Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: Noah Phillips

Showing posts with label Noah Phillips. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 04, 2019

Soccer star Mohamed Salah keeps politicizing his sport against Israel (Noah Phillips)

Mohamed Salah is on top of the soccer world right now. The Liverpool starlet hailing from Nagrig, a small Egyptian village, scored the winning goal of the UEFA Champions League--the premier club soccer competition--in just the second minute of the match. Doing so, he by and large paved the path to victory for his side against rivals Tottenham Hotspurs. The 26-year-old Salah’s premier form throughout the Champions League campaign was capped off by his stellar performance in the final, warranting adulation from the nearly 200 million-person television audience. But behind his famed scraggly-haired, smiling disposition and unparalleled soccer talent is a history of bigotry and anti-Semitic behavior slipping under the radar as celebrations unfold.

Salah’s public record of discriminatory action began in a 2014 two-legged match against Maccabi Tel Aviv. Salah, at the time a part of FC Basel, refused to shake the hands of the Israeli players prior to the match. The first meeting between the Israeli side and Basel saw Salah attempt to play off not shaking hands by feigning tying his shoe; however when the snub happened once more, this time in Tel Aviv, fans recognized the hostile act and proceeded to boo Salah harshly. Initially, Salah had plans to boycott the match altogether, though was later persuaded by team officials to put politics and bigotry aside for the sake of the game.

Salah’s efforts at undermining the validity of Israel’s existence were furthered when he bashed the Jewish state in a pre-game interview ahead of a match in Netanya:

“In my thoughts I am going to play in Palestine and not Israel, and I am also going to score and win there. The Zionist flag won’t be shown in the Champions League.”

If his ‘tying my shoes’ facade in 2014 wasn’t unsportsmanlike enough, his firebrand anti-Zionist comments and refusal to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist display Salah’s grotesque views on the conflict--a stark difference from his golden boy public perception in the wake of the Champions League final.

In a final triumphant act at the expense of Israeli soccer fans and all standards of fair play, Salah used his powerful position and newfound stardom at Liverpool to issue an ultimatum to Liverpool management that he would refuse to play alongside Moanes Dabour, a 27-year-old Israeli striker now at Spanish club Sevilla whom Liverpool took interest in. Dabour was never signed by the Reds, with widespread speculation that Salah’s threats caused management to avoid moving forward with Dabour.

As Salah is feted for his impressive feat in the UEFA Champions League game, his politicization and aggressive anti-Zionist stance ought to have no place in the international sports arena. Both the UEFA and FIFA--the largest soccer governing bodies globally--espouse publicly their commitment to rejecting discrimination, racism, and other bigoted behavior from the sport altogether, especially after a long and checkered past of such actions. Salah’s clout and physical adroitness shouldn’t exempt him from accountability for his clearly bigoted and discriminatory actions.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Linda Sarsour and the Jews (Noah Phillips)

In a recent Facebook post linking to a petition in support of Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Linda Sarsour asserted the age-old anti-Semitic trope that American Jews remain loyal to Israel over the US (what she called "democratic values,") as well as asserting that these Jews “masquerade as progressives.” For Sarsour, her venture into explicitly antisemitic territory only reaffirms her antisemitic demagoguery. In past actions, Sarsour has espoused the Muslim Brotherhood and the Nation of Islam, both radical and virulently antisemitic organizations, in the process legitimizing the values of these two organizations and conflating them with those of her own secular organization, the Women’s March.

Her recent comments are a continuation of a troubling trend of figureheads of the left wing espousing antisemitism. Sarsour is far from the only figure against Jewish influence in America. She is joined by newly-elected congresswomen Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) as well as newly-elected Attorney General of Minnesota and purported 2020 presidential candidate Keith Ellison. Previously, Omar has advanced the antisemitic conspiracy that Israelis hold the world in the palm of their hand by way of ‘hypnosis.’ Tlaib has forcefully denied the legitimacy of a Jewish state, while Ellison has strong ties to the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan, who last month compared Jews to “termites” and referred to Jews as “anti-black.”

The growing ties of high-ranking Democrats and leftist figures to antisemitic beliefs has largely contributed to antisemitism becoming more mainstream and relatively commonplace. So why haven’t people wised up to the overt acts of bigotry committed against Jews by prominent political figures? The answer is largely the result of selective enforcement of values and groupthink of progressives.

The Women’s March is meant to achieve a noble goal: reinforcing the rights of women during a time in which women statistically are given fewer societal opportunities to succeed than men. The gender wage gap, fewer job opportunities afforded to women, and domestic violence are all real phenomena which can and should be fought by activists like Sarsour. But rather than commit to the issues pressing women today, Sarsour interjects her bigoted views against Israel and Jews into the work of her organization. Sarsour at one point stated that there was no room for Zionists in the feminist movement, a discriminatory statement which subversively seeks to alienate Jews from the progressive ideals of her movement. Just as well, Sarsour’s open association and fandom of Louis Farrakhan, much like that of cofounder of the Women’s March, Tamika Mallory, cements antisemitic sentiment at the crux of the organization and mainstream progressive values.

It’s a twisted logic that has guided Sarsour: as she strives for equality for all, she belittles and discounts Jews from her narrative of tolerance, in the process contradicting the values for which she allegedly stands. Jews are effectively at the bottom of the food chain of minority groups, indeed viewed more as the oppressors than the oppressed, making it socially acceptable to berate and demean the Jewish people(often under the name "Zionists.")

The receptiveness of the left-wing to Sarsour’s peddling of antisemitic ideology has lead to such demagoguery becoming increasingly popular among Democrats. Sarsour is an embodiment of progressive ideals: child of immigrants, self-described person of color, Muslim, woman, and she is only really controversial among certain Jewish and conservative circles--arguably making her more popular among Democrats. Progressives believe her and trust her for this reason, leading to somewhat of a groupthink effect with regards to Sarsour’s vile rhetoric on Jews and Zionists, and resulting in a common understanding among Democrats that pro-Israel Jews do not and cannot mesh with progressive values.

Sarsour’s conniving tactic to alienate Jews from progressives, has, unfortunately, succeeded to a large extent. In New York City, a place intrinsically tied with progressive values, over 50% of hate crimes were perpetrated against Jews this past year, with a rapid increase in antisemitic attacks in the run-up to the midterm elections as voter enthusiasm peaked. Nationally, similar statistics hold true, with Jews prevailing as the most persecuted religious group in major liberal cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, and San Diego, despite Jews comprising a tiny part of the population.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

BDS and the Democratic Party’s Values (Noah Phillips)

The propagation of socialism in the Democratic party in this upcoming election cycle begs the question of why the millennial generation of voters acquiesces to a leftist political movement, largely comprised of inexperienced and untested candidates for office. The answer regularly doled out is that young people are fed up with the way things have been done, the inhumanity of the political world, and the disconnect between elected officials and constituents, and they demand a change. In 2018, socialists are there for the little guy and for justice—in all regards excepting support for Israel.

Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, Omar, and the plethora of other socialist and staunch leftist candidates in the November elections express support for the BDS movement in order to fight some misconstrued oppressive regime in Israel. But for them, support for BDS and lack of support for Israel is inherently contradictory to the values of socialism which they’ve all been elected upon and supposedly continue to preach.

I am far from a socialist ideologue myself, but nonetheless, these candidates have committed themselves to support its founding principles and have failed miserably to do so.

On a pragmatic note, socialists believe in a universal health care system, which Israel has implemented and the United States has not. On this fact alone, American socialists should be citing Israel as a functional society in which universal health care is implemented and is relatively successful—like they do Switzerland and Norway and other states. Whether or not universal healthcare would be beneficial to America is not the question. Rather, the question is why Israel is the exception to socialist support for universal health care rather than a part of the larger rule?

The cornerstones of the socialist movement are freedom and equality and justice for all without implicit biases by metrics of race or other distinguishing factors. Everyone is considered equal, without preconditions.

Such values are exemplified by Israel, where the Arab MK bloc is one of the largest in the Knesset, an Arab justice presides on Israel’s highest court, and millions of citizens who are part of ethnic and religious minorities are just as Israeli as their Jewish counterparts. Israel is undisputedly a liberal democracy with a track record of support of LGBT rights that is second to none.

A political movement which advocates fervently against discrimination of any kind should surely support Israel’s societal values; however, the false narrative peddled that Israel acts in a racist manner towards Palestinians prohibits this.

Just in the past few months, we’ve seen the high-profile socialist candidate from Michigan, Rashida Tlaib, advocate for a unified state of Palestine in place of today’s Israel. We’ve seen Ilhan Omar and Ocasio-Cortez both refer to Israel as “an apartheid regime” and countless other instances of democratic socialist vitriol directed at Israel.

The narrative is without question false, and it’s elementary for anyone observing the situation impartially—unlike the socialist candidates—to take note of Israel’s daily humanitarian contributions to Gaza and Syria in the face of looming terrorist threats, and other evident examples of Israel’s compassion, even towards those who oppose Israel most.

And yet the image of a functional Palestinian state conveyed by socialist and Democratic rhetoric denies realities of Palestinian governance. First and foremost, LGBT rights are not protected in either the West Bank or Gaza. Under the thumb of Hamas, a military commander was executed in 2016 for allegations of gay sex. In the West Bank, dozens of gays have fled to Israel to eschew the regular harassment and discrimination endured under the Palestinian Authority. The treatment of women is no better: until March of 2018, the Palestinian Authority effectively legalized rape by permitting rapists to evade charges should they marry their victims. Women are also unable to request divorce in the absence of special circumstances, where they would forfeit any financial compensation and the dowry.

Realistically, the detestable treatment of the LGBT community and women in the Palestinian territories are extensions of the practices of surrounding Islamic theological states; and should Israel not exist, it’s probable that the already harsh treatment would be further escalated to match that of Iran and Turkey and Jordan and others.

Even still, socialists and select members of prominence in the Democratic party fully embrace the BDS movement to cripple Israel by any means necessary.

“[Palestinians have a right to] resistance by any means, including armed resistance. [Jews] aren’t indigenous just because you say you are….[Jews] are not a people…the UN’s principle of the right to self-determination applies only to colonized people who want to acquire their rights,” said BDS founder Omar Barghouti.

And other notable supporters of BDS have called for far more drastic measures to be taken against the Jews in Israel—namely acts of genocide and cataclysmic warfare in an already unhinged Middle East.

The movement, without question, has a basis in anti-Semitism and makes regular calls to violent action. So for an egalitarian and social-justice-oriented movement like socialism to buy into this hate speech is hypocritical and dangerous. It truly does counteract all of the morals of socialism by allowing for the specific targeting of a global religious minority, the Jews.

All this withstanding, why do socialists continuously promote violence by way of the BDS movement and denounce liberal societies like Israel? And for this question, there is no logical explanation because it is such a fundamentally illogical act. So the real question is, when are socialists going to recognize Israel as a haven of equality and tolerance?

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Rashida Tlaib: The Pioneer Who Hates Israel (Noah Phillips)

by Noah Phillips

Rashida Tlaib’s primary victory in Detroit’s 13th Congressional district is daunting for Israel supporters in the US and abroad. In a matter of months, Tlaib will have sizable influence to effect change on an issue central to her heritage (she is a “Palestinian-American”), the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with a voice infallibly slated against Israel.

Following her primary victory and piquing national and international attention, Tlaib regularly lambasted Israel on a slew of topics. In the past few days alone, she’s called for US aid to Israel to be cut, expressed support for BDS, and endorsed a one-state solution.

I spoke with Tlaib’s campaign manager, Steve Tobocman, ahead of the primaries, and he asserted that Tlaib supports a two-state solution, which she now has contradicted. He also stated that Tlaib supported a foreign aid budget to Israel, another position she changed after the election. Tobocman did not immediately respond to my request for clarification on Tlaib’s policies.

Yet Tlaib’s recent rhetoric and past actions are indicative of her genuine beliefs on the conflict.

Tlaib was a keynote speaker at one of Detroit’s largest BDS rallies in 2014, long before her Congressional bid. The rally drew tens of thousands chanting “Free Palestine!” while touting Palestinian flags. Also speaking at the event was Dawud Walid, who heads up the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and publicly discusses his woes with Jews and Zionists.

“Who are those that incur the wrath of Allah? They are the Jews, they are the Jews,” Walid said in a 2012 sermon, one of many anti-Semitic comments he’s made in the past.

Tlaib is also well acquainted with Linda Sarsour, notoriously recognized by the pro-Israel lobby for her contempt of Israel and as supporter of anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan. During the campaign, Sarsour spoke at a Tlaib campaign event giving her endorsement. The relationship between Tlaib and Sarsour dates back years, to the point where Sarsour described Tlaib as a mentor and role model, a disconcerting sign given Sarsour’s track record on Israel. When I asked Tobocman about Tlaib’s relationship with Sarsour, he shifted the subject of the conversation, which he soon after ended.

Tlaib has also expressed sympathy for terrorist and murderer Rasmea Odeh on Twitter.

This is the quality of character chosen by Michiganders to represent them. They chose someone with a vengeance against the State of Israel and who stands by such people as Odeh, and who reverses her position on numerous critical policies following the primary election.

So why has Tlaib garnered so much support despite her evident character flaws and poor choice in associates?

The answer largely has to do with the race for diversity for the sake of diversity, to the point where politicians are elected largely on the basis of their racial and ethnic group. Whether intentionally or not, Tlaib banked on being the first Muslim women to potentially reach Congress in order to grasp voter attention. And Tlaib had significant help from media outlets covering the primaries. It’s unfortunate, but it’s a fact, that the vast majority of headlines about Tlaib read along the lines of ‘First Muslim-American Women Makes Run for Congress,’ entirely ignoring her policies, her questionable friends, and her as a person, beyond being a member of a religion and female. But people love a pioneer—and that’s precisely what Rashida Tlaib represents.

However this isn’t true diversity, and this isn’t the diversity needed in today’s world. Instead, it’s putting the faith of a candidate before the quality of their ideas, a phenomenon which is discriminatory in and of itself.

Diversity is an incredible thing, and initiatives for diversity in institutions have the potential to bring inclusivity and tolerance that has been lacking so heavily in recent years. But when diversity is misconstrued in such a way that Rashida Tlaib is acclaimed in spite of her demagoguery towards Israel, it’s purpose is entirely defeated.

As a result of this pseudo-diversity, Tlaib’s dangerous associations with anti-Semites and Israel-haters, as well as her unconscionable rhetoric are overshadowed by her pioneer-status as a Muslim-American woman.

In this regard, Tlaib resembles another starlet of the 2018 primary campaign: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, another harsh critic of Israel, who spoke at a campaign event promoting Tlaib. Cortez fired up the crowd when she exclaimed that “2018 isn’t the year that we get our first Muslim woman to Congress. It’s that we get our first class of Muslim women to Congress.” Cortez would better serve the country if instead of placing the religion of Islam on a pedestal, she spoke to the policies of Tlaib and other Muslim candidates, which are what truly need the attention of voters.

And as per usual, Israel is caught directly in the crosshairs of the pseudo-diversity phenomenon. The blatant distaste for Israel presented by Tlaib as well as Cortez and others, is reprehensible to say the least. Yet we see weak secular media coverage of this and no voter outcry condemning the outrageous beliefs and actions of Tlaib.

This is not a denigration of Islam, or any other minority group for that matter, but a critique of how politicians are nowadays evaluated first and foremost, as a race, an ethnicity, a gender, and a religion, all before being assessed as future lawmakers and leaders of society.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez Blunder (Noah Phillips)

With her primary-election upset victory over incumbent Representative Joe Crowley, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez—at 28 years old—is the emerging face of millennial politics and an ardent proponent of modern socialist ideology. While she certainly has mobilized her supporters effectively, Cortez’ campaign is marred by her blatant lack of any knowledge on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and yet, her unseemly outspokenness on it’s intricacies.

Over the course of her campaign to unseat Crowley, Cortez railed against the actions of the Israeli government; yet on her July 13 interview on PBS’ Firing Line, where she referred to “the occupation of Palestine,” the settlements, and drew vague comparisons between Israel and Ferguson Missouri, Cortez’ lambasting culminated with five words: “I am not the expert.”

Cortez was neither pressed or challenged on her views on the conflict by host Margaret Hoover, but rather asked to “expand” on her beliefs, which she failed to do for the sole reason that she has no views, no individual contemplations on the matter at hand, but a party line which she touts and parades around on Twitter and at events. She’s committed the anti-Israel playbook to memory—on full display during the interview—liberally claiming “occupation” and “massacre” (in a Tweet) without comprehension of what she’s spouting: hyper-partisan language which deliberately denies fact. And while Cortez is certainly apt at dishing out this rhetoric with the adroitness of a seasoned politician, during the interview, she follows her unsubstantiated assertions with a sequence of uh’s and oh’s, as she connives a way to legitimize her ideas… without factual evidence to support it.

All in all, the greatest grievance against Cortez is her enduring stubbornness. Throughout her campaign, she easily could have remained silent on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict due to insufficient research, but rather, it took an utter blunder on a major national news network for her to admit that she is not well-versed in the geopolitics of the region. Politicians cannot be blamed for not being savvy in every area of expertise, but rather can be faulted for expressing a highly controversial and largely unjust opinion in these circumstances, in the absence of such knowledge, which Ocasio-Cortez did throughout her bid.

But what’s troubling still is how Cortez is idolized by a sizable portion of young people, and how she appears to be on the fast-track to become a major fixture in the Democratic party after unseating the Chair of the House Democratic Caucus and the long-term, well-respected politician Joe Crowley, and obtaining fame overnight. Her socialist views and millennial-age inherently binds her to the up and coming left-wing generation of voters, and to a large extent, garners their support and attention from the get-go. To have Cortez’ language on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict normalized among her base is particularly unnerving, regardless of whether or not there exist facts to back up the claims, because they will be taken as truths nonetheless.

Cortez, unfortunately, is a part of a growing trend of partisanship and far leftism among the Democratic party, a struggle in which support for Israel is caught in the crosshairs. After her interview with Margaret Hoover, Cortez appeared on Democracy Now! hosted by Amy Goodman, where she, according to the Jerusalem Post, “took a neutral stance on the two-state solution” rather than outrightly stating her recognition of Israel’s legitimacy and right to exist, a stance she had previously adopted. The ‘partisanization’ of Israel-centric issues over recent decades is undeniable, hence the period of no productivity in the United States-Israel relationship under Obama, and almost immediate progress under a Republican president. While there exist notable exceptions to this trend, namely Chuck Schumer, Jerry Nadler, and some others, Democrat politicians know what vernacular on the conflict is socially acceptable among their crowd and which isn’t. They know the talking points and the key players, but adhere closely to the Democratic mantras and idioms often bashing Israel. Such partisanship has permeated into even the highest ranks of the Democratic party: Bernie Sanders—who is currently campaigning with Ocasio-Cortez in Kansas—took to Twitter in April to pledge his support for the Gaza protesters while disregarding the violent actions of many protesters and the significant role played by internationally-recognized terrorist organizations, just one of many lopsided stories portrayed by some Democrats as the whole picture of what occurred.

With Democrats poised to dominate Congress in the midterm elections this November—including Cortez, the clear frontrunner in her district—and potentially the presidency in 2020, it’s incredibly dangerous and damaging to have untrue statements being taken as fact by policymakers. While Cortez’ PBS embarrassment was a high-profile instance of Democratic lack of awareness on the conflict, it served as a wake-up call to viewers, that rhetoric will always merely be rhetoric, and the distinguishing factor between Cortez and other, more informed politicians, is possession of the facts that reinforce their claims.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

IfNotNow's dishonesty (Noah Phillips)

As a cohort, Jewish millennials have acquiesced to the half-baked scenarios presented by the radical left-wing group IfNotNow. They've strategically branded themselves as ardent advocates for social justice and human rights in Israel, "to see the full picture," a description in this case synonymous with anti-Israel—and by extension, anti-democratic—sentiment. It’s unfathomable to me how effective their campaigns to band young Jews against Israel has proven, and it’s frightening to consider that millennials are the impending leadership of of American Jewry.

Despite being highly biased against Israel’s existence (IfNotNow refuses to recognize the legitimacy of Zionism), it’s elementary to comprehend why IfNotNow has grown so rapidly and their message believed by so many of my generation. Their leaders present the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts in the most oversimplified, cut-and-dry terms, allowing American Jews to easily grasp the Palestinian narrative without delving into the Israeli perspective and grappling with the reality that each side possesses legitimate concerns. IfNotNow continually employs broad and generalized rhetoric to depict the ‘Palestinian struggle,’ spouting fallacies like "Israel denies Palestinians freedom and dignity by depriving them of civil, political and economic rights" and making generalized claims like "the out-of-touch establishment to continue leading us down a path of isolation and fear that is wreaking havoc on the lives of millions of Palestinians and alienating a generation of young American Jews." Without question, the vast majority of the group's statements have no genuine basis in fact, but it’s the much simpler stance to adopt in the matter: no one ever supports the reigning champ, they invariably stand with the underdog, no matter how illegitimate or reckless a choice that may be.

And compared with the host of prominent pro-Israel organizations, IfNotNow is composed of a far more savvy leadership. They know how to systematically reach and interact with young Jews, utilizing emotional and loosely-factual stories of despair in addition to coordinating high-profile and disruptive protests—-in effect speaking the ‘millennial language’ of taking to the streets in opposition. "Will we unite to fight the occupation, and in doing so, resist the burden and bonds of a victim narrative and make Judaism relevant and meaningful to our generation?" These are fighting words for millennials, tackling an establishment--Israel--head-on in order to restore some perceived justice is what politically-charged young people have done in recent years. IfNotNow banks on this fighting spirit of millennials to garner support and combat Israel in swathes. Their rhetoric coupled with a robust social media presence, far outclassing many pro-Israel groups, has piqued the attention of the millennial cohort unlike any Israel-centric organization to date.

Last week IfNotNow furthered their agenda to "end American youth support for the occupation " when five of their activists sabotaged a Birthright trip in order to visit Hebron and, in true IfNotNow fashion, to grab a few headlines and incite internal conflict among Jews.

Reservists on Duty noted that this infiltration and deliberate disruption of a consensus organization, Birthright, is a new low connived by IfNotNow’s leadership, and a blatant attempt to disrespect Birthright, Israel, and the Jewish faith. They took to politicizing the trip by dispatching undercover operatives, an extremely unethical act reflective of the malicious intent of IfNotNow as an organization.

Since it’s inception, Birthright has prevailed as a cultural and religious multi-day experience to tens of thousands of young American Jews who travel throughout Israel and foster their connection to Judaism and their religious and cultural connection to the land--a land which IfNotNow—a Jewish-led movement—continuously refutes and rejects vehemently. And the assertions made by IfNotNow against Birthright are largely unfounded, as Benji Davis, a Birthright tour guide of seven years, writes that Birthright participants do learn the Palestinian story, of settlements, and of the dilemma of collective security against collective rights, presenting matters from a bipartisan standpoint and sharing all accounts with attendees, contrasting the accusations lobbed at Birthright from IfNotNow. Whereas Birthright daily attempts to bridge the divide between American Jews and their Israeli heritage, IfNotNow burns those bridges to indoctrinate and mobilize the next generations of Diaspora Jews against Israel.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Deconstructing IfNotNow (Noah Phillips)

As the millennial cohort swings left, a group of young Jewish activists, IfNotNow (INN), is appealing to a wide swath of Jewry with proclamations of social justice and progressive ideals. But the seemingly-open and inclusive stance is a soft veneer for Israel bashing rhetoric. Worse, INN’s public agitations at times fuel anti-Semitic sentiments.

The group seeks to influence public institutional change in Jewish organizations that support the State of Israel, yet doing so fractures the relatively small American Jewish community. The most recent target of the group’s efforts was the National Ramah Commission, responsible for providing over 11,000 kids--including myself some years ago--with a fun, Jewish summer experience and instilling a love for Israeli culture and Jewish traditions. During my days at the camp, I recall the ‘promotion’ of Zionism manifested through eating Israeli food, singing Israeli songs, and immersing in Israeli cultural life. INN must take umbrage at these aspects of camp life for young American Jews since they recently attempted unsuccessfully to politicize the camp experience by imploring Ramah leadership to instruct about Israel’s “occupation” policies and practices. Wouldn’t an inclusive stance encourage a measured analysis of complex Israeli politics and a love for the Jewish homeland instead of absolute condemnation?

A good window into the motives of an organization involves looking at its leadership. Founder of INN Simone Zimmerman served a brief stint as coordinator of Jewish outreach for the Bernie Sanders presidential bid, but was let go after her vitriolic and unwaveringly anti-Israel Facebook posts were exposed. Zimmerman was too left wing and anti-Zionist for Bernie Sanders’ liking, something extremely telling about the founding principles and doctrines of the INN movement. Moreover, the co-founder of INN, Max Berger, regularly makes egregious assertions via Twitter. “The GOP is a white nationalist party,” Berger tweeted on June 12, later stating that Trump’s cabinet is “full of the dumbest Nazis” on June 15. On June 9 Berger retweeted Sarah Silverman, who compared ICE immigration officers to Nazis, and on June 7 retweeted Linda Sarsour, the controversial figure who maintains that feminists cannot be Zionists. These Tweets took place in the span of a week and are prime examples of the biased beliefs of an INN co-founder, and by extension, the partisan organization.

As INN gains an increasing base of followers, it undermines the loyalty of American Jews towards Israel with skewed information and damaging rhetoric. Ramah’s interactions, along with countless other reputable Conservative-Jewish and Reform-Jewish organizations, proves how INN has permeated into the mainstream for American Jews, and along with them, a lopsided anti-Israel agenda. Per their website, INN’s indoctrination has reached members of key Jewish youth organizations in America: Union for Reform Judaism, United Synagogue Youth, Solomon Schechter (my alma mater), Ramah, BBYO, North American Federation of Temple Youth, and more.

INN has created a “Liberation Syllabus” (#LiberationSyllabus), a compilation of learning materials, much of which unjustly slanders Israel. The syllabus features Michael Chabon, a Pulitzer Prize winning writer, and many other people and organizations that maintain a harsh and aggressive stance towards Israel. Chabon, a known anti-Israel activist gained notoriety--or apparent clout among IfNotNow followers--during his commencement address at the Hebrew Union College in California when he condemned Jewish in-marriage and professed his distaste for religion. Also prominent on the list was B’Tselem (The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories), the organization which offers a pro-Palestinian advocacy without acknowledgement of Israeli concerns and perspectives. Like INN, B’Tselem is an ardently partisan organization pushing an inherently flawed agenda.

INN does “not take a unified stance on… Zionism or the question of statehood,” yet purportedly supports a two-state solution. What this intentionally ambiguous verbiage accomplishes is reserving the right for the institution to allege support for the State of Israel, while accommodating the sizable sect of their supporters who denounce Israel’s existence altogether.

It’s very troubling that IfNotNow (INN) has gained traction and credibility among American Jews, especially millennials. INN is virtually silent on the ills surrounding Israel--including civil war and chemical warfare in Syria--but focuses exclusively on Israel’s continued control of pre-1967 border land with no acknowledgement of why or how. No democracy is immune from criticism, certainly including Israel, but INN does nothing to advance or deepen understanding of multiple perspectives in this complex region of the world. #YouNeverToldMe

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Netta: Showcasing Israel and Progressive Values in Unison (Noah Phillips)

RISING UP: Showcasing Israel and Progressive Values in Unison

by Noah Phillips

We were all electrified by Netta’s Eurovision performance. Whether you were bobbing your head and clucking your arms, or, like me, swelling with Israeli pride while partly confused with the European infatuation with this kind of music, we loved her moment. Netta, a proud representative of Israeli culture (“Next year in Jerusalem!” she declared to 180+ million viewers) and an important voice for the #MeToo movement of female empowerment, was fantastic in all respects.

As one of the foremost celebrities originating from Israel should, Netta embodies the progressive and inclusive principles of Israeli society through her music and personal triumphs. Netta’s hit song, “Toy,” is emblematic of the #MeToo movement, embracing feminism and denouncing patriarchy of the past. The song rejects the objectification of women and resonates with a global audience at a time when individuals are disclosing painful past experiences of sexual assault.

From her various interviews, we know of Netta’s personal struggles with bulimia and bullying from others about her weight and appearance. In Eurovision, Netta embraced her eccentricities and quirks. Garbed in a Japanese kimono and, at times, clucking like a chicken, Netta sang powerfully and connected with a diverse audience.

Her personal life story and messages conveyed through her music reach a current audience of young progressives demanding change from ideas of exclusivity and elitism--be it weight, size, race, or other markers. Netta’s words: “Thank you so much for accepting differences between us. Thank you for celebrating diversity. Thank you!”

Netta’s messaging as a champion of diversity only bolsters Israel’s international reputation, particularly among progressive-millennials. It’s a stark contrast to both Israel’s general European and American-liberal perception as a state of apartheid, utilizing differences as divisors to further hate. To see Netta succeed while carrying her progressive ideals brings Israel’s complex reality and a more nuanced and positive state of Israeli society to millions of viewers. For example, while the LGBTQ community seeks acceptance and support in many closed, restrictive countries, Israeli society is known for embracing LGBTQ causes, and Israel’s largest city, Tel Aviv, hosts an annual week-long celebration of gay pride which attracts thousands of attendees from across the world. While the United States still awaits our first female president, Israel already reached that milestone nearly half a century ago. And while Jews have been expelled throughout history from Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Morocco, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen, and Spain among other nations due to religious intolerance, Israeli-Arabs enjoy religious freedom and integration in Israeli society, a fact often overlooked by Israel’s detractors.

Netta helps defy stereotypes personally and even about the State of Israel. Her influential agendas of feminism and gender equality are timely; similarly, her declarations of Israeli pride and inclusivity through her performances are long overdue.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.

Why Headlines and the Modern Age of Media Consumption is Hurting Israel (Noah Phillips)

“16 killed, thousands injured, Israeli snipers line the border,” read the brief notification on my phone, and on that of millions of other conscious global citizens relying on the mainstream media for political and global knowledge. I, along with the pro-Israel community, cringed at each of the countless buzzing notifications informing the world of the events transpiring at the Gaza-Israel border in the recent weeks. We have a far greater depth of knowledge about the complexity of the conflict than the larger populace, who generally take less of a keen interest in the specifics of the conflict, and we know for certain that such a headline doesn't nearly encapsulate the Israeli narrative of the scene in Gaza. It fails to acknowledge that at least 80% of those dead are known associates with terror group, that the snipers exercised tremendous caution with live rounds of ammunition, opting for rubber bullets and tear gas to disperse the violent demonstrations. And we know that Hamas leaders cowered behind the crowds of civilians thrust towards the border and that they monetarily incentivized the crowds to breach the border fence.

But who cares? What difference does it make what we know? We each only count for one person in a general election, each of us one pro-Israel voice in a sea of voters under the impression--established and reinforced by the headlines on their devices and in the papers--that Israel fires indiscriminately into a crowd of peaceful protesters.

And the misinformation and lack of perspective and adequate figures relating to the Israel-Palestine conflict truly comprises much of Israel’s public relations nightmare. With the concept of a news cycle over a period of time being rendered obsolete by the instantaneousness of today’s news, consumers absorb as much information as possible in as little time as possible. Per the Washington Post and the American Press Institute, “roughly six in 10 people acknowledge that they have done nothing more than read news headlines in the past week. And, in truth, that number is almost certainly higher than that, since plenty of people won't want to admit to just being headline-gazers but, in fact, are.” And according to Forbes, 59% of the articles shared via social media sites are not first read by the ‘sharer.’ Similarly, Twitter has a CTR (click through rate) average across all of its users of 1.64%, meaning that less than one in fifty people elect to digest the information beyond the headline of the article. Media is an omnipresent force in society--particularly those news outlets with the clout and acclaim to sway public opinion on any given issue, where even a single sentence presented (like the lede of an article) can have a profound impact in its connotations and specific phrasing.

In the immediacy of the technological age in which we live, with notifications popping up by the minute, and the needed brevity of the headline/lede to maintain reader-attentiveness while conveying a hasty picture of the situation, lots can be lost in translation. This sizeable fault in the media is much less prevalent with other major global disputes, like the American-North Korean tensions: It’s common knowledge that North Korea is bad and communist, while America is better and democratic, to put the matter simply. So when CNN reports that Kim Jong-Un has just tested the latest intercontinental ballistic missile, and it is capable of reaching Alaska, I immediately understand the danger posed and am not ambivalent when siding against North Korea.

But for issues not so black-and-white such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a simple headline can easily give off the wrong idea and formulate an opinion one way or the other, even if it’s not sufficiently substantiated, as is frequently the case.

As mentioned, headlines regarding events playing out in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict notoriously hold an anti-Israel slant--unintentionally or otherwise. Coupled with readers (or not readers, should I say) not bothering clicking on and considering the factual evidence, but instead relying on headlines, the already-harbored anti-Israel sentiment by tech-savvy, short-attention-spanned millennials and young voters can only trend upwards, shunning the facts in favor of convenience.

We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.