shows the importance of this issue. This gives Israel some leverage, which should be applied to keep the initiative from being watered down. We don’t have to agree on anything other than the map, and certainly not to a sovereign Palestinian state. I think time is very short. The American election campaign will soon begin to absorb all the energies of the administration. Any gradual phase-in of sovereignty will not survive a change of administration, if it should occur. I am convinced that if Mr. Biden is elected, his administration will be dominated by the Obama Gang, which has proven itself an enemy of the Jewish state. A Biden Administration could reverse an American position established by Trump – as Obama did with respect the Bush-Sharon letters – but it can’t undo Israeli decisions, which can and should be translated into facts on the ground.
It’s imperative that Israel move ahead and extend civilian law to communities in Judea and Samaria and to the Jordan Valley, in July as planned. If the map that will delineate the lines isn’t complete, it should be completed, unilaterally if necessary. I don’t see Trump objecting to unilateral action. Why should he? The details, essential to us, are unimportant to him. There’s one week left in June. If not now, when?
This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 14 years and 30,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.
Get Your Shots
-
[image: Dry Bones cartoon, Coronavirus,vaccine,Black Market, Covid-19, Big
Pharm, 2021,]Is a Black Market in Vaccines lurking in our future? or will
Big Ph...
Mizrahi activists hit back at curriculum critics
-
*The latest draft of the Californian Ethnic studies schools' curriculum
has largely corrected earlier shortcomings and does not justify the
criticism ...
From Israel: “You Can Run, But You Can’t Hide!!“
-
I am ever mindful of the blessings that are ours, and would never, ever
suggest that hope be abandoned. Jews survive on hope, on faith in a better
tomorr...
The Iran Policy Shipwreck
-
The other day YouTube decided that I wanted to see a compendium of large
ships crashing into each other or into docks, cranes, and other
installations. Wha...
International Holocaust Memorial Day 2021
-
It is International Holocaust Memorial Day today, and although it is not
marked in Israel since we have our own Yom Hashoah after Pesach, this is a
fitting...
‘Test & Trace’ is a mirage
-
Lockdown II thoughts: Day 1 Opposition politicians have been banging on
about the need for a ‘working’ Test & Trace system even more loudly than
the govern...
Oped in the Jerusalem Post (with links)
-
The Jerusalem Post published an oped of mine on the Al Durah affair. Here
it is, unedited, with links: Al Durah Affair 20 Years On Today is the 20th
annive...
Wednesday, July 15, 2020
Elder of Ziyon
Posts
