Tuesday, May 20, 2025
Elder of Ziyon
In The New York Times this weekend, Katie J.M. Baker described a fund-raising pitch that the Heritage Foundation, the right-wing think tank that gave us Project 2025, made for a campaign to crush a subversive movement that threatens “America itself.”The pitch, she wrote, “presented an illustration of a pyramid topped by ‘progressive “elites” leading the way,’ which included Jewish billionaires such as the philanthropist George Soros and Governor JB Pritzker of Illinois.” Whether intentionally or not, Heritage was deploying a classic antisemitic trope, the notion of the wealthy Jewish puppet master. In the contemporary version of this conspiracy theory, Soros looms especially large; the Anti-Defamation League has multiple pages on its website about the antisemitic underpinnings of right-wing claims that Soros is working to destabilize society.
But the group decided to begin their own national task force and released a statement of purpose that affirmed a definition of antisemitism that is hotly debated because it considers some broad criticisms of Israel to be antisemitic.Statement of PurposeAntisemitism: We recognize any attempt to delegitimize, boycott, divest, or sanction the modern [state] of Israel or bar Jews from participating in academic or communal associations must be condemned.We recognize that anti-Zionism and antisemitism are the different manifestations of the same hatred against Jewish people.
Let us be clear: anti-Zionism is not "broad criticisms of Israel." By definition, anti-Zionism states that Israel is - uniquely among all nations - illegitimate, and that the concept of a Jewish state itself is racist, while Arab and Muslim and Christian states are all kosher.
Anyone who claims that "anti-Zionism" is identical to "criticism of Israel" is being knowingly disingenuous. And that includes the New York Times here.
So here we have two examples where the New York Times is whitewashing antisemitism - one by extending a definition of antisemitism to include criticizing anti-Zionist Jews, and the other by limiting the definition of antisemitism by claiming that wanting the Jewish state destroyed is legitimate criticism and has nothing to do with Jews.
By summer 2024, Heritage had finalized a national strategy that aimed to convince the public to perceive the pro-Palestinian movement in the United States as part of a global “Hamas Support Network” that “poses a threat not simply to American Jewry, but to America itself.”
Once again, we must see if the facts support the Heritage Foundation or its critics.
Have we ever seen any of these "pro-Palestinian" groups condemn Hamas, outside of pro-forma "condemnations' of October 7 that end up blaming Jews for Hamas' actions? As far as I can tell, the answer is no. Which means that the Heritage Foundation's characterization of them being part of the Hamas "support network" is in fact accurate - their failure to hold Hamas to any standard whatsoever while demanding Israel adhere to their idea of moral perfection is effectively supporting Hamas.
Even their criticism that many of Project Esther's supporters are Christian, not Jewish, show their hypocrisy. Because the moral yardstick that they demand of Israel is not Jewish at all, but Christian - they are saying Israel must turn the other cheek in response to October 7, that destroying the terror group is a "disproportionate" response and that Israel should at best drop some symbolic bombs in open spaces to restore balance between the Jewish state and the Islamist terror group.
They effectively endorse Hamas' use of every Gazan as a human shield.
Maybe Project Esther goes too far; as I said, I have not examined it. But if these are the worst accusations that the New York Times can find against it, then it is the NYT's moral compass that is askew, not the Heritage Foundation's. And it is the New York Times that tacitly whitewashes some forms of antisemitism.
|
"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022) |
 |
Buy
