Prominent leaders in the field of antisemitism and anti-Zionism will be speaking. Most of their testimonies have been published ahead of time. Here are some highlights.
In the Soviet
Union, where I grew up,...each time
when official Soviet propaganda starts a new round of attacks
on Israel, every Jew, whether he knows what Zionism means
or not, knows that he has a problem. They are all treated as
not loyal to the Soviet Union, but loyal to Zionist Israel.
Attacks on the Jews have always been a convenient platform
for attacks on Israel and vice versa. Assuming that all this is a
direct result of the dictatorial regime of the Soviet Union,
which needs a convenient scapegoat for accusations, an
external and internal enemy, and a more convenient
scapegoat than the Jews and Israel cannot be imagined.
Therefore, when in 1975 the Soviet Union initiated a
resolution that Zionism is racism, it was adopted only thanks
to the communist bloc. The Free World voted against it.
I thought that in the free world, this would not happen.
It was all the more surprising when at the beginning of 2000
at the first U.N. conference against global racism in Durban -
the only result of this conference was the accusation of Israel
as an apartheid state. Soon the cartoons published in the
international press against Israel surprisingly began to
resemble those in the Soviet and Nazi press against the Jews.
Israel, which fights against terrorist attacks daily in defense of
itself, has been declared to be fighting the Palestinians, as the
Nazis fought the Jews, and Palestinian refugee camps were
compared to Auschwitz. All this had nothing to do with
constructive criticism of the policies of Israel, which deserved
this or that criticism like any other democratic country. It was
then, 20 years ago, that I proposed my three-D test to
distinguish justified criticism of Israel from new antisemitism.
Over the 20 years, I have visited about 100 American
campuses, where I have clearly seen how the new
antisemitism is creating a very difficult environment for
Jewish students who consider themselves Zionists. There is
much evidence of how the growing attacks on the Jews are
encouraged, developed and reinforced by the attacks on
Israel, like colonial white racism. Much like in Soviet times,
antisemitic attacks on Israel are weakening the sense of
security of Jewish students at American universities. And
attacks on Jews are often accompanied by anti-Israeli slogans.
It is impossible today to analyze the growth of antisemitism
without seeing that these phenomena are very closely linked.
That is why there must be one explanation linking the
demonization of the Jews, the double standard towards the
Jews, the denial of the Jews as a nation with the
demonization of the State of Israel, the double standard
towards the State of Israel and the denial of Israel's right to
exist.
There can be no success in the fight against antisemitism if
we do not fight it on all fronts. Therefore, the exact definition
of antisemitism is crucial.
It is very important that the US administration adheres to this
definition of antisemitism in its policy.
Prof. Eugene Kontorovich shows why the IHRA Working Definition is important and how the "Nexus Document" that was welcomed in the Administration's strategy plan against antisemitism is an effort to whitewash modern antisemitism:
Not surprisingly, the IHRA definition is opposed by those who wish to engage in precisely
the kind of anti-Israel double standards that it warns of. In an effort to confound or counteract the
legitimacy and clarity of the IHRA working definition, a few other groups have offered definitions of
antisemitism that greatly minimize the role of Israel-focused antisemitism. One such effort is the
Nexus Document, a project hosted by Bard University. The Nexus definition differs from IHRA primarily in its treatment of Israel-focused conduct. Nexus does not regard as presumptively
antisemitic either the questioning the basic legitimacy of Israel’s existence or the application of double
standards to Israel. According to Nexus, such views may have legitimate grounds.
Unlike IHRA’s adoption by a wide range of countries (including many states that are often
sharply critical of Israel), not one single country has adopted the Nexus Declaration. The IHRA
definition was developed by an international group of scholars not known for their views on Israel or
their politics one way or another. The Nexus Advisory Board, by contrast, is overwhelmingly left-wing
and includes people, like the head of J-Street, who can only be described as professionals in the field
of Israel bashing. Members of Nexus’s advisory board have described Israel as “fascist,” denounced
it as an “apartheid state,” and justified those who say it should have never existed.
While IHRA has become the global benchmark, the narrow Nexus definition has languished
in total obscurity—that is, until the White House suddenly announced its “welcome and appreciation”
of the Nexus Document last month, while still “embracing” IHRA. Nexus leaped from the
discussions of like-minded academics straight into a White House policy document. While the IHRA
definition remains the only one officially used by the government, the White House’s National Strategy
harms efforts to respond to antisemitism by referring to two different, and fundamentally
contradictory, definitions
...The obsessive focus on the supposed wrongs of this one tiny group has resurfaced across an amazing array of cultures and epochs. From the Romans to the Crusades. From the Reformation to the Inquisition. From National to International Socialism. The justifications change, the target remains same. Then after two thousand years, the Jewish people reconstituted their nation—and immediately found it the subject of unparalleled international defamation and libel—accompanied by ongoing efforts at physical elimination. Jews have been hated sometimes as adherents of a faith, sometimes as members of a people. Now the extraordinary enmity is aimed at their State. The coin lands on the same side on every toss. The segue from earlier modes of antisemitism to “anti-Zionism” is a remarkable coincidence.
...The accusations leveled against Israel often resemble those made by antisemites throughout
history. Instead of the Jews being accused of killing Gentile children, Israel is accused of deliberately
killing Palestinian children; instead of Jews being accused of causing plague among Gentiles, Israel
is accused of causing disease among Palestinians. And the accusation of “apartheid” is a modern
blood libel—an absurd “Big Lie,” but inciteful in ways that cannot be rectified by mere refutation.
Just as the classic blood libel resonated with the theological preoccupations of earlier ages, today’s
claims resonate with the ethnic justice concerns of our times.
Yair Rosenberg of The Atlantic ties all forms of antisemitism, from Left to Right, to conspiracy theory:
For almost as long as there have been Jewish people, there has been anti-Jewish prejudice. This
bigotry predates the United States of America and the modern state of Israel. It is older than
capitalism and communism, Republicans and Democrats, progressives and conservatives. And it
precedes Christianity and Islam. Because of this, while antisemitism is expressed by these
communities, it cannot be caused by them. The source is something much more fundamental.
Consider recent antisemitic incidents that on the surface seem to have little connection to each
other. In 2018, a white supremacist massacred 11 congregants in Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life
synagogue. In 2019, assailants tied to the Black Hebrew Israelite movement shot up a kosher
supermarket in Jersey City, killing three. And in 2022, an Islamic extremist held an entire
congregation hostage in Colleyville, Texas, for much of the Jewish Sabbath.
To take another odd example: Both the supreme leader of Iran’s Islamic theocracy and Robert
Bowers, the Pittsburgh shooter who hated Muslims, posted memes on social media alleging
Zionist control of American politics. During the 2016 presidential race, supporters at campaign
events for both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders were captured on tape claiming that
“Zionists” run America’s finances.
What unites all of these seemingly disparate antisemitic actors? Not their identity or background,
but their adherence to a conspiracy of Jewish control. The Pittsburgh white supremacist believed
that Jews were responsible for flooding the country with the brown people he hated, as part of
the so-called “great replacement” of the white race. One of the Black Hebrew Israelite
sympathizers in Jersey City wrote on social media about how Jews controlled the government.
And the British Islamic extremist who targeted the Texas synagogue did so because he thought
American rabbis held sway over the U.S. authorities and could free someone from prison.
...Because people have long been
conditioned to conceive of Jews in an underhanded fashion, it doesn’t take much to update the
ancient conspiracy theory to persuade contemporary audiences. And thanks to centuries of
material blaming the world’s problems on its Jews, conspiracy theorists seeking a scapegoat for
their sorrows inevitably discover that the invisible hand of their oppressor belongs to an invisible
Jew.
Itamar Marcus of Palestinian Media Watch explains how antisemitism forms the core of Palestinian Authority ideology:
PA Antisemitism is not a collection of disconnected hate-speech; it is a
systematically disseminated ideology that is by now deeply ingrained in
the Palestinian national and political identity. It serves as a primary
source of loathing towards Jews and Israelis and is a significant
motivator for Palestinian terror.
The PA’s Political Antisemitism asserts the following:
1. Jews are inherently evil, endangering not only Palestinians but all of
humanity.
2. Accordingly, Jews themselves are responsible for the antisemitism
and hatred they have faced throughout history.
3. The PA turns this demonization of Jews into its political ideology: the
Western countries were anxious to get rid of the Jews and solve their
"Jewish problem,” so they initiated the establishment of a Jewish state.
The Jews would never have come to Palestine on their own because the
Jews have no history in the land. Israel is defined as an illegitimate
result of "settler-colonialism" with no right to exist.
This ideology is disseminated by PA leaders, Mahmoud Abbas
appointees, and through the structures controlled by the PA.
Other speakers include Hillel Neuer from UN Watch, Yona Schiffmiller from NGO Monitor, and the ADL's Sharon Nazarian, all of whom show how anti-Israel bigotry is a proxy for anti-Jewish bigotry.
The American Bar Association proposed a Resolution 514 condemning antisemitism that referred to the widely accepted IHRA working definition.
Israel haters immediately attacked.
More than 40 organizations, both those that are explicitly anti-Israel and "progressive" organizations, joined a campaign claiming that the IHRA Working Definition chills free speech. "Any embrace of the IHRA definition by the ABA would legitimize and encourage this undermining of core democratic rights," they say, without explaining exactly how.
The National Lawyers Guild said, falsely, that "the IHRA definition would provide a tool to stigmatize and suppress lawyers, legal
advocates and law students from expressing political criticism of Israel or advocacy for Palestinian human rights." Of course, they cannot point to any wording in the IHRA definition that would do anything like that.
The main point that these critics make is that the IHRA definition has supposedly been used to suppress free speech. They cannot point to where the definition actually does that, because it doesn't mandate anything: the definition is filled with caveats that in the end only provide guidance. If the IHRA Working Definition is being misused, then these organizations should fight the misuse, not the definition. The fact that they don't tells you all you need to know.
Moreover, the ABA resolution explicitly said that nothing in the resolution is intended to diminish or infringe upon the Bill of Rights or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so even if their lies about IHRA were true, the text wouldn't allow it to be misused that way.
They are lying when they say that their opposition to the definition is based on human rights and free speech concerns. The only problem they have with it is that it notes that singling out Israel as uniquely evil far out of proportion to its supposed crimes is antisemitic. And they want to have the right to do exactly that.
Their objections are based on their hate of the Jewish state, not their interest in Palestinian human rights or in fighting antisemitism.
The original draft resolution also included an attached 17 page report on antisemitism that went through a history of antisemitism in Europe and in the US. It mentioned Natan Sharansky's "3-D" test for antisemitism as well as further references to the IHRA and US State Department definitions of antisemitism.
In the end, the ABA removed everything that could be considered a definition, including virtually the entire report, and left the eviscerated resolution to condemn something that could mean anything:
Without a definition, this is entirely meaningless. Some Israel haters define antisemitism as hating Arabs. Others define Zionism as antisemitism. There is nothing in this resolution that contradicts those bizarre definitions.
The resolution doesn't even mention Jews - only a single reference to improving security at "Jewish institutions and organizations." It mentions "houses of worship," not synagogues.
Right now, the resolution is about as meaningful as a resolution saying that puppies are cute. It is a checkbox - now the ABA can say they oppose antisemitism (whatever that is)! Mazel tov!
Because of the modern antisemites who use obsessive, conspiracy-theory driven hate of Israel as a proxy for the age old obsessive, conspiracy-theory driven hate of Jews, the ABA believes that it passed a resolution that didn't upset anyone.
Well, this Jew is upset.
The Jews who publicly identify as Jews, those who wear identifiably Jewish clothing, those who publicly support the Jewish state or speak Hebrew in public or who stand proud in their Zionism - they are the biggest targets and victims of antisemitism today.
This resolution doesn't give a damn about them.
Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism today at Amazon!
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.
Protests against new government bolster Amnesty and its friends
Israeli demonstrations in which participants compare the new government to the rise of the Third Reich do Amnesty and ilk proud, particularly when Palestinian flags dot the scenery. Those in attendance may profess to be protesting Team Netanyahu’s judicial-reform plan and other policies, but what they’re actually doing is discrediting the essence of the country.
This was evident a few weeks ago at a conference in Damascus, organized by the Hamas-affiliated Al-Quds International Institute. According to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), the event brought together Syria-based Palestinian activists and Iranian dignitaries to discuss Israel’s demise.
One noteworthy speech reported on by MEMRI was that of Syrian researcher Shadi Diab. He presented “data” on the “demographic problem facing the [Israeli] entity, and its failure to achieve harmony among its [Jewish] residents, who immigrated [to it] from different parts of the world and have different identities, cultures and languages, different circumstances and widely differing goals.”
This “entity,” he argued, “never managed to achieve a consensus among these sectors, who came from all over the world, and this disparity is evident in the struggle and fierce competition that currently prevail in the political arena and in the government of this entity, between the various political, ethnic and religious sectors, such as the Ashkenazi, Sephardi and haredi [Jews], between Right and Left, between religious and secular people, between the civilian and military sectors, etc.”
It sounds as though his “research” consisted of reading the Israeli press. He couldn’t admit to this, though, since he proceeded to claim that the “Zionist media conceals these struggles and disagreements and prevents [the publication of] any information about them inside and outside the [Zionist] entity.”
This contention is even more hilarious than Amnesty’s definition of free speech. But neither is a laughing matter when seen in a broader context: the holistic effort to annihilate Israel through external means, such as weapons and delegitimization, and contribute to its self-implosion. Due to ongoing Palestinian terrorism against innocent Israelis, the “peace process” was barely mentioned, even by the Left, during the election campaign. The Right emerged victorious by emphasizing Zionism and Jewish sovereignty as values whose positive connotations need to be restored and nurtured.
It’s a shame that the disgruntled losers aren’t open to the possibility that this will be to their benefit, as well. It’s far worse that they’re offering both fodder and hope to those who don’t distinguish between Ben-Gvir and Ben-Gurion.
Sometimes the search for identity can go from bad to worse, whether it be children lamenting having mutilated themselves in bouts of sexual experimentation, the bleak nihilism of American teenage mass shooters, or Westerners desperately shopping for new racial or religious identities. California teen detransitioner Chloe Cole, who had her breasts removed at the age of 15, compares the transition surgery of minors to Nazi medical experiments.[8] There are apparently at least 72 genders to choose from, as well as more than a few cases of white people in America seeking to reinvent themselves into higher-status Black or Indigenous personae.[9]
The challenges are not limited to the West. Urbanization and modernity have been major social challenges in the developing world for decades, and particularly destructive to traditional societies uprooted by rapid change. In Israel, the country's Bedouin population has experienced massive upheaval as they are settled in new towns built in the Negev. Faced with a disruption in their traditional lifestyle, poverty, and crime, many have embraced political Islam as a safe haven in times of uncertainty and upheaval. Proof of this is the large number of mosques that have been built during this accelerated process of urbanization. The Bedouin, who historically have not been characterized by devout Islamism, are mentally crushed by this process, during which they are losing their way of life and their identity. As a result, they cleave to Islam to hold them together from within.
Where it can maintain any sort of real vitality and solidity in the face of our liquid future, traditional religion (or new faiths) will remain somewhat of a refuge from such nihilistic darkness. Ours is a metaphysical dilemma and it requires metaphysical responses. It seems hard to be a centrist when the center does not hold, when the middle ground of supposed liberal reason is excavated out from under you. But one of the risks of opposing the zeitgeist by finding supposed refuges that seem the furthest removed or most intransigent from the spirit of the age is that of extremism.
The controversial, resolutely anti-modern former kickboxer turned misogynist influencer Andrew Tate, now under arrest for human trafficking in Romania, recently described Islam , to which he recently converted, as "the last religion, the last one, because no other religion has boundaries which they will enforce. If you will tolerate everything, then you stand for nothing."[10] Europe-based Islamic reformer Hamed Abdel-Samad, in contrast to Tate, sees contemporary conservative Islam as increasingly "dwindling."[11] Tate seems to have taken a faith journey, if you can call it that in such a singular personality, that went from nominal Christian to Romanian Orthodox to Islam.[12] Still, to be Amish or Benedictine or Chasidic is also to be in clear contradistinction to an unmoored world. But then so is being a white supremacist or a jihadist.[13]
In the United Kingdom, Gen X (she was born in 1968) Sally-Anne Jones went from nominal Christian to punk rock to witchcraft and alternative lifestyles to not just converting to Islam but to becoming a highly successful recruiter for the Islamic State.[14] Less than a decade ago, tens of thousands of other Westerners, both converts and cradle Muslims, were motivated to leave the West and seek to emigrate to ISIS territory, where their lives were in constant danger.
More recently, in 2018, 17-year-old Corey Johnson of Jupiter, Florida decided to become a Muslim by watching ISIS videos and reading the Quran, though he seems never to have actually interacted with a live Muslim. Johnson seems like a Generation Z poster boy for our time – no father, "above-average intelligence but delayed maturity, autism, and severe mental illness," depression, prescription medications, stalking on social media.[15] For the supposed sake of Islam, he stabbed a 13-year-old boy to death and attempted to kill two other people one night during a sleepover. Before Islam, he had been infatuated with Hitler and Stalin, with white supremacists. He supported the Oklahoma City bombing (which took place five years before he was born). He had a swastika on his Facebook profile. During his trial in November 2021 in Florida, his defense attorneys described him as an "empty vessel looking to belong."[16] Despite expressing remorse, he was sentenced to life in prison at the age of 21.
In this new age of fervid identity seeking, the state in the West and many legacy institutions, their own foundations shaken, are mostly either absent or, in many ways, seeking to be relevant by promoting the latest thing. Many will be swept along with the latest enthusiasm, the last mirage, which will constantly need to be reinvented and repackaged to give the impression of progress. The Cult of the New will be regularly appeased. Others will often feel that they are on their own, redundant or alienated, alone before the winds of rapidly accelerating change, alone before the darkness. In them will remain the spark of authentic rebellion. Instead of seeking utopia, the imperative will be a search for communities which seem to offer safe harbor – or the illusion of a safe harbor.
Roth is a prodigious fundraiser. HRW was rewarded for his calumnies against Israel with a $100 million grant from left-wing billionaire George Soros’s Open Society Foundation. Though some on the left treat any criticism of Soros as evidence of Jew hatred, his support for anti-Israel and even antisemitic activism aimed at supporting the Jewish state’s destruction renders their claims risible.
But Roth is also a terrible hypocrite when it comes to raising money. He solicited a $470 million donation from a Saudi billionaire, and in return promised not to advocate for LGBTQ rights in Muslim countries. Many on the left consider those who cite the fact that Israel is the one country in the Middle East where gays have equal rights (Amir Ohana, the new speaker of Israel’s Knesset, is gay) to be “pinkwashing.” But Roth was prepared to sacrifice the rights of Muslim gays in order to get more cash with which to attack the Jewish state’s existence.
An honest assessment of Roth’s record must lead to the conclusion that he isn’t a “critic” of Israel’s, but rather someone who regards its existence as a crime that must be atoned for by its destruction. His lies about Israel and willingness to deny Jews rights he wouldn’t deny to anyone else isn’t merely a controversial opinion; it’s a virulent variant of antisemitism.
He wouldn’t be the only one with such vile opinions to be given a prestigious perch at an elite university. But it is to the credit of Harvard’s Kennedy School that it drew the line at giving him the kind of honor he clearly doesn’t deserve.
Contrary to the arguments of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a group that has stood up in the past for conservatives, the issue at Harvard isn’t the defense of academic freedom, but normalizing Jew-hatred.
In a saner environment than the one that currently exists in academia and the establishment media, it would be the University of Pennsylvania under fire from faculty, students, alumni and the public for honoring an antisemite like Roth. Instead, it is Harvard’s Elmendorf who is under intolerable pressure to reverse his stand and give Roth yet another platform to advance his campaign to treat Zionism, the national liberation movement of the Jewish people, as racism.
That the organized Jewish community has had little to say about Roth and the attacks on Harvard’s stand against antisemitism also provides more proof of the failure of American-Jewish leaders and their preference for liberal causes that do nothing to protect the rights or the security of the community they purport to represent.
Rather than meekly accept his claims of martyrdom, those who profess to care about fighting Jew-hatred need to put aside political differences and join in an effort to call him out for his lies. If Harvard is ultimately forced to surrender on this issue, it will be a triumph for Roth’s brand of left-wing antisemitism that is a growing threat to the ability of Jews to speak up for Israel and Zionism in the public square, and especially in academia.
Indeed, it isn’t Kenneth Roth who’s being canceled, but all those who are willing to tell the truth about the leftist war on Israel and the Jews.
The administration and Congress should take several steps to more effectively counter the widespread use of human shields by PIJ and other terrorist organizations.
First, the administration should implement its legal authority to designate terrorists who use human shields. Despite strong evidence of human shields use by PIJ and other terrorists, and the requirements of U.S. law, neither Trump nor Biden has thus far imposed any human shields sanctions on anyone. Imposing sanctions on PIJ leaders for their use of human shields would be an important first step.
Meanwhile, Congress should reauthorize and enhance the existing sanctions law,which is set to expire on December 31, 2023.
In addition, the US, Israel, and other allies should work together, including with NATO, to press the UN and other international organizations to investigate, condemn, and encourage penalties for human shields use by terrorist organizations and their material supporters. For example, the UN human rights high commissioner and council should be encouraged to vigorously investigate, condemn, and encourage accountability for the use of human shields.
Finally, the militaries of Israel, the United States and other NATO members, and other allies must coordinate in sharing best practices for more effectively addressing the use of human shields by terrorist organizations.
A robust U.S. government response to the use of human shields by PIJ and other terrorist groups would concretely advance several American national security and foreign policy objectives. These objectives include protecting U.S. and other NATO troops against terrorist use of human shields; setting the record straight in the face of UN and other efforts to falsely accuse Israel of committing war crimes; and undermining PIJ, Hamas, and other terrorist groups while supporting Palestinians who are prepared to make peace with Israel.
Like any gambler who is willing to seize on any glimmer of hope that irresponsible betting will be rewarded with an unexpected reversal of fortune, Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid was sounding hopeful this week. The Israeli government that he now leads spent the last year wagering the Jewish state’s security on the idea that better relations with the Biden administration and a decision to downplay differences would influence Washington to finally show some spine and stop appeasing Iran. So, it was hardly unexpected that Lapid would seize on the news that the United States had “hardened” its response to the latest Iranian counter-offer in the talks about renewing the 2015 nuclear deal.
The “good news” consisted of a report claiming that Lapid had been told by Washington that it would not give in to Iranian demands that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) cease investigating Tehran’s nuclear program or take the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) off the U.S. Foreign Terrorist Organizations. Shorn of context, that might be an encouraging development. But with the international media publishing multiple stories based on leaks from the administration about an agreement between the two sides being imminent, the notion that any victory on these two points, whether temporary or not, vindicates the decision Lapid’s tactics is risible.
Even taken in isolation, these points don’t mean that much.
As bad as giving in on that point would be, the IRGC issue is largely symbolic. If a new deal is reached, Iran’s terrorist arm will be immeasurably strengthened and enriched along with the rest of the regime, regardless of whether they’re on a U.S. list of terror groups. It’s also true that even if Iran doesn’t get Biden to agree to drop the involvement of the IAEA altogether, that means nothing. As the Iranians have demonstrated ever since former President Barack Obama’s signature foreign-policy achievement was put into force in 2015, violating they have no compunctions about repeatedly violating it, especially with regard to flouting the components requiring compliance with IAEA regulations.
More to the point, if these provisions and other points of equal importance are the only obstacles standing between an agreement, then Lapid knows his hopes of persuading the administration not to sign a new deal are negligible. As Lapid has recently reiterated, Israel’s position is that the United States and its partners in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) are making a huge mistake. Mossad chief David Barnea has been adamant in insisting that the plan is a “strategic disaster” for Israel and based on “lies.”
Six months into the war in Ukraine, Russia is being Russia once again.
By that, I mean the predatory, bullying Russia that we know from history. The Russia that persecutes Jews and other minorities, whether under the tsars or the Bolsheviks. The Russia that sneers at freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the other precious individual rights that prevail in the democratic West, while pushing its own brand of nationalist, obscurantist ideology.
When it comes to the “Jewish Question,” as the Bolsheviks were fond of calling it, Russia’s hostility is eminently recognizable. For much of the Putin era, that reality has been obscured, as the Russian dictator actively promoted the impression of a benevolent disposition towards the country’s Jewish minority, assisted in this task by a number of Jewish influencers abroad who really should have known better. Yet as was predictable, with the first whiff of a geopolitical crisis, Jews have once again been cast in a villainous role.
In a recent interview with the Voice of America’s Russian-language service, Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet Jewish refusenik who served as head of the Jewish Agency from 2009 to 2018, observed that Russia is “almost completely isolated from the free world.” Like a wounded animal, it is lashing out at its adversaries as a result, trying to find and pressure any weak spots. Sharansky pointed to the example of Germany, where the coming winter is anticipated with dread given the German dependence on Russia’s heavily sanctioned energy sector.
“They are scaring Germany with the fact that people will start dying from the cold in winter,” said Sharansky.
In Israel, of course, the mild winters and the lack of dependency on Russian natural gas—earlier this year, the European Union even signed a deal to import Israeli and Egyptian natural gas as part of weaning the bloc off Russian supplies—mean that the regime in Moscow has to select a different pressure point. “In the same way, they are starting to put pressure on us, using the Jewish Agency,” emphasized Sharansky.
Russia’s campaign against the Jewish Agency, which assists Jews wishing to emigrate to Israel, was launched at the end of last month. The Russian ministry of justice filed a legal bid to close the agency’s local operations, alleging that a database of Russian citizens was being maintained in contravention of Russian law.
This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 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.
A Safe Place?
-
[image: Dry Bones cartoon, Sinwar, Iran, Israel, Hostages, War, Hezbollah,
Lebanon, Qassem, Nasrallah,]
Maybe not so safe for him!
* * * *Please support Dr...
Fear and Loathing on the Left
-
Win or lose, fans of the Philly Eagles go out into the street and smash
things. Whoever wins on Election Day, leftists will smash things. The
election o...
The GPU festival – my weekend with the devil
-
The Global Peace and Unity – GPU festival The first GPU festival in eleven
years was just held at the Excel London exhibition and convention centre.
Orga...
Gaza: A Brief Modern History Outline
-
Pre-1917 - Gaza part of the Ottoman Empire
1917 - Gaza conquered by British Army and subsequently becomes part of
Mandate Palestine
1948 - Gaza conquere...
One Choice: Fight to Win
-
Yesterday Israel preempted a potentially disastrous attack by Hezbollah on
the center of the country. Thirty minutes before launch time, our aircraft
destr...
Yom Hashoah 5784 – 2024
-
Israel’s Yom Hashoah began at sundown this evening with the annual ceremony
at Yad Vashem with torches lit in memory of the 6 million Jewish victims of
the...
Closing Jews Down Under Website
-
With a heavyish heart I am closing down the website after ten years.
It is and it isn’t an easy decision after 10 years of constant work. The
past...
‘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...