Pierre Rehov’s Pogrom(s): A Cinematic Response to the October 7 Massacre (Judean Rose)

                             

Film review and interview with filmmaker Pierre Rehov

Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.

Pierre Rehov has one clear goal with his latest documentary, Pogrom(s): to defend his people, the Jews. The film shows us what happened on October 7^th in a brutally honest fashion. It’s difficult to watch. There are images and footage from which the viewing public has been largely shielded. It’s what Jew-haters have been demanding all along, proof. Not that it will satisfy them—nothing would, except perhaps for the demise of the Jews.

Nevertheless, Pogrom(s) represents a valiant attempt to document the events of October 7, delving into its root causes and aftermath. The film clearly illustrates how antisemitic violence begets further antisemitic violence, creating an insidious cycle. Given the extreme nature of violence on October 7, the resulting acts of aggression—whether on college campuses or in the streets of Amsterdam—have proven particularly severe. With the help of expert testimony, the filmmaker effectively connects the horrific events of that day to a complex interplay of Islamic fundamentalism, Nazi ideology, and 20th-century “Palestinian” nationalism.

Filmmaker Pierre Rehov

If the title of the documentary is any indication, Rehov views October 7 as yet another pogrom in a long and storied history of such events. But was October 7 indeed a pogrom according to the strictest definition of the term? Was it comparable to the anti-Jewish riots that swept through Russia following the assassination of Czar Alexander II?

Arguably, October 7 transcends the boundaries of a pogrom by intent. October 7 was not a mob riot, but a targeted attempt at genocide, with atrocities of unprecedented cruelty, all publicly broadcast on social media for the world to see and hear. But however you land on the question of how to define October 7, it is certain that Pogrom(s) will give you much to think about.

Varda Epstein: You’ve been making films about Muslim terror and the “Arab war against the Jews” as Ruth Wisse calls it, for more than two decades. Why this particular subject? Do you feel called upon to do this work? What do you give viewers that they won’t get anywhere else?

Pierre Rehov: After graduating from law school in Paris in the 70s, I began a career as a journalist and quickly specialized in cinema. This vocation led me to become a film distributor and then producer. But I didn't get politically involved in any cause until September 30, 2000.

Returning from vacation, I stumbled across the France 2 report covering the death of little Mohammed Al Dura. This “filmed death” was the starting point for the intifada that bloodied Israel for almost six years, and gave rise to a propaganda campaign whose results we are sadly witnessing on the international stage today. My experience as a journalist and film-maker made me realize that this death, attributed to Israeli soldiers, was nothing more than a staged event, and I decided to find out for myself. So, with my head held high, I set off to Israel and Gaza to uncover the deception.

In the process, I made my first documentary, and as no one wanted it in France, I created a magazine distributed in newsagents, the sole aim of which was to give away a VHS cassette of the report. The success of this initiative exceeded all my expectations, and so began my new career, which has outstripped all others, and I have since made more than 20 documentaries on the conflicts of the Middle East.

I believe that my experience in many different fields allows me to bring into films materials that few others can. Especially since I was born in an Arab country, I have travelled to many Arab countries and I spent time in Gaza and Judea Samaria to be in contact with Arabs who call themselves “palestinians”.

Where children once played. The aftermath of October 7 

Varda Epstein: Can you tell us a bit about your background? I understand you experienced terror first hand. Can you tell us about that? Is that early experience part of what drives you in your work?

Pierre Rehov: I don't really like to talk about this experience. To make a long story short, I was 7 years old, we lived in Algiers, and my school was targeted by the terrorist “Liberation of Algeria” organization, the FLN. Several children died or were injured. In Algeria, as elsewhere, when Arabs fight, they often target civilians, women and children first, to instill terror. But it wasn't this experience that led to my commitment to Israel. Rather, it's the sense of injustice felt by any Jew who has been driven out of an Arab country, whose family has lost everything, and who has been content to rebuild his life without asking anyone for anything, while the Arabs of the Palestine region, many of whom were recent immigrants, have received all the help they can get from the Western world and the UN.

A burned out shell of a home, post October 7

Varda Epstein: Your latest film is Pogrom(s). The movie is about the October 7 massacres, but not solely, because Pogrom(s) actually covers a lot of ground. If you were to offer us a synopsis of the film, what would it say?

Pierre Rehov: It would say that on October 7 Jews suffered the worst massacre since the Holocaust solely because they were Jews, but the very next day much of the world's media and governments, rather than taking sides with the victims, condemned Israel for its willingness to defend itself, a right that seems not to be granted to Israelis. Pogrom(s) tries to explain why, and to do so revisits the history of the region. It also says, to quote Guterres, that this massacre did not occur in a “vacuum” but in the continuity of an anti-Jewish hatred inscribed in the ethos of Islam.

A sea of the burned out empty shells of what were once cars, set on fire with people still inside them on October 7.

Varda Epstein: What was your chief objective in making Pogrom(s)? What do you want people to get out of seeing your film?

Pierre Rehov: Pogrom(s) is a cry of revolt against a culture of hatred and the revision of history. Pogrom(s) says to the world, “We said never again, but here we go again, and you're behaving as you did in the last century.”

Hostages, whether dead or alive, were paraded through the streets of Gaza on October 7, jeered at, spat upon, and violently abused by the crowds.

Varda Epstein: How did you decide what images and footage to include? A lot of it was difficult to watch and see; it must be difficult to get the balance right. How did you decide what to include? What are some of the factors you thought about as you made choices about what you would and wouldn’t show the world? Do you have any regrets in this regard—were there photos or footage you wish you had included but that ended up on the cutting floor?

Pierre Rehov: The choice of images was based on a criterion set from the outset. They had to be revolting without showing too much. I had access to a lot of material during the making of the film, and the choices were extremely difficult because it's impossible to evoke such a tragedy, when propaganda has already done its job to mitigate the ignominy of the human waste who indulged in such an orgy of murder, rape and torture, without showing a little. But at the same time, we had to protect the families of the victims, respect the dead, and not encourage voyeurism. I don’t have any regrets.

Terrorists paragliding into Israel on October 7.

Varda Epstein: Who is your movie for? Will Pogrom(s) change the mind of ardent antisemites? Educate the ignorant? Will the film offer validation to those in anguish over the events of October 7?

Pierre Rehov: The film is aimed neither at pro-Israelis, who know the truth and might just discover a few historical facts that would reinforce their conviction, nor at pro-Palestinians who wallow in lies and scoff at the truth. Antisemitism is a collective neurosis which, at certain times, becomes a psychosis. The cure lies in psychiatry, not in the presentation of facts. Some Israelis and Jews abroad thanked me after seeing Pogrom(s). I simply hope that I have made my tiny contribution to what I consider to be one of humanity's greatest causes: The defense of Israel and the Jewish people.

Antisemitic protests in the United States in the wake of October 7.

Varda Epstein: Pogrom(s) includes footage of University of Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer stating that “a good number” of Oct 7 victims were killed by IDF. What struck me was the glee on his face as he leaned in and said that. Is there a way to combat these attitudes? Do you think your film is something we can show the deniers to change their minds?

Pierre Rehov: This “professor” is an antisemitic scumbag. He interprets the facts to suit his ideology. There's nothing to be done with this kind of individual. Just let them get stuck in their certainty until the day they let themselves go too far and find themselves caught by the law. It's not my job to educate them. The work should have been done during their childhood, by parents who, no doubt, were no better than them in human terms. A negationist never changes his mind, because his intellectual construction is based on non-existent facts that he has decided to accept as established truth. A negationist can look at a photo of the Holocaust and say it's a fake, or a photo of a charred baby and claim (as Al Jazeera dared to do) that it's a creation of Artificial Intelligence. I don't waste my time trying to convince these people.

The more hate, the more hateful displays of anti-Jewish hate, everywhere.

Varda Epstein: What's next for Pierre Rehov? Do you have another film in the pipeline?

Pierre Rehov: I'm currently preparing two films, which it's too early to talk about, but which belong to the same field. I'm also co-writing a book on the post-October 7 period in Israel and the Middle East, which will be published in April by a major French publishing house.

***

To watch Pogrom(s) and learn more, visit: https://pogroms.info/

---

---

Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon! "He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024) PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

 

Read More

Julie Platt: She Stood by Liz Magill (Judean Rose)

Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.

Liz Magill, with her smug smile and inability to denounce calls for the genocide of the Jewish people, disgraced herself and UPenn. No one wonders why she resigned. The question is why Julie Platt, chair of the Jewish Federations of North America’s board of trustees, saw fit to defend Magill, when all the other Jewish leaders were vocal in their demands that Magill step down. A second question we might ask is why Platt, who also serves as vice chair of UPenn’s board of trustees, is now overseeing the search for Magill’s replacement.

That’s right—Platt, after defending Magill—is in charge of finding a new Magill, likely every bit as antisemitic as the one who stepped down in disgrace. How do we know? Because Platt’s defense of Magill predates the events of October 7^th, says Alana Goodman, writing for the Washington Free Beacon on December 8 (emphasis added):

Platt’s defense of Magill predates the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks. She stood by the UPenn president when the school played host to the "Palestine Writes" conference in September, an event that featured anti-Semitic speakers. This included Pink Floyd singer Roger Waters, who has "dressed in a Nazi-like uniform" and "desecrated the memory of Holocaust victim Anne Frank," according to a letter sent to the school by the Jewish Federation’s Philadelphia chapter.

In October, when Apollo CEO Marc Rowan called on Magill to resign from the UPenn board after Magill declined to condemn Hamas terrorism, Platt publicly backed the UPenn president, saying she had "full confidence in the leadership of President Liz Magill and Chair Scott Bok."

"The university has publicly committed to unprecedented steps to further combat antisemitism on its campus, reaffirmed deep support for our Jewish community, and condemned the devastating and barbaric attacks on Israel by Hamas," said Platt in a statement to the New York Post.

But Platt has been noticeably silent after Magill’s shocking congressional testimony this week, during which she and other Ivy League presidents said calls for Jewish genocide were permitted on campuses. Platt, a former banker, is also co-chair of UPenn Hillel's National Board of Governors and sits on the board of overseers for the Katz Center for Advanced Judaic Studies, according to her biography on the Penn Alumni website.

Three days later, Goodman offered her readers a shocking update—the fox, in the form of Julie Platt, was now guarding the hen house (emphasis added):

Julie Platt, a prominent Jewish leader who repeatedly defended Magill as anti-Semitism surged on campus, will serve as interim chair of the Board of Trustees during the search for a new president. Platt, who was previously vice chair, will replace the board's outgoing leader, Scott Bok, who resigned alongside Magill on Saturday.

"As current Vice Chair, Julie was the clear choice, and we are grateful to her for agreeing to serve in this capacity during this time of transition," the board said in a statement on Sunday.

Critics told the Washington Free Beacon last week that Platt—who is also chair of the Jewish Federations of North America's board of trustees—leveraged her Jewish community leadership role to protect Magill's position at the university for months. 

Platt defended Liz Magill as UPenn hosted an anti-Israel conference with antisemite Roger Waters, and after October 7^th, when Magill refused to condemn Hamas terrorism. But in her official JFNA statement on her appointment as interim chair, Platt wants you to know that all this time, she was “working hard from the inside” to address the rising antisemitism on the UPenn campus—in the form of defending Magill’s indefensible defense of Jew-hatred, of course (emphasis added):

As Vice Chair of the university’s board these past several months, I have worked hard from the inside to address the rising issues of antisemitism on campus.  Unfortunately, we have not made all the progress that we should have and intend to accomplish.  In my view, given the opportunity to choose between right and wrong, the three university presidents testifying in the United States House of Representatives failed. The leadership change at the university was therefore necessary and appropriate.  I will continue as a board member of the university to use my knowledge and experience of Jewish life in North America and at Penn to accelerate this critical work.

Platt is clever, if somewhat devious, when she tells us that she has “worked hard from the inside” to address antisemitism. If the work she did was from “inside,” we didn’t see it, so we don’t know what she did, or how much effort she expended on fighting antisemitism, sight unseen. The ruse almost works, except that the whole world has been watching, or at least the Algemeiner, which documented the number of times Magill gave free rein to antisemitism, as Platt continued to defend her:

Magill had several previous opportunities throughout her tenure to denounce hateful, even conspiratorial, rhetoric directed at both Israel and the Jewish community. However, Magill repeatedly declined to respond to the mounting incidents of antisemitism, especially anti-Zionism, on campus, according to an analysis by [the Algemeiner] of public statements she had issued since July 2022, when she assumed the presidency at Penn.

“Israel is a settler colonial state that uses apartheid to further its ethnic cleansing agenda,” said an essay by Penn Against the Occupation (POA) that was included in the 2022-2023 edition of the Penn Disorientation Guide, a symposium of essays published annually by upperclassmen. It was issued just weeks after Magill started on the job.

“It is time to end the way our school helps to perpetrate human rights violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) and organize around divesting from Israel,” the essay continued. “Here’s what you should know about divestment, a popular movement to fight for equality for Palestinians.”

POA went on to charge the university with numerous offenses: Penn “normalizes ties with the occupation” by hosting the Perspectives Fellowship, a program the school’s Hillel chapter founded to educate students about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by taking them on a trip to Israel, as well as Gaza and the West Bank. Penn’s support of Birthright, which sends Jewish students to Israel, “turns a blind eye to the crimes of the Israeli occupation.” Both programs, POA said, “frame the Zionist colonial entity in a positive light.”

Later that semester, after campus police arrested radical student environmentalists for staging an unauthorized protest on school grounds, POA said in an Instagram post that “arresting peaceful protesters is a staple of policing in both the United States and in Israeli-Occupied Palestine.” The group drew a link between the world’s continued dependence on fossil fuels to Israel, saying, “We urge Penn not only to divest from all fossil fuel companies but divest from companies that profit from Israeli apartheid, many of which are one in the same … policies of forced displacement, from Palestine to the UC townhomes in Philadelphia, are all modern-day practices of settler colonialism.”

Neither Magill nor the university responded to the apparent accusation that the Jewish state, conspiring with the US, has caused climate change and colonized both Americans and Palestinians.

The next month, on Nov. 6, POA held a screening of Gaza Fights for Freedom “with snacks provided” in Penn’s Van Pelt Library. The film rationalizes the terrorist acts committed during the Palestinian intifadas against Israel and features a clip of an interview with Hamas co-founder Mahmoud Al-Zahar, who can be heard saying, “We run effective self-defense by all means including using guns.”

The film was directed by Abby Martin, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and a former host on the Russian-funded media network RT America. Martin, who has compared Israel to Nazi Germany, reposted on social media posts that celebrated Hamas’ Oct. 7 massacre across southern Israel.

It doesn't seem like Platt was working hard from inside, if at all. Why did Platt, an important Jewish leader, stand by, as Magill proved, without a doubt, over and over again, that she is an Israel-hating antisemite? Even now, Magill affirms her anti-Jewish creds, most recently during the infamous hearing that led to her resignation. There, Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) asked all three Ivy League university presidents, including Magill, a loaded (and exquisitely worded) question: 

Do you believe that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish nation?

Just as the three women answered in chorus on “conduct,” “context,” and parroted the words “pervasive and severe,” here too, the women echoed one another in both what they said—Israel can exist—and what they didn’t say, “but not as a Jewish nation”:

Virginia Foxx: Do you believe that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish nation?

Claudine Gay: I agree that the State of Israel has a right to exist.

Virginia Foxx: Ms. Magill, same question.

Liz Magill: I agree, Chairwoman Foxx. (nodding) The State of Israel has a right to exist.

Virginia Foxx: Dr. Kornbluth? 

Sally Kornbluth: Absolutely. Israel has the right to exist.

With their collective response to that one question, Magill and her friends made clear their unified belief that Jews do not have the right to self-determination in Israel. And still, Platt stayed dumb (emphasis added):

In October, when Apollo CEO Marc Rowan called on Magill to resign from the UPenn board after Magill declined to condemn Hamas terrorism, Platt publicly backed the UPenn president, saying she had "full confidence in the leadership of President Liz Magill and Chair Scott Bok."

"The university has publicly committed to unprecedented steps to further combat antisemitism on its campus, reaffirmed deep support for our Jewish community, and condemned the devastating and barbaric attacks on Israel by Hamas," said Platt in a statement to the New York Post.

But Platt has been noticeably silent after Magill’s shocking congressional testimony this week, during which she and other Ivy League presidents said calls for Jewish genocide were permitted on campuses. Platt, a former banker, is also co-chair of UPenn Hillel's National Board of Governors and sits on the board of overseers for the Katz Center for Advanced Judaic Studies, according to her biography on the Penn Alumni website.

Why did Platt, a highly-placed Jewish leader, stick to a university president who wouldn’t condemn Hamas terror or calls for genocide? Are they friends? It seems unlikely, as the two women are almost a decade apart in age.

What then? Did Platt aim by design to rise up the UPenn chain of command to the level of interim chair, and perhaps, beyond? Put her own guy in? Who knows? She’s not talking, and neither is the CEO of the Jewish Federation:

Platt didn’t respond when the Free Beacon asked her on [December 6] to comment on Magill’s testimony. Eric Fingerhut, the CEO of the Jewish Federations of North America, also didn’t respond to a request for comment about Platt’s defense of Magill.

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

Where Will Your Children Go to School? (Judean Rose)

Disclaimer: the views expressed here are solely those of the author, weekly Judean Rose columnist Varda Meyers Epstein.

                                                                                --1--

As an American-born Israeli, I have worried about antisemitism on American college campuses for decades. For me, it’s personal. My friends and family are there. I worry about the physical safety of their children, but am actually more concerned that the rhetoric will damage their psyches and souls. When we text or speak I always want to ask, and sometimes do, especially if the kids are seniors in high school, “Where will they be going to school?”

My question is no different after October 7^th, but now I voice it to the collective: Where will your Jewish children go to school, now that all of us know they are unsafe? And where will they go to college?

Will they attend Hillcrest High, where a Jewish teacher hid in a locked office for two hours? Will they go to Citizens of the World Charter School-East Valley where teachers spoke to first graders about the “genocide in Gaza”? 

Portland-area teacher Hailey DeMarre launched a harassment campaign against Beaverton School District after they told her to remove a Palestinian flag students had painted on the classroom wallshttps://t.co/QgI1CXX0pw https://t.co/QgI1CXX0pw

— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) November 19, 2023

Sometimes I imagine what you are thinking now: How long until it reaches the playground, the grocery store, the synagogue, now that it has been proven without a doubt, that Jew-hatred can rise up, as it did on October 7^th, and sweep across a kibbutz, dance festival, or campus like a tidal wave.

It’s not about October 7^th, but about the nature of antisemitism. Too many of us don’t want to learn the lesson that yes, it can happen again. And it did. Because it’s not enough to say a slogan.

                                                                       --2--

I knew what this column would be called, but I didn’t know what form it would take. All I knew was that I wanted to talk about the fears that Jewish parents must be experiencing right now. Did I want to focus on the individual schools? I didn’t know. I wasn’t sure what I’d need, but I did want to get an idea of the scale. So I went online and boom, boom, boom. The internet started blowing up. Within the hour I had found dope—antisemitic dope, so to speak—on the following 33 schools, the majority of them institutes of “higher” learning.

1.      University of Michigan in Ann Arbor

2.      MIT

3.      Yale

4.      Columbia

5.      University of Pennsylvania

6.      UC Berkeley

7.      Harvard

8.      NYU

9.      University of Southern California

10.   University of North Carolina

11.   Hillcrest High School

12.   University of Maryland

13.   Brown

14.   UCLA

15.   Princeton

16.   University of Minnesota

17.   Montclair State University

18.   Brandeis

19.   Bard College

20.   CUNY

21.   University of Cincinnati

22.   Oberlin

23.   George Washington University

24.   Wellesley

25.   Murray State University

26.   Cooper Union

27.   UC San Diego

28.   Stanford

29.   University of Arizona

30.   University of Massachusetts

31.   University of Florida

32.   Carnegie Mellon University and University of Pittsburgh

33.   Citizens of the World Charter School-East Valley

An hour’s worth of research cannot claim to be exhaustive or authoritative. It is only disappointing that I found so much of this stuff in such a short time, just surfing the internet. It’s not surprising; it’s unsettling. I worry about Jewish children and what the hatred and violence is doing to them. Antisemitism is a kind of crucible. Will they merely wrestle with fear, despair, and faith, or are we looking at a Norman Finkelstein or Max Blumenthal situation? 

It’s hard for kids and adults of any age to go through this, to experience antisemitism, no matter how jaded we think we are. It hurts—especially when it comes from a teacher and the university does nothing, or when it happens where you least expect it.

This was discovered today at @BaruchCollege pic.twitter.com/JE4AlLGrM6

— Aviva Klompas (@AvivaKlompas) November 28, 2023

You know what I will say, because I must. I believe that the answer of where your children should go to school is, “in Israel.” There is no remedy for antisemitism, but there’s treatment: come to Israel and strengthen your people. Take your children and move there—move to Israel. Make Aliyah. I wish you would.

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

Teaching Israel to children, "warts and all"? No! Teaching the truth? Yes!

Haaretz writes:

It’s hard to get Diaspora Jewish schoolchildren to love Israel when most of what they hear about the country outside the comfort of their Sunday school classes tends to spark a mix of discomfort and shame.

Indeed, what is a kid being raised in a progressive Jewish home – as many are – supposed to feel about a place that is often compared to apartheid South Africa and is now being run by a governing coalition of racist, misogynist and homophobic parties?

The dissonance between what these Jewish kids are taught about Israel in their supplementary religious school classes and what they discover when they start doing some research on their own, or simply watching the news, goes a long way toward explaining the growing disillusionment of young Diaspora Jews with Zionism.

For Rabbi Lawrence Englander, a prominent Reform educator from Canada, the conclusion is clear: If the goal is to prevent these disillusioned kids from cutting themselves off entirely from Israel, then the way Israel is taught needs to be changed radically.

“If you want kids to love Israel, then they’re going to unlove it as soon as they learn what’s going on there,” says Englander, a former chairman of the international Reform movement’s political branch, Arzenu. “So we need to stop talking about getting them to love Israel. Instead, our goal needs to be deep engagement – which means teaching them about Israel, warts-and-all.”

A brand-new program Englander helped create for teaching school-age children about Israel and encouraging “critical thinking” about the country, as he terms it, was introduced in several Jewish supplementary schools in Canada this past year on a pilot basis.

It will have its official launch in the upcoming school year in supplementary religious schools run by the Reform movement across Canada.

“To my knowledge, this is a unique effort in Jewish education,” says Englander. “We strongly feel that this curriculum will produce a sea change for younger generations on how they relate to Israel – a crucial need in Jewish life today.”

The lesson plans that were used in the pilot program will be presented at a special three-day conference scheduled for early next week in Toronto, which will be attended by some 40 teachers and educators from across Canada. Englander hopes many of them will choose to incorporate the new curriculum at their schools.

“I’ve been long concerned about what was being taught or probably not taught in our Reform religious schools,” says Englander, the founding rabbi of the Solel Reform congregation in Toronto. “It seemed to me that a lot of what our kids are being taught is very superficial, a kind of ‘Israel Disneyland’ sort of thing, and many of the teachers don’t feel competent or confident teaching about Israel because of everything going on there.”

Englander gathered together a group of educators with the goal of creating a new curriculum from scratch – one he says is based more on encouraging questions rather than providing answers, “because there’s not going to be just one answer to many of the questions these kids have.”

The team that created the lesson plan was headed by Dr. Lesley Litman, a Jewish curriculum expert from Hebrew Union College who also consults for the iCenter in Chicago – an institution dedicated to improving Israel education programs.

“What makes this curriculum unique is that it is geared toward much younger children and is inquiry-based,” she says. “In other words, we’re not coming to these children with answers, but rather, trying to open Israel to them and let them engage with it from the world they know.”

I cannot critique the curriculum because I haven't seen it, and from looking at materials at Arza Canada as well as the iCenter mentioned here, it looks like the people involved are competent educators and want to get kids to love Israel. It is possible (and even likely) that Haaretz is misrepresenting the effort.

I hope I'm wrong, but I fear that this initiative is missing the boat.

The fear is real: kids who learn a "Disneyland" version of Israel go to college and they are not equipped to respond to the hate that they see. Then they get disillusioned about how they were not taught the truth and they reject everything they thought they knew. The Israel haters are excellent at pulling the emotional strings to generate this whiplash and to turn teens who thought they knew Israel into anti-Zionists.

Certainly, there are multiple narratives about Israel, and it is important for Israel education to teach the major ones, even the anti-Israel ones. But they should not be taught as if each narrative has equal weight and value. 

The curriculum must have a mature, accurate viewpoint about Israel that is meant to get kids to love Israel and its people - and then it should teach the other narratives in a critical manner. 

Just like kids must be taught morality yet also taught why immoral ideas are bad, Jewish kids must be taught that Israel is a central part of their belief system, that its rebirth was miraculous, and that there are still antisemites out there who have substituted Israel for Jews as the object of their lies. 

Leaving kids with questions at the end of the day or the school year is not education. It is abdicating the responsibility of educators. 

The most important thing that Jewish schools, Reform or Orthodox, must do is to equip their teachers with the information they need. As the article says, "many of the teachers don’t feel competent or confident teaching about Israel" - it is obvious that those teachers must be educated before they teach children, not that they should teach children their own immature and ambiguous viewpoints.

When teachers themselves are conflicted or don't strongly believe what they are teaching, the kids are not taught anything. First teach the teachers, and have competent Zionist educators answer their questions. 

I once gave a lecture on how to answer the top 20 anti-Israel arguments. (I broke it up into separate posts here.) If Hebrew school teachers (or Jewish organization workers altogether) do not know everything in my lecture, how can they possibly teach kids enough to stand up for Israel when they confront the haters on campus (or, increasingly, high school)?  

Educate the educators. If they aren't competent to confidently teach how to love Israel while countering the anti-Israel arguments, they aren't competent to teach about Israel. 

Since the danger of not being able to respond to anti-Israel arguments on campus is the real fear here, then that skill is what must be taught before they arrive on campus. 

Like it or not, Sunday school and afternoon Hebrew school programs are never going to be intensive enough to teach kids a comprehensive view of Israel and the Middle East. But they can teach enough on the specific topics that Israel haters use to counter their arguments.

This has far reaching effects that make the students improve in other important ways.

When teaching how to dismantle anti-Israel arguments, the kids will also be taught  how to use primary research materials to find out what really happened in the first half of the 20th century. They will be be taught critical thinking skills to understand how anti-Israel propaganda works and how they could be manipulated, skills that translate to numerous real-world scenarios outside of Zionism. They can and must be taught how today's anti-Israel propaganda is a direct continuation of traditional antisemitic propaganda, and how they themselves are threatened by it today.

Teaching about Israel, "warts and all," is not the way to teach children to identify with and love Israel. What needs to be done is to teach children the beauty and importance of Israel - and then to teach the anti-Israel positions, but only in the context of refuting them.

 

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

08/23 Links Pt2: David Collier: A point or ten about the Palestinian flag; Exposing Tucker Carlson's dark side; BBC News reports an “attack on a car”

From Ian:

David Collier: A point or ten about the Palestinian flag

I recently spent a night in Belgium doing some research. As soon as I came out of the Brussels Midi Eurostar station I was confronted with a huge image of the Palestinian flag that had been graffitied onto one of the station walls. I took a photo of the flag – and posted it in a tweet – noting my discomfort.

That simple statement of fact – that the Palestinian flag can be viewed as a symbol of hate, went viral – receiving over 3.8 million views – and over 3,280 comments. For several days my notification feed was a tsunami of abuse. Some even suggested that my discomfort made me ‘racist’ or ‘Islamophobic’:

Most of the comments were just mocking. After all they said – ‘it is only a flag’. This is a ridiculous position, more so given that I can think of dozens of examples of ‘only a flag’ that most right-minded individuals (left and right) would find threatening or offensive. Like many emblems of hate – the problem lies in what the Palestinian flag represents – and what many of those waving it support. Only a fool would believe that the person who placed that graffiti on the walls of the Brussels Midi station has any good intentions vis-a-vis Jewish people in Israel.

Ignorance on this subject is everywhere, so here are ten points looking at what the Palestinian flag actually means – and why Jewish people have every right to view it as offensive:

1. The truth hidden in plain sight: 1964
Firstly, let me put the record straight. At the start of the 20th century there was no ‘Palestinian flag’ – just as there was no ‘Palestinian people’. Before the national Palestinian identity was created as a weapon with which to fight Zionism, Arabs under the mandate saw themselves as part of the greater Islamic or Arab nations. In August 1929, while Arabs massacred Jews throughout the British Mandate area, the Arabs in Nablus tried to revolt against the British. Briefly declaring independence, they raised the Turkish flag:

This next clarification was made during the Arab revolt in the late 1930s. That the ‘Arab nationalists fly a variety of flags, generally Islamic green’:

Only in May 1964 when the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) was established, did they fully adopt what we now know as the Palestinian flag – as the flag of the Palestinian people (not the flag of ‘Palestine’, that came later). The PLO also created the ‘Palestinian Liberation Army’ to work towards the ‘ultimate goal of liberating the Arab homeland’. The flag was the banner under which they would unite to destroy Israel:

The flag is based on the flag of the Arab revolt (which is why the flags of so many Arab nations are similar). It was part of the pan-Arab cause, and the colours are in remembrance of Islamic conquests.

This point is reinforced by various Fatah spokespeople, such as this example from 1969. This Al-Fatah ‘commander’ did not care what flag he stood under – as long as it was an Arab one:

In 1964 the Arabs were in total control of the West Bank and Gaza, so the *ONLY* land they could ‘liberate’ was Israel behind the 1949 armistice lines. The very origin of the flag is one that sought the destruction of the Jewish state. This was the sole purpose of its adoption.

2. The age of terror
For six decades the PLO adopted ‘Palestinian flag’ has been associated with the slaughter of Jews and the desire to destroy Israel. Such as this threat from Arafat – as he pointed to the Palestinian flag – promising ‘the flag will fly on the road to Haifa‘ and they would keep their guns ‘raised‘ until they took Jerusalem:

And these were not idle threats. Wherever there was terror and the murder of Jews – the Palestinian flag was present:

Rachel Riley: 'I couldn't stay quiet during the Corbyn years'

Riley Riley has spoken about her role in confronting Labour Party antisemitism during the Corbyn years saying “I just saw something bad happening and just couldn’t stay quiet."

Riley, who was recently awarded an MBE in the 2023 New Year’s Honours list for her work raising awareness of the Holocaust and combating antisemitism, also discussed the abuse she received.

Speaking on the Spinning Plates podcast with Sophie Ellis-Bextor, she said: “When they [Labour] were rejected and lost 80 seats [in the 2019 general election], it was a sigh of relief but on the same day, I got a message wishing my daughter stillborn. It [the abuse] took its toll.”

Riley went on to say: "I know there are some brilliant people in Labour now really determined to get rid of these bad actors. So it kind of took the pressure off a lot.”

She also recalled a moment meeting Holocaust survivors and Chief Rabbi Sir Ephraim Mirvis at a charity honours event.

Watchdog launches campaign against alleged Morningstar anti-Israel ratings

A conservative, nonprofit watchdog is keeping up the pressure on Morningstar, despite a reduction in the number of Israel-linked companies on a blacklist maintained by the investment firm and its socially conscious investment ratings arm, Sustainalytics.

Will Hild, executive director of Consumers’ Research, told JNS that the nonprofit launched a new media campaign on Tuesday morning. It planned to send a mobile billboard to Morningstar’s Chicago headquarters and to run digital ads on the website of Crain’s Chicago for a week.

It is also starting what Hild referred to as “targeted digital campaign aimed at consumers and Morningstar employees.”

Morningstar reduced the number of businesses it tags with “controversy ratings” from 26 to 7, following pressure from a coalition of U.S. Jewish and pro-Israel organizations. The “controversy” tag, which can dissuade would-be investors, was applied to companies that operate beyond the 1949 armistice line, often referred to as the “Green Line.” Morningstar is also being investigated in at least 20 states for potential boycott, divestment and sanctions activity against the Jewish state.

Critics have called the “controversy” ratings a boycott due to the company’s use of anti-Israel sources for its ratings and the language it used originally, suggesting that businesses serving Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria should be flagged automatically. Morningstar has said consistently that it does not engage in BDS.

The investment firm agreed to implement changes in how it handles businesses inside what it calls the Israeli-Palestinian conflict area.

Hild told JNS that the reduction isn’t good enough.

Read More

You just might be be an antisemite if....

If the Star of David on Israel's flag upsets you but the crescent, crosses and other religious symbols on more than 60 other flags doesn't bother you...you just might be an antisemite.

If you think that 21 Arab states isn't enough, and 1 Jewish state is too many, you just might be an antisemite.

If you show more sympathy towards the person who stabbed the Jew than for the Jew he stabbed, you just might be an antisemite.

If you have to jump through hoops to pretend to find apartheid in the Jewish state while ignoring everywhere it really is, you just might be an antisemite.

If every terrible event in world history prompts you to compare it with Israeli actions, you just might be an antisemite.

If you believe that the Palestinian Arabs, who never thought of themselves as a people until the mid-20th century, have more of a claim to nationhood than Jews who have been a nation for 3000 years, you just might be an antisemite.

If you think that Zionism is racist, but Palestinian Arab nationalism is justice, you just might be an antisemite.

If you claim that Zionism is incompatible with feminism, but have nothing bad to say about Islamism, you just might be an antisemite.

If Saudi ties to Israel upset you more than Saudi ties to Osama bin Laden did in 2001, you just might be an antisemite.

If the only democracy you want to see in the Middle East is one rigged for Jews to be in the minority, you just might be an antisemite.

If the only refugees from the 1940s that you insist "return" to where they lived previously are Palestinian Arabs, you just might be an antisemite.

If you believe that the only "settlers" in the world who must move out of their homes are all Jews, you just might be an antisemite.

If you think that the the very concept of a Jewish state is racist, but you are okay with an Arab or Muslim state, you just might be an antisemite.

If there are any parts of the world that you believe Jews should not be allowed to live, you just might be an antisemite.

If there are any historic Jewish holy places where you believe Jews have no right to pray, you just might be an antisemite.

If you call Jews who insist on praying in their holiest spot "extremists," you just might be an antisemite.

If you get a thrill comparing Israelis to Nazis, you just might  be an antisemite.

If you are compelled to respond to any mention of the Holocaust with "nakba," you just might be an antisemite.

If you aren't Muslim but refer to Jewish shrines like the Temple Mount, Rachel's Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs by their Muslim names that came centuries later,  you just might be an antisemite.

If you believe that it is a moral duty to boycott Israeli Jews but not Israeli Arabs, you just might be an antisemite.

If you need to believe that Ashkenazic Jews are descended from Khazars and have no Middle East ancestry, you just might be an antisemite.

If you claim that there is no archaeological proof for Jewish history in Jerusalem, you just might be an antisemite.

If you claim to be pro-Palestinian but ignore how Palestinians have been and continue to be mistreated by their fellow Arabs, you just might be an antisemite.

If you believe that "occupation" is one of the worst crimes but never said a word about any occupation that cannot be linked to Israel, you just might be an antisemite.

If you claim that the only reason Israel does anything progressive or moral is to cover up for its crimes, you just might be an antisemite.

If Jews must pass a test of being anti-Israel for you to allow them to speak publicly or join movements, you just might be an antisemite.

If you consider the word "Zionist" an insult, you just might be an antisemite.

If you are offended by the lyrics of Hatikva but have no problem with the Palestinian national anthem that extols violence and vengeance, you just might be an antisemite.

If you regard terrorists Leila Khaled, Rasmea Odeh and Dalal Mughrabi as feminist role models, you just might be an antisemite.

If your response to every terrorist attack that kills Jewish civilians is that they deserve it, you just might be an antisemite.

If you defend  or excuse Arab antisemitism, you just might be an antisemite.

If you feel a burning desire to equate the Taliban with Orthodox Jews, you just might be an antisemite.

If you think putting on a hijab makes you a person of color but putting on a yarmulka makes you white, you just might be an antisemite.

If you are upset by scenes of Jews dancing in Jerusalem, you just might be an antisemite. 

If you bitterly complain about how Israel's separation barrier inconveniences Palestinians, but don't mention how it has saved hundreds of Jewish lives, you just might be an antisemite. 

If you go to a religious Jewish neighborhood to harass random Jews with "pro-Palestinian" slogans, you just may be an antisemite. 

(This is an almost complete rewrite, expansion and revision to a 2020 post.)

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

03/09 Links Pt2: Ilan Halimi’s murder and the whitewashing of Muslim antisemitism; America's Tradition in Fighting Boycotts of Israel; El-Kurd Destroys His Own Credibility With ‘Apartheid Israel’ Confession

From Ian:

Ilan Halimi’s murder and the whitewashing of Muslim antisemitism

Seventeen years ago, a Parisian gang calling itself “the Barbarians” lured a twenty-three-year-old cell-phone salesman named Ilan Halimi onto its turf, tortured him for three weeks while reciting Quranic verses, and then left him to die by the roadside. Halimi’s murder is often seen as the beginning of the current era of anti-Semitic violence in France. Eleanor Krasne comments on the repeated failure of the French government, and even of Jewish leaders, to confront the sources of such violence:

The French authorities initially neglected to explore the anti-Semitic nature of the crime, but after a three-week search, they finally caught the gang’s leader, Youssef Fofana. When the case went to trial, Fofana wore a t-shirt that said “Allahu Akbar,” and when asked to state his identity said, “My name is Arab, armed African rebellion Salafist barbarian army, and I was born on February 13, 2006 in Sainte-Geneviève-des-Bois.” In other words, Fofana boasted of his allegiance to Salafism, a political-religious movement within Islam that seeks to establish a global caliphate. . . . Fofana was also saying that he was “born” the moment Ilan Halimi died.

Muslims are not solely responsible for French anti-Semitism, nor is every Muslim an anti-Semite. However, radical Islam’s role in French anti-Semitism must not be overlooked. Yet . . . French and American organizations that . . . advocate for Jews seem to shy away from confronting the radical Islamic theology behind these attacks, particularly when commemorating Ilan Halimi’s murder.

Confronting modern-day anti-Semitism in France means confronting the ideology behind it. France is home to 450,000 Jews and a growing community of over three million Muslims. Simone Rodan Benzaquen, the American Jewish Committee’s director in France, wrote in 2017 that Islamic anti-Semitism in France is a result of a variety of factors, “including manipulation of the Palestinian cause, failure of integration into French society, radical preachers and the funding of mosques, and satellite television stations broadcasting a steady stream of anti-Semitic discourse.”

Unfortunately, Benzaquen is correct, and other organizations must join her in facing the reality of Islamic anti-Semitism in France.

ITP: Another Gaping Hole in the Islamist Antisemitism Con

In its statement promoted by CAIR's national office, CAIR-New York Executive Director Afaf Nasher also noted "the disturbing rise in anti-Asian bigotry nationwide."

"All Americans, regardless of their background," he said, must be able to walk down the street without fear of a racist attack."

This is true. Correspondingly, there has been a disturbing rise in antisemitic bigotry in New York city and nationwide. A Times of Israel analysis of NYPD data found an anti-Jewish attack every 33 hours in New York. Masoud presents a clear example of the danger such blind hate about Jews and the Jewish state can pose.

But CAIR cannot bring itself to acknowledge, let alone condemn him. This is an organization with a decades-long record of antisemitism, including co-founder and Executive Director Nihad Awad's repeated insinuations that Jews are "pushing the United States" to advance policies "at the expense of American interests."

In 2014, as ISIS rampaged and Hamas terrorism instigated war in Gaza, Awad called Israel "the biggest threat to world peace and security." Awad also believes Tel Aviv is "occupied" territory. His San Francisco director Zahra Billoo believes pro-Israel Jews are out to hurt Muslims and should be shunned entirely. CAIR stands behind her.

CAIR claims it merely criticizes Israeli policy, as if the question whether a country should exist is a policy up for debate.

Was Masoud merely criticizing Zionists? His "veil of 'anti-Zionism' is pathetically thin in this case," prosecutors wrote. "As an initial matter, the defendant is not an equal opportunity anti-Zionist. He did not attack 'Evangelical Christians . . . who identify with the State of Israel' ... Instead, he repeatedly attacked Jewish men."

In October, CAIR condemned antisemitic material left outside homes in Wyoming.

"Those targeting the Jewish community with antisemitic hate must be repudiated by all Americans," CAIR national spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said. "The mainstreaming of bigotry in any form must never be tolerated or excused."

But CAIR mainstreams antisemitism when it stands by frothing haters like Billoo, and when it cannot muster the nerve to condemn an ideological ally like Sadaah Masoud. Antisemitism can't be viewed conditionally. If you can't even bring yourself to condemn premeditated beatings of random Jews, you can't expect to be believed when say you oppose antisemitism by condemning leaflets.

America's Tradition in Fighting Boycotts of Israel

In 1975, President Gerald Ford called for regulations prohibiting U.S. companies from "complying in any way with [the Arab] boycott," and declared emphatically that the United States would not "countenance the translation of any foreign prejudice into domestic discrimination against American citizens." Congress quickly heeded the call, passing not one but two pieces of critical bipartisan legislation: the Ribicoff Amendment assessed steep tax penalties against U.S. companies that participate in the Arab Boycott, and the Export Administration Amendments of 1977 directed the president to prohibit American companies from joining the Arab boycott. In signing that law, President Jimmy Carter acknowledged that the Arab Boycott, though nominally focused on Israel, was in fact "aimed at Jewish members of our society." The U.S. Office of Antiboycott Compliance has been enforcing this regime ever since, on the bipartisan understanding that the boycott of Israel constitutes a tool of discrimination, not protected expression.

And the federal government was not alone in its anti-boycott effort. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, at least 13 states—red and blue—took aggressive legislative steps to prevent U.S. companies from joining the Arab boycott. New York's rule was strikingly similar to the anti-BDS laws of today. In fact, it went further, prohibiting "discrimination," "boycotting," or "blacklisting" based on "national origin" or because a person has done business with Israeli firms. When Gov. Michael Dukakis signed the Massachusetts bill into law, he explained that he wished to send an "unequivocal message" that Massachusetts would "not stand for this type of blatant discrimination" against its Jewish residents.

Today's anti-BDS laws spring from the same pair of political judgments that animate this 50-year tradition of anti-boycott legislation. The first is that the boycott isn't speech, but instead economic conduct that can be freely regulated, consistent with the First Amendment. And the second is that, in the case of Israel, the boycott constitutes discrimination, and not desirable social action.

The tradition of anti-boycott legislation lives on because its historical foundations are fundamentally true. The first boycott against the Jews of Israel took place in the 1890s, and its organizers—the Arab political associations of Mandatory Palestine—could not have been clearer about their anti-Jewish objectives: "Don't buy from the Jews," they declared, "come and bargain with the Arab merchant... We must completely boycott the Jews." And in 1933, as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem grew in political prominence, he called for systematic boycotts against the Jews of Palestine and urged Nazi Germany to do the same.

BDS's appeal to "history and tradition" should ring hollow. For 50 years, state and federal law makers have regulated Israel boycotts, on the understanding that they were conceived in antisemitism and cannot escape its taint. In the court of history, it's the state lawmakers, and not the activists, who enjoy the upper hand.

Read More