Monday, October 30, 2017
By Petra Marquardt-Bigman
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.
Most of you have probably already heard about Michael
Chikindas, a professor at Rutgers’ Department of Food Science. His research
interests sound professional and include
“Bacillus subtilis and lactic acid bacteria spp. as a host for overproduction
of biomolecules,” but the professor’s problem is an acute and apparently
untreated overproduction of bigotry. His numerous vile posts on Facebook were
first exposed
on Israellycool and then reported by many other sites, including The
Algemeiner and Tablet.
The writer John-Paul Pagano, who authored the Tablet piece, also posted
an archive
with screenshots of the Facebook posts Chikindas shared with the world – though
he apparently didn’t have many Facebook “friends” who noticed. (As I am writing
this, I see that John-Paul Pagano keeps finding more.)
While most of the material is shockingly vile, I was particularly
struck by one image – because it could have served as the perfect illustration
of one of Linda Sarsour’s tweets that I documented
earlier this year. As I noted back then, Sarsour wrote several tweets with a similar message,
but the one I immediately recalled when I
saw the Chikindas post is: “Homeless on the streets, Americans who haven’t
recovered from natural disasters, unemployment, and we have extra $$$ for
Israel. Smh. [Shaking my head].”
The interesting thing is of course that the image Chikindas
posted will be recognized by most people as antisemitic, while the text Sarsour
posted will be widely justified as legitimate criticism of US support for
Israel. Some people will also argue that Sarsour didn’t blame Jews – not even
“Zionists” – for the “extra $$$ for Israel” and that it is therefore entirely
unfair to compare her tweet with the vile image posted by Chikindas.
However, this argument works only if you look at this one
tweet in isolation, because Sarsour posted plenty of tweets suggesting that
Israel was either controlling or corrupting US lawmakers. As I pointed out in my
documentation, Sarsour repeatedly insinuated that American politicians who back
strong bonds between the US and Israel must be suspected of dual loyalties or
corruption. Echoing the “Israel-firster” slurs – which caused
much controversy
a few years ago and were widely
considered as reflecting antisemitic tropes – Sarsour suggested in July 2014 that “Israel should
give free citizenship to US politicians. They are more loyal to Israel than
they are to the American people.” She also asserted
that there was an “awkward moment when the White House goes off AIPAC [American
Israel Public Affairs Committee] script and says ‘Israel must end the
occupation;’” according to Sarsour, this meant for the White House that
“#theyareintroublenow.” Sarsour apparently also believes that AIPAC lobbies to
get the US to “revolve around Israel;” she therefore demanded in 2012: “Our
country’s future should not revolve around #Israel. #aipac2012.” Referring to
Hillary Clinton, Sarsour wondered last
year, “What was in Hilary’s goodie bag at AIPAC. Had to be real nice after that
speech that almost bought her a prime minister seat in Israel.” And at the end
of last year, Sarsour reacted to a
statement by Senator Lindsey Graham with the question “Are you a US Senator or
do you work for Israel?”
It is hard to imagine that someone who is as hyperactive
politically as Sarsour would not know that
US support for Israel enjoys broad
backing among Americans because Israel is widely regarded
as “a clear strategic asset to the United States,” and the bilateral
relationship is therefore widely seen as based
on “tangible, steadily increasing security and economic interests.”
Seen in this context, the message conveyed by Sarsour in her
repeated efforts to suggest [http://archive.is/kZpAj] that US military
assistance to Israel comes at the expense of health care, education funding and
various other social benefits for US citizens is not that
much different from the message Chikindas tried to convey with the vile image
of a greedy Jew stealing money from an American family begging on the streets.