Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: Opinion

Showing posts with label Opinion. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 01, 2020

Jeremy Ben-Ami: The Crocodile will Eat Him Last (Judean Rose)

Jeremy Ben-Ami, the president of JStreet, on Sunday condemned the assassination of senior Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. Ben-Ami took his cue from the EU, which took its cue from Tehran. One can understand why Tehran would condemn the assassination of the man considered to be the father of Iran’s nuclear program, someone considered “irreplaceable” in the mullahs’ quest to get the bomb. Iran wants the bomb, and the elimination of Fakhrizadeh is a setback. Big time. The condemnations coming out of Brussels and from Ben-Ami, on the other hand, can be explained only by the famous quote from Winston Churchill:

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."

It makes sense that JStreet would want to appease Iran by condemning the elimination of Fakhrizadeh, a man with deep knowledge of the Iranian nuclear program. A nuclear Iran threatens the free world, not least of all the United States. Go to any protest, or even to the Iranian parliament after Soleimani was killed, and you will hear the chants of, "Marg bar Āmrikā," (Death to America).

JStreet’s Ben-Ami hopes that in agreeing with his wannabe murderers, they will consent to eat him last.

Perhaps more to the point, JStreet is an anti-Israel organization pretending to engage in Israel advocacy. JStreet actually shares the aim of the Iranian nuclear program: the elimination of the Jewish State—witness the organization's covert support for BDS. It is believed that Israel is behind the assassination of Fakhrizadeh, though the Jewish State has neither confirmed nor denied a role in the targeted killing of the scientist. Israel has a good motive for taking out Fakhrizadeh and that is that while a nuclear Iran may be the greatest existential threat to the free world—which unfortunately includes Jeremy Ben-Ami among its inhabitants—Israel is Iran’s closest target, and the elimination of the Jewish State a primary goal for Khameini.

Ben-Ami, knowing that Israel is first on the menu, hopes that in condemning the actions of the Jewish State, he will be last on the list of tasty items to be consumed by the crocodile named Iran. That is why Ben-Ami was pleased to be included on the guest list of Jewish leaders invited to Obama’s table to discuss how Israel might be pressured to give away more indigenous Jewish land to the Arabs. Obama is the main architect of that ultimate appeasement of Iran: the JCPOA (which Iran never signed). It is Obama who sent the world’s leading state sponsor of terror, pallets of untraceable cash.

It is only natural that Ben-Ami would wish to be a starring ingredient in the dessert course, to ally himself with Obama. Ben-Ami, like Obama, wants to be eaten last. Alas, the only way for these men to fulfill this aim is to make themselves relevant until the end. They hope that if they appear to share the goal of the crocodile, and even assist in procuring food for the beast, the beast might save them for another day, when there is nothing tastier to eat.

The problem is that the crocodile is a bully, and the problem with appeasing a bully is that the bully always comes back for more. Which means that the bullied are never free, even as they delude themselves that the opposite is true, that they are saved. Being last to be eaten, on the other hand, by definition means that one is eventually eaten. Which is how the game ends.

And the game always ends unless you stand up to the crocodile, to cut off its sustenance for good. That is the only way to do away with the crocodile, once and for all. Which Israel knew. Which is why Fakhrizadeh had to go.

It only makes sense. It’s the only real way to game the system, to not get eaten, last or otherwise.

Anyone who understands this, anyone with a modicum of sechel or common sense, therefore did not vote for Joe Biden. Biden, predictably, intends to revive the JCPOA, because he too, hopes to be eaten last, as do those who voted for him. The Biden voters either hope to be last to be eaten by the Iranian crocodile, or else they are oblivious to the danger in the swamp. They are oblivious because the media dangles progressive sugar plums before their eyes, the shiny and exciting causes they prefer to embrace above life itself: BLM, Antifa, illegal immigrants, and above all, a supreme hatred of the Orange Man.

The people who voted for Biden (and Obama before him), can’t see the crocodile lurking, waiting to pounce on those with no clue of the danger waiting for them in the wings. The crocodile, meanwhile, watches on as its early prey, the Biden voters, spew their hatred of anyone who thinks differently from them: the people who won’t get with the plan. The Biden voters don’t know that all along, the plan has been out of their hands and even unknown to them, the people to be eaten first.

The people who voted for Biden, knowing he would probably reinstitute the JCPOA, are like so much unwitting chum. They have no idea how delicious they are, as an appetizer, or even a main course. Ben-Ami, meanwhile, awaits his turn on the platter with bated breath—perhaps garnished with edible gold—as the crocodile opens its yawning cavern of a mouth, never to be sated or satisfied.

Always wanting more.

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.

Biden Brings Back Cognitive Dissonance Over Israel (Vic Rosenthal)

Vic Rosenthal's weekly column

Binyamin Netanyahu and Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by prize recipient Lord David Trimble, who got it in 1998. Trimble was honored for his part in negotiations leading to the Good Friday Agreement that brought relative peace to Northern Ireland.

In my opinion, the Abraham Accords represent the first ray of light in the darkness of the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1948, and if I were a Nobel recipient I would have nominated Donald Trump and Jared Kushner as well.

Of course the chances of Netanyahu receiving anything but abuse from the “international community” of which the Nobel committee is a pillar, are close to zero. The United Nations and the human rights industry, much of it set up in direct response to the industrial murder of European Jewry by the Nazis and their enthusiastic helpers over almost all of Europe, have ironically embraced the would-be genocidaires of the PLO, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the revolutionary Iranian regime. Especially since the year 2000 (see this brilliant analysis by Mark Pickles and Richard Landes), international institutions and NGOs have picked up and carried the flags of misoziony and Judenhass relinquished by the Soviets and the Nazis.

The USA was more or less neutral with respect to Israel (although its Jewish community strongly supported her) until the 1973 war, when it adopted Israel as its Cold War proxy. But soon after, thanks to OPEC’s devastatingly effective “oil weapon,” US policy became ambivalent. Henry Kissinger negotiated multifaceted agreements with the Arabs which resulted in ending the oil boycott; but one of the conditions was that the US would work to restore all territory conquered by Israel in 1967 to Arab control. Until Trump’s presidency, this was firm American policy, followed by relatively pro-Israel presidents like Clinton and Bush II, less friendly ones like Bush I, and anti-Israel ones like Carter and Obama alike.

The policy required a certain degree of cognitive dissonance from American politicians (not to mention the liberal Jews that supported them). It was necessary for them to advocate the transfer of strategically essential territory from Israeli to Arab control, while still at least appearing to support Israel’s continued survival. This they did by providing military aid. A master stroke, the massive aid package for Israel and Egypt that began with the Camp David agreement got Israel out of the Sinai, provided the US with leverage to control Israel’s behavior, and enriched American defense contractors. Later, it served as a fig leaf to hide the dangers of withdrawal inherent in demands for Israel to leave Gaza, the Golan, and Judea and Samaria.

Anti-Israel politicians like Barack Obama had less of an internal struggle than friendly ones. With the help of the Israeli Left, he argued counterfactually that security would come from territorial concessions. His policy was to weaken Israel while pretending to help her, for example by phasing out the portion of the military aid that could be used to buy from Israel’s own military industry. No matter what he did to damage Israel’s strategic position, he could always point to those billions of dollars in military hardware as proof of his support for the Jewish state. But whether an administration was friendly or not, the policy was always fundamentally incoherent. It also distorted internal Israeli politics, leading to disasters like the Oslo Accords.

Trump turned everything upside down. New technology that increased oil production in North America and various other developments had defused the oil weapon. In addition, some of the important Middle Eastern oil producers were worried about Iranian expansionism and its nuclear program, and realized that Israel could be an indispensable ally in opposing it. American interests were now seen to lie with a strong Israel, in truth and not just in rhetoric.

So for the first time since 1973, Trump’s administration was able to introduce a reality-based policy, affirming the rationality of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights and Jerusalem, and ending the obsequious treatment of the frankly terrorist PLO and its dictatorial Palestinian Authority. Under the Trump plan, the Palestinians would be required to give up their maximalist demands and make real compromises, if they wanted a state of any kind.

But as almost everyone finally admits, the clock has run out. There will not be a second Trump Administration. The new one, depressingly, seems firmly wedded to the old paradigm. Although most (not all!) of his appointments do not appear to be overt enemies of the Jewish state, Biden seems likely to restore the traditional deference (and funding) to the Palestinians, as well as to try to reopen negotiations about the JCPOA with Iran, which at the very least implies that sanctions on Iran will be reduced.

This is not because Biden and his people are idiots. They are fully aware that things have changed, and that the oil weapon no longer threatens America. But now the pressure comes from the home front. They can’t afford to alienate the misozionist left wing of the Democratic party, which has grown stronger in Congress. They don’t worry about American Jews, for whom Israel has little weight when they vote. They can ignore the Evangelicals, who will support Republicans anyway over social issues like abortion and LGBTx rights. And of course, they want to wipe out any traces of Trumpism. Staying in power and achieving domestic objectives is more important to them than logical consistency, or the negative consequences for America’s allies in the Middle East.

So we will go back to hearing platitudes about the “unbreakable” US-Israel relationship, while the administration complains about Israel building apartments in Jewish neighborhoods of eastern Jerusalem. What appeared to be a real possibility that Israel would extend sovereignty to the Jordan Valley – an area of extreme strategic importance – will fade away. We’ll watch as the US goes back to pretending that the failed and antisemitic United Nations can play a positive role in any sphere, and that the PLO can be made into a peace partner. Sanctions on Iran will be relaxed, emboldening the regime to push ahead on the ground and with its nuclear and missile programs.

A dark picture. Israel has a difficult four or eight years ahead of her, at least. There will be little room for mistakes and missed opportunities. It looks like we will shortly go through yet another round of elections. Is it too much to ask that we end up with a government equal to the task?

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.

Shirley Kopelman Meyers, January 10, 1927-November 8, 2020

I like to tell people I made aliyah when I was young and stupid and that that’s the way to do it. When I made aliyah at the age of 18, I wasn’t thinking about what it would be like to have an aging parent far away, and not be able to help. I didn’t think about how, someday, in middle age, I would long to care for my mother, as I only I would have cared for her had I been there. But I was not there, except in fits and starts, two-week visits that were somehow never enough for either of us. And now she’s gone.

In the middle of the morning, the message came: “Our mother went to the true world this morning.”

I was not even surprised. I had seen it coming. She was 93. She was fading. This was Sunday morning, and she had fallen asleep in the middle of our last phone call, on Thursday night.

I watched her funeral on Zoom. Which was a blessing. I always knew I would not be going to the States for her funeral, as she had forbidden me to do so, some years ago.

A child of the Great Depression, my mother was practical. She didn’t see the point of me spending all that money on a ticket when she wouldn’t even be there to see me. Never mind that in some respects, the rituals are for those who remain. My mother had made her wishes clear, and I was stuck with respecting those wishes, and her.

Because of the Depression, she couldn't go to college. But at age 46, widowed with 4 children, she became a student at the University of Pittsburgh. It took her 8 years, but she got her degree in journalism.

Had there not been a pandemic, perhaps no one would have thought to set up that Zoom funeral I got to see, so at least I had that: the beautiful chill autumn day, some red and gold leaves still on the trees in the Beth Shalom Cemetery, in Millvale, Pa.

We visited my dad a few years ago. Now she is next to him.

On the other hand, had there not been a pandemic, I might have been able to see her one last time. But I was terrified at the thought of picking up the virus during my travels and that I might somehow, unwittingly, bring it to her, when I loved her almost as much as life itself. The thought of making her sick was paralyzing, in its most literal meaning. That thought kept me here in place in Israel, and far away from her.

And I think that was difficult for her. Knowing that I wasn’t going to be there that one more time. Perhaps—at least a little—she gave up hope that I would ever come again. It was not going to happen: a thing that made life worth living when she could no longer walk, see or hear, a visit from her baby.

It hurts that I hurt her that way. And it hurts that I lost my mom. But in spite of the terrible pain of losing my mother—of missing out on being able to care for her as only I would have cared for her—in spite of depriving her of my presence at the end, and missing her funeral, I do not regret making aliyah. “Non, je ne regrette rien.”

I regret nothing.

Is aliyah a selfish act? In some ways, no doubt, it is.

There’s no doubt it was excruciating for my mother not to have me with her all these years, when she loved and needed me so. It was I who picked up and left Pittsburgh to make aliyah to Israel. I who made the decision, and simply did it—made aliyah—when I was young and stupid, and unaware of what the future held. It was painful for my mother to not be close by my children, her grandchildren, whom she loved so dearly.

I put out photos of my mother in the shiva house, and there was one photo where you could see just the edge of her face, and she was glowing with love for a newborn grandchild she held, and you could see it, that love, though much of the picture was in shadow, including the object of her love, obscured. How it must have hurt her, to be so far away from them, her grandchildren, whom she would have loved to have cuddled and loved and known.

As evening fell on the day my mother died, Z”L, my rabbi’s wife came to my house to help me do kria, to help me tear my shirt just over the heart, as one does for a mother. “This is the price of aliyah,” I said to her, and she knew what I meant: that I hadn’t been there to care for my mother or be with her at the end, that I was observing the rituals from a distance: that I wasn’t there.

It was all a part of the price: the price of aliyah.

She issued no bromides or platitudes, my rabbi’s wife. My rabbi’s wife, who is wise, said something I’ve held onto, during the past two weeks, through my shiva and the days that followed. “Look,” she said in her quiet voice. “That’s Lech Lecha. You did Lech Lecha.”

This was a reference to the Torah portion not long past, Lech Lecha, in which God directs Abram to leave his native land and all that he knew, for a “land that I will show thee.”

Now the LORD said unto Abram: 'Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto the land that I will show thee.’ Genesis 12:1

One can only imagine the depth of Abram’s faith, leaving his father’s house like that with no second thoughts. But I was no Abram. The repercussions of the act were not clear to me at the time of the act: It is not an easy thing to leave a mother, or to leave all that I knew. I gave up one life for another, yet the shock and the pain of it all, came on only over time. It was a gradual sinking in.

And now that I’ve experienced this loss, I think that had I known how painful this all would be—the not being there—the enormity of this thing, I might not have made aliyah, at all.

I don’t think I could have done it, though I regret nothing, “Non, je ne regrette rien.”

It was the right thing to do, to make aliyah, and I’m glad, every day, that I did.

I didn’t know what I was doing at the time. I only longed and yearned to be here in Israel and I made it happen. But there was a cost to aliyah that makes Israel and my living here, all the more dear to my heart. I put my people ahead of myself, and even my own dearest mother, z"l, by moving to Israel. And how can I regret the chance to play a part in this noble project, the building of our national home, making Israel stronger, just by dint of being here?

“Non, je ne regrette rien.”

I wish that things had been different. I wish that my mother hadn’t fit into Pittsburgh the way I wished I fit Israel: like a glove. Because then she might have come here and I could have taken care of her. She would have had the chance to really know her Israeli grandchildren and great grandchildren, growing up under a different sun, proud and free in the Jewish State.

Instead of snatching a few weeks here, a few weeks there, for a birth or a bar mitzvah.

But it was understood: my mother was a Pittsburgher, born and bred, and she would never live anywhere else. It was who she was.

And the truth is, it is who I was, and the last several times I visited there, I found myself touching the trees, and the buildings, the low walls and soaring yellow street lights, and would shed a tear or two as I said goodbye, over and over again. The smells of that place! The sight of that curb, that hill, this tree! A sensory experience that reached down to me, toward some primal place, an essence.

But Israel had called, had always called, that nobler cause from afar, from when I was little. This too, was me. Perhaps the ultimate me, the place I had to grow into. The place I had to earn.

Yes, I was young and stupid when I made aliyah. I hadn’t seen the cost. But no. From afar, from this distance, I regret nothing.

“Non, je ne regrette rien.”

I regret nothing in part because I live in a wonderful community that embraced me in my sorrow, came to sit with me, talk with me, cook for me. The people here know they are my family, since my family cannot be here. And they try hard to fill the breach. They know that I gave up my real family to be here with them in our land. And that makes them my family, in some ways more even than the real family I knew as a girl.

But community cannot replace my mother. It is hard to lose a mother. It hurts: another one more installment on the price of aliyah, which I continue to pay in ways and amounts I never anticipated, back when I was 18, young, and stupid. I think I never could have done it—made aliyah—if I’d known the price, how much it would cost, how much it would hurt.

It’s the kind of knowledge—well, it’s better not to know, to be young and stupid: to dare to just do the thing without knowing what’s ahead, the repercussions of the act. Did Abram know what was ahead, the trials and tribulations? Can anyone really make an informed aliyah, for instance know loss of this sort without having been in it, away from a mother they love, so far away?

Now I can say I’ve been there. I’ve dwelt in the country of my loss and I know the price of aliyah.

And still, I am here.

Today, and hopefully for a long time, I am here in Israel. And I do not and will not regret that.

“Non, je ne regrette rien.”

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.

The Clock Ticks on the Iranian Nuclear Project (Vic Rosenthal)

Vic Rosenthal's weekly column

A recent IAEA report showed that Iran has considerably more low-enriched uranium than was permitted by the JCPOA and is installing advanced centrifuges at Natanz, also in contravention of the agreement, to further increase production. In addition, the uranium is being enriched to a higher degree than before. If they want to, the Iranians could have nuclear weapons sometime in 2021.

Apparently in response to the report, President Trump reportedly asked advisors for options to take action against Iran’s nuclear program. Those options could include anything from increased economic pressure, to cyber-attacks, and even military action. The NY Times said he had been “dissuaded” by advisors from a military strike because it “could easily escalate into a broader conflict in the last weeks of Mr. Trump’s presidency.” But Trump is nothing if not independent.

When Donald Trump took over from Barack Obama, one of the first things he did was reverse Obama’s disastrous Iran policy (I highly recommend this link), which was one of appeasement and acquiescence to extortion, motivated in part by Obama’s desire to see the end of the sovereign Jewish state. I’m convinced that Trump’s “maximum pressure” policy on Iran is the only approach short of war that might have any chance of modifying the behavior of the Iranian regime, which sees its nuclear program as a top priority. While the Iranian regime has responded to the pressure with increased aggressiveness, the US has – or would have, if the policy were to be continued – far more staying power.

The Iranian regime’s strategy has been to keep a low profile. It didn’t retaliate after the American killing of its most valuable terror operative, Qassem Soleimani. It didn’t construct a nuclear weapon. It has contented itself with strengthening its assets in Iraq and Syria, and gradually ramping up its nuclear program without taking any major visible steps. Despite its claims that the US is weak, the regime knows that it would be no match for what is still the world’s greatest military power. And it fears Trump because of his unpredictability.

Unsurprisingly, the major media are full of claims that “maximum pressure has failed.” That is not precisely true: it simply needs more time.

It may not get it. All the evidence seems to point to a Biden Administration returning to the Obama policy in some form, although the particular animus of Obama toward Israel seems to be lacking in Biden himself. The history of negotiations with the regime over its nuclear program shows that it will not give up anything that it is not forced to, and it will demand the relaxation of sanctions as a condition for negotiations. The regime has already indicated that it is happy with the (apparent) result of the American election, and is looking forward to dealing with a Biden Administration.

Whatever happens, Israel will be deeply involved. Part of Iran’s response to an attack, whether by Israel or the US, would be to unleash Hezbollah and Hamas against Israel’s home front. It would also attack US assets in Iraq, and American warships (and maybe commercial shipping) in the Gulf. It would probably hit Saudi Arabia too. These points were certainly made to Trump by his advisors.

While one conclusion could be that it is best not to act, there is another interpretation: rather than a minimalist operation to take out specific nuclear facilities, a larger operation that would also destroy Iran’s overall military capability is indicated. Probably an American attack on Iran would be accompanied by Israeli preemptive strikes against Hezbollah, in order to prevent the damage that would be done to Israel by the massive rocket barrage that would follow a blow against Iran.

PM Netanyahu has been averse to preemptive action against Hezbollah, partly because he wants to avoid the international condemnation that would follow. And because life is unpredictable, he will delay until the last moment; who knows what might happen to make war unnecessary? Finally, he may believe that an ultra-fast response to a Hezbollah attack plus Israel’s anti-missile systems would mitigate the disadvantages of allowing them to strike first.

On the other hand, he is a strong proponent of the Begin Doctrine, which says that Israel will not – must not – allow hostile states in the region to obtain nuclear weapons, especially Iran, which he views as having an antisemitic and genocidal regime. He knows that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, they will serve as an umbrella to protect Hezbollah, greatly multiplying the danger to Israel. I’m convinced he would go along with an American plan.

If Trump wants to achieve his original objective of precluding a nuclear-armed revolutionary Islamic regime in Iran, he has only about two months to act – and his ability to do so will weaken as the lame duck period progresses.

The clock is ticking.

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.

Shannon Nuszen is coming up against Jewish opposition to her work at Beyneynu, which is all about exposing the true nature of Christian missionaries inside Israel. These evangelical Christians are careful not to use overt language in describing their mission to the Jewish Israelis they meet and work with. But Nuszen captures the truth by way of videos created by the Christians for their supporters abroad, in which their mission is stated in explicit terms. And the truth is that these Christians are in Israel for the express purpose of converting Jewish Israelis to Christianity.

Why would any Jew not want this truth exposed? It’s not a mystery: money talks, nobody walks. Evangelical Christians give a lot of money to Israel, and they’re very nice people. No one wants to believe they have any underlying, hidden purpose in being here. The Jews don’t want to believe these Christians are anything other than what they purport to be: nice people who support the Jews and the Jewish State.

Jews are tired of being hated. When someone shows them a bit of love, they drink it up. They are like Sally Fields at the Oscars gushing, “You like me! You really like me!”

via GIPHY

They need to believe these Christians don’t have an ulterior motive. They need it for their self-esteem. And of course, there’s the money. Lots and lots of it. And a lot of these Christians are working the vineyards of Samaria, for free. Which is as good as financial support, right?

So we have a situation where Shannon Nuszen, through her organization, Beyneynu, is distributing videos to Jewish journalists in which Christians expose their true purpose on camera. And Jews are going around behind the scenes and sometimes, shamelessly, right in front of Nuszen, casting aspersions on her work.

These Jews tell the journalists and anyone else who will listen that Shannon is disturbed, that because of her past, she has a vendetta—that these Christians are REALLY NICE PEOPLE who have told them, the Jews, that converting the Jews is the furthest thing from their sweet little innocent minds. These Christians LOVE the Jews, say the Jews, and only want to help and support them.

Would that all that were true. But it’s not. And Shannon is only curating words said by these very same Christians—words which clearly have no other context—that is, if one is being honest about this stuff. The Christians are in Israel for one sole purpose. They want to bring the Jews to Jesus.

They’ll swear up and down it isn’t so. But the videos say otherwise, if you can get past all the Jews out to destroy the messenger, Shannon. To them I say, “Methinks thou dost protest too much.”

The Jews know on which side their bread is buttered. And it’s actually a really shameful thing to witness how they grovel to those trying to convert them while speaking out against their own: Shannon. But you know what? Let’s give Shannon a chance to explain it all in her own words. And then you can decide whom to believe: Shannon, or the Jewish naysayers who benefit from these Christians and work behind the scenes to deride their fellow Jew:

Varda Epstein: Can you tell us a bit about your background?

Shannon Nuszen: I was born and raised in Evangelical Christianity. My father was a minister, and for many years I was a missionary myself with a tremendous love for Israel and a focus on the Jewish people.

In 2005 I visited Israel for the first time and returned home more determined than ever to prove to myself and every Jew I knew that Jesus was indeed the messiah prophesied in the bible.

However, homing in on that one issue and fully immersing myself in learning about the fulfillment (or lack thereof) of these prophecies did not result in any reaffirming of my faith, or in me perfecting my arguments for bringing Jews to Jesus. The opposite happened, and through learning the Jewish perspective, it became clear that everything I knew and believed in was false.

Long story short, I ended up converting to Judaism and have been living as an Orthodox Jew ever since. I now live in Israel.

Varda Epstein: Why did you decide to focus on exposing and fighting missionaries in Israel? Is this really a significant presence or threat to the Jews of Israel?

Shannon Nuszen: I was on the other side. I was one of those missionaries. I understand better than most how aggressive and unyielding these missionaries are. Most Jewish people, though they may have encountered these missionaries, really do not understand the full scope and danger they present to our people. We are not just dealing with Christians trying to convert Jews. It’s worse than that and more insidious because they are playing word games.

The missionaries misappropriate Jewish symbols, icons, and traditions in order to evangelize the Jews. They are portraying Christianity in a Jewish way to get Jews to believe in Jesus. I know this because I was one of those people. As a result, I feel a heavy responsibility, almost a burden, to alert the Jewish community to the problem that confronts them.

It is shocking. It is a stage four cancer, and there is no stage five. These missionaries have managed to infiltrate and become a part of the highest echelons of the Israeli government and its leadership. Because of their financial and political support for Israel these evangelicals have managed to blind Israelis to the inherent dangers of their mission. Evangelical support comes at an extremely high price, and I understand why Israeli leaders and many ordinary Israelis and Israeli businessmen turn the other way. We have many enemies, and therefore we are willing to work with anyone, even when it comes at a very dangerous price.

Varda Epstein: Would you tell us about some of the people and organizations you’ve worked with on the issue of missionaries in Israel?

Shannon Nuszen: In my quest to research and supply information about specific missionary groups that are active in Israel, I have worked with and continue to work with every organization I know of in this field. In an official capacity I began this work 13 years ago in Houston, countering local missionaries in a grassroots effort with Rabbi Stuart Federow. During this time, I also worked for Outreach Judaism for a span of a few years. Most of my work in this field, however, has been with Jewish Israel, as their North American liaison.

Varda Epstein: Tell us about Beyneynu. Why did you decide to found this organization and what is its purpose?

Shannon Nuszen: Beyneynu is a nonprofit organization that monitors missionary activity in Israel and works with government and community leaders to create proper boundaries in their partnerships with faith-based organizations.

Are we against Christian support for Israel? No! We simply draw the line at missionary efforts, and do not believe Jewish organizations should be forming alliances or partnerships with those who have as their agenda the desire to bring Jews to faith in Jesus.

I do not consider myself a “counter missionary,” and Beyneynu is not another counter missionary organization. Our focus is on alerting the Jewish community to missionary efforts, and to help the Israeli leadership to identify those who threaten the Jewish character of the State of Israel.

Varda Epstein: You’ve released some shocking videos of missionaries in Israel and abroad. How are these videos created?

Shannon Nuszen: These videos are created the same way news publications produce videos. They scour hours of videos and take the most germane elements they find and broadcast them to the public. This is critical to this effort.

Most videos put out by the missionaries are over an hour long. The Jewish community needs to know about the elements in these videos that specifically speak about their intentions in regard to the Jewish people of Israel.

It’s important to understand that if these missionary groups—based as they are inside of Israel—were self-sustaining, they wouldn’t take the risk of discussing these topics in videos, but all their financial support comes from abroad, from outside of Israel. The videos are created precisely for this audience: evangelical Christians who live beyond the borders of Israel. Virtually nothing comes from native Israeli missionaries, therefore they must convey to evangelical Christians abroad the work that they are doing, and that is “winning Jewish souls for Yeshua.”

These people all, without exception, use language that serves as dog whistles for their followers. None of them would ever come straight out and use the term “convert Jews to Christianity” to describe their mission. That type of language is no longer used among the Jews because Jewish people translate “convert to Christianity” as losing their Jewish identity (and they’re right).

This was clear in another video Beyneynu released not long ago where the CEO of God TV, Ward Simpson, clearly stated “We don’t want Jews to convert to Christianity, we simply want them to accept Jesus as their messiah.”

Varda Epstein: There have been some accusations that you are selectively editing these videos to show something that isn’t really there. They say you have a vendetta, because you were one of them, and have now converted to Judaism. What would you say to your accusers?

Shannon Nuszen: The accusers are not bystanders. They are the same activists who repeatedly carry water for these evangelical Christian groups by repeating their talking points, because they work with them and depend on them for their financial support. They have a vested interest in protecting these missionaries.

The real question for these accusers (or perhaps “handlers” is a better word) is: Do these Christians believe it is their obligation to carry out “The Great Commission?” Matthew 28:19 “. . . to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

In our latest video, these Christians are clearly speaking of this obligation to their followers, if not in so many words. If the naysayers cannot answer to the charge or prove that it’s not the case, then the only tactic left for them is to attack the messenger: me.

As far as having a vendetta, I would say the opposite is true. Just as much as I feel it is an obligation to warn fellow Jews of this danger, I would love to be able to demonstrate to Christians the pain their actions inflict on the Jewish people in order to foster some understanding.

Varda Epstein: Why are so many Jews against your work, and speaking out against this work and even you, personally? What do they stand to gain by allying with Christians, and working against you, a fellow Jew?

Shannon Nuszen: I do not think even our most fierce opposition opposes the goal of our work. This is the one issue that Jews across the spectrum agree on. The entire Jewish world is against efforts to convert Jews. They just refuse to believe that the Christians who give them financial support, and who support their programs, could possibly have any missionary agenda. It becomes for them a very personal issue.

The information we present, however, is not our opinion. We are not quoting out of context or interpreting what these Christians are saying. Our only aim is to inform.

Varda Epstein: Is there anything else you would like to say to your accusers?

Shannon Nuszen: I try not to focus on the negative attention or answer those who are aligning themselves with missionaries. They have their reasons for what they do, and they will have to answer for that. My focus is on the effect of these missionaries on Jewish communities worldwide.

Varda Epstein: Can you give us some examples of things these missionaries have said for which the context is undeniable, and cannot possibly be explained away by selective editing?

Shannon Nuszen: The undeniable issue that cannot be disputed is “The Great Commission,” which you’ll find being preached in each of the videos we have curated, and is common to all missionaries. “The Great Commission” is the commandment given by Jesus himself “. . . to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Those who teach this concept are fully committed to living by this commandment and everything they say and do is by way of fulfilling this obligation.

The methods and language used to explain this in ways that won’t offend Jews are many, but the bottom line is that they do not believe they are exempt from this commandment or that they should refuse to participate in its fulfillment. They see this commandment, “The Great Commission,” as their primary goal, and crucial factor in the “restoration” (you’ll hear them say that word a lot) process that in their belief, serves as preparation for the second coming of Jesus.

Varda Epstein: Where are you and Beyneynu going with this work? What can we expect to see coming up next?

Shannon Nuszen: Beyneynu’s efforts are primarily behind the scenes working with government and Jewish leadership to understand the dangers of partnering with missionaries. With the tremendous outpouring of love and support coming from the Christian world, it is important that we understand who we can and cannot trust.

Sometimes our efforts include informing the public of problematic events or relationships that require their help to demand action. This was the case with God TV. Even though they had already secured a contract with the cable provider, and had been licensed by the Israeli government to broadcast this programming, it was public outcry that brought about the complete reversal of this state of affairs and caught the attention of the world.

That is the message that every organization looking to partner with us should understand. We appreciate the support for Israel, but we must draw the line when it comes to missionary activity.

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.

Plan Z (Vic Rosenthal)

Vic Rosenthal's weekly column

In the Fall of 2012, Bibi Netanyahu and then Minister of Defense Ehud Barak had a plan to destroy Iran’s capability to make nuclear weapons. The plan was not executed because of opposition from the Cabinet, the Israeli security establishment, and of course the Obama Administration, which was facing an election and secretly negotiating with Iran toward what would become the JCPOA.

The “nuclear deal” that was ultimately signed in 2015 provided Iran with cash for its Hezbollah terrorists and its expansion into Iraq and Syria, as well as fully legitimizing Iran’s nuclear project in 10-15 years. Even before then, the JCPOA lacked adequate safeguards to prevent cheating, and Iran took advantage of the loopholes to pursue development of uranium and plutonium bombs.

The Obama Administration was following a playbook developed – in part by advisor Ben Rhodes – in the 2006 Iraq Study Report, which intended to extricate the US from Iraq and bring about overall stability in the region by appeasing and empowering Iran and Syria (there was still an independent Syria then) at Israel’s expense. It seemed to me then, and still does today, that the negative consequences for Israel from the plan were not simply an unfortunate byproduct of it, but rather a desired outcome.

President Trump took the opposite tack, choosing to weaken Iran and empower America’s traditional allies in the region, Israel and the Sunni Arab states. He took the US out of the JCPOA, re-imposed sanctions on Iran, recognized Israel’s sovereignty in the Golan and Jerusalem (the 2006 plan envisioned Israel transferring the Golan to Syria), and encouraged an alliance between Israel and the Sunni Arab states.

If Trump’s policy to build up a strong countervailing power while weakening and isolating Iran would continue, then it might be possible to force Iran to give up its nuclear dreams without military action. But if, as seems likely, Joe Biden takes office as President of the US on 20 January 2021, then everything may change.

The following is sheer fantasy. I don’t know what the PM of Israel is thinking, I am not acquainted with anyone in the Trump Administration, the Biden team, or Israel’s defense establishment, and I have no insider knowledge about anything.

By Chanukah 5781 [10 December 2020], it became clear to the Prime Minister of Israel that President-elect Biden, although personally not particularly anti-Israel, was assembling a team heavy with individuals that were less than sympathetic to our point of view, like Susan Rice, Jake Sullivan, and Daniel Benaim. Biden had also made appointments that were concessions to the extreme left wing of the Democratic party that had almost defeated him in the race for the nomination. Intelligence reports showed a continuous flow of communications between Biden and the headquarters of the group led by Barack Obama, located only about 3 km. from the White House.

The PM of Israel was worried. Biden had already announced his intention to re-engage with Iran, which would probably mean a loosening of sanctions. The PM knew that the Iranians had recently made significant progress toward the development of a nuclear arsenal. He had no confidence that the Biden Administration would have the will to stop them; he could imagine a repeat of the JCPOA process, in which Iran made a fool of US negotiators.

Israel would have to stop Iran, or nobody would.

The PM knew that during the Obama Administration the Americans considered Israel a prime target for intelligence-gathering. The Americans had been operating a radar installation in Israel since 2008 that could spot air activity anywhere in the country, even small drones. Electronic communications in Israel’s defense headquarters, the Kiriya in Tel Aviv, have been tapped for some time. It would be very hard to take almost any kind of military action against Iran without the Americans finding out.

The PM decided that if Israel were to take action, it would have to be before 20 January, when Biden would be inaugurated. Indeed, considering the precedent of the incoming Obama team which aborted the ground invasion of Gaza in January 2009, it would have to be before Biden’s people got themselves organized. Otherwise, he was sure the Americans would act, diplomatically or even kinetically, to prevent Israel from striking the Iranian nuclear program.

Such an operation would not be simple or easy. The Iranian assets that would need to be destroyed are buried deeply underground and defended by surface-to-air missile batteries. The moment Israel attacked, the Iranians would unleash Hezbollah in Lebanon, which had some 130,000 short range rockets and longer range missiles, some with precision guidance. They are fitted on mobile launchers and ensconced in the homes of civilians. Hezbollah has plans to invade across the northern border, and kill Israelis and take hostages.

But the IDF has been preparing for this for some time. There is a plan called tochnit zayin [Plan Z]. The Prime Minister convened his mini-security cabinet, a subset of a subset of the cabinet, including the Minister of Defense and several others, together with the IDF Chief of Staff and a few key officers, including the Air Force and Navy commanders. The meeting took all of 15 minutes. The clock began to tick on tochnit zayin.

The IDF announced that it would carry out a defensive exercise on our northern border. It was not a massive exercise, and only a small number of reserve units were called up. Several days later an Israeli submarine moved into position in the Persian Gulf (or, if you prefer, the Arabian Gulf). At 0200 on the 4^th day of Hanukah, the submarine fired a missile almost straight up. The missile contained a small nuclear bomb designed to maximize the production of gamma rays, and it exploded high in the stratosphere at an altitude of about 100 km. A person on the ground might see a small dot of light if he knew where to look; he would not be injured or even feel anything.

Most of the gamma radiation from the explosion was absorbed by the air. The gamma rays ripped electrons from atoms in the air, and the electrons spun downward; their motion in the Earth’s magnetic field produced a powerful pulse of electromagnetic radiation, lasting only one millionth of a second but containing an enormous amount of energy. Much of Iran was blanketed by this pulse. Electrical conductors that it passed over had high voltages induced in them, and semiconductor devices, especially those connected to power lines or antennas, were reduced to inert lumps of silicon. Telephone and cellular networks, broadcasting equipment, internet routers, the power grid, and countless other things became inoperative. Even emergency generators, with their solid-state controls, didn’t start.

When Israeli aircraft arrived to bomb the nuclear sites with multiple bunker-busters, Iranian radar was dark. When eyewitnesses tried to alert their commanders, they were unable to do so. When they finally drove to Teheran to inform their leaders (most vehicles were still operative, especially older ones), their leaders could not communicate with each other, or, importantly, with Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Lebanon is too close to Israel to receive the same treatment, but units of Israeli special forces penetrated its borders and destroyed communications infrastructure and cut cables at key points. A bombing campaign followed, aimed primarily at the nervous system of the country – the power grid and communications systems. In 2006, the IDF was surprised by its inability to intercept and interrupt communications over Hezbollah’s fiber optic network. Since then, it’s been documented and mapped. It was quickly destroyed. Since 2006 the IDF has collected good intelligence about Hezbollah’s installations, including the hiding places of mobile rocket launchers and weapons depots. Many of them were destroyed almost immediately.

The Hezbollah leadership was targeted; unlike in 2006, the IDF knew where they were and was able to kill them. Without a head and a nervous system, and without support from Iran, Hezbollah was demoralized, and was unable to sustain a massive rocket attack. There was some damage to Israel’s home front, but Iron Dome and Arrow antimissile systems significantly reduced it.

All this happened in a couple of days. By the time Hanukah was over, the Lebanese government – less Hezbollah – was suing for peace. In Iran, economic paralysis had begun to set in.

The US and the Russians, who had been informed only an hour before the operation, offered to help Iran and Lebanon to rebuild, as did Israel and the Gulf states – on condition that the mullahs in Iran and what was left of Hezbollah in Lebanon would have no role in the government. They accepted.

By the time Joe Biden became president, he faced a whole new Middle East.

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.

Biden and the Taylor Force Act (Michael Lumish)

People are going to say that I am a broken record. They will say that almost nobody really cares about the Taylor Force Act. They will argue that it is ridiculous to think that a Biden administration will finance the murder of Jews in Israel, despite "pay-for-slay" or the "Martyrs Fund."

Of course, the great majority of people who make such claims will not have the slightest idea who Taylor Force was or what the Taylor Force Act is.

The Taylor Force Act (H.R. 1164) was passed by the 115th Congress. It was signed into law by the House of Representatives on December 5, 2017, and the US Senate on March 23, 2018.

Section 4, subsection A tells us that US tax dollars may go to the Palestinian Authority on condition that the PA takes "credible steps to end acts of violence against Israeli citizens and United States citizens that are perpetrated or materially assisted by individuals under their jurisdictional control, such as the March 2016 attack that killed former United States Army officer Taylor Force, a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

What this means is that the US government is prohibited from handing over US cash dollars to the PA so long as it maintains the "Martyrs Fund." That is, so long as they insist upon paying off the murderers and attackers of random Jews or Americans in the streets of Israel, Mahmoud Abbas or the PA or the PLO will not receive a dime from the American taxpayer.

One would need to be an ethical homunculus to think that Americans have an obligation to pay-off the murderers of our brothers and sisters in Israel.

With Donald Trump, there was no question that we would not be forced to pay for the murder of Taylor Force, pictured below. He was a 29-year-old Army vet who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan before he was murdered, and his wife severely injured, in a PA-inspired slashing spree in the streets of Jaffa on March 9, 2016.

This puts a Joe Biden presidency in a very tough spot because Biden promises that he will give US tax dollars to the PA even as the PA vows to maintain the "Martyrs Fund."

Biden also claims that he will abide by the Taylor Force Act. That is good. That is what we need clarification on because a President Joe Biden simply cannot have it both ways.

He cannot keep his promise to Mahmoud Abbas if Abbas, as he swears to, maintains the Martyrs Fund.

And he cannot keep his promise to American Jews, and Americans, more generally, if he allows such payments to go through and thereby maintaining "pay-for-slay."

Thus, Biden is a cypher on this question. It remains a mystery because no one discusses it and he never gets asked about it.

But the reason that it is not discussed is because we, ourselves, are not discussing the question and we need to. This is not a secondary, minor issue. This is a question around whether or not the American taxpayer will be forced to finance the murder of Jews and Americans in Israel.

I have asked Hen Mazzig and Seth J. Frantzman, both of whom are Biden supporters, what they think of the "Taylor Force Question" and neither has so much as acknowledged it, from what I can tell.

On his website, Mazzig describes himself as an "Israeli writer, international speaker, social media activist and advocate." Frantzman tells us on his Facebook page that he is a "journalist, writer, photographer, PhD." We need pro-Jewish and pro-Israel supporters of Biden, such as these two guys, to ask the hard questions

Most importantly, Joe Biden needs to clarify his contradictory stance on the issue because I, for one, despise the idea that an American political party will force me to pay for the murder of my fellow Jews and Americans.

{Not my nickel, damn you.}

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.

The Day After Election Day (Vic Rosenthal)

Vic Rosenthal's weekly column

It’s a rainy Wednesday morning in Rehovot, and the US election is undecided.

I have made my preference for Donald Trump clear. I understand the reasons that many Americans oppose him, but they are focusing on the media-amplified and distorted trees and ignoring the forest that is the worldwide struggle between competing hegemonies: the West (which mostly means the US today, when much of Europe is in decline), Islam, and China.

Yes, despite his sometimes ignorant pronouncements about scientific issues that he doesn’t understand, despite everything they don’t like about his personality, and even despite his undeniable dishonesty (not that his opponents are better in this respect), Trump is on the right side in the game that will determine how history will look for the next century or so.

What will be important in the very near future will be to stand against the Iranian attempt to establish a Shiite caliphate across the Middle East, against the further expansion of Chinese influence in East Asia and its extension into the rest of the world, against the Islamization of the US, and against the creation of a new Ottoman Empire. Trump has made his positions clear on the first three, although the jury is still out with respect to the last.

The pronouncements made by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, as well as their choice of advisors, have indicated that they would return to the Mideast policy of the Obama Administration, including its tilt toward Iran, away from Israel and the Sunni Arab states. This would weaken the developing Israel-Sunni alliance, which represents the best hope for stability in the region.

Trump would be more likely to oppose immigration of unassimilable Muslims to the US, the phenomenon that has brought Western Europe to its knees. His determination to control America’s borders is laudable.

I devoutly hope the decision will be quick and unambiguous, but ultimately someone will win this election. So here is my advice to Americans about the aftermath:

Understand that there is a Constitution and there was an election. There will be a winner and a loser. Understand that your political opponents aren’t monsters. Mostly they are human beings who see things differently.

If Trump wins, deal with it. Don’t style yourselves “the resistance” and don’t try to remove him with extra-democratic measures. I would hope, but can’t imagine, that the mainstream media would stop the exaggerated attacks on him, the false accusations of racism, fascism, even antisemitism, and the repetition of outright lies like the “fine people” hoax. Unfortunately there is a real possibility of civil disturbances if Trump wins and widespread “Trump Derangement Syndrome” prevails.

If Biden wins – well, if Biden wins, I and others will continue our efforts to politely explain why the Obama-style foreign policy that he will doubtless adopt is dangerous to peace and liberty throughout the world. We will argue that America has real enemies that should be confronted and not appeased. Please listen.

There are those who think that red or blue states and regions should consider secession from the US if the wrong side wins. This is a terrible idea, which could only increase extremism on both sides, and weaken the nation in the face of its external enemies. In the worst case it could lead to civil war.

American Jews will be facing a difficult situation in the future, especially if Biden wins. Expressions of Jew-hatred have recently been increasing, from “traditional” antisemites like neo-Nazis, from Farrakhanists and Black Hebrews, from Muslim antisemites, and from the misozionists of the intersectional Left, whose hatred of Israel seamlessly flows into hatred of individual Jews. Biden and the Democrats seem to recognize only the traditional types, rendering invisible the black, Muslim, and extreme leftist Jew-haters (who vote Democratic). Moving closer to the Left is not a good survival strategy for Jews, who will find little sympathy there, no matter how loudly they curse Israel.

It’s interesting that while most British Jews dropped Labour like a hot potato thanks to Jeremy Corbyn, American Jews have stuck with the Democratic party despite the antisemitism of some of its members, and the decision by the leadership to pretend it doesn’t exist. The so-called squad of four BDS-supporting members of Congress have all been re-elected, and another BDS proponent, Cori Bush of Missouri, has joined them.

Trump – contrary to a determined misinformation campaign by his opponents – is not sympathetic to “right-wing” antisemitism, even if he doesn’t denounce it loudly and often enough to satisfy Democrats. And he has certainly demonstrated his pro-Israel credentials. A Trump win would be better for American Jews, despite what they think.

Just one more observation, this one for Israelis, including our General Staff:

With a Biden administration, Israel can expect that any military campaign – be it against Hezbollah, Hamas, or Iranian nuclear installations – will be much more difficult. The US, under the Obama administration, was quick to intervene diplomatically to pressure Israel to accept disadvantageous cease-fires, or even to prevent Israel from taking action at all. It is a reasonable assumption that Biden’s policy would be similar, especially in the case of Iran, with whom he wants to deal.

If Biden wins, the rational thing for Israel to do would be to take out the Iranian nuclear capability before it’s too late.

Capiche?

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.

It happens every election: celebrities—and just generally spoiled people (cough cough)—swear that if their candidate doesn’t win, they’re leaving. But author Lauren Ariel Hoffman decided to write about leaving America from a Jewish perspective. Hoffman describes her own Orange Man trauma and exit plan, comparing it all to an escape from the Nazis. She then quotes a few Jewish friends on their own plans for fleeing the country. The odd thing is, not one of them considers Israel as a viable option for relocation, and in fact, Israel is not mentioned in this article at all.

Hoffman’s article was featured in Alma, which—no surprise—also includes articles on such subjects as, “Why Does My Interfaith Relationship Disqualify Me From Rabbinical School?” and “Now’s the Perfect Time to Teach Your Non-Jewish Partner All About Judaism." So perhaps it's not quite the right place to discover love and loyalty for the one Jewish State. You'd think, nonetheless, that in an article about fleeing the country, a Yid might consider Israel.

Never heard of Lauren Ariel Hoffman and her epigenetic intergenerational trauma? Neither had I, but her byline was linked to this handy dandy author’s blurb:

Lauren Ariel Hoffman (she/her) is a photojournalist from Royersford, Pennsylvania. Her coverage includes stories relating to chronic illness, medical injustice, and human interest.

Well there you have it. Perhaps Israel, as a subject for liberal Jews, is somewhat beyond human interest.

But back to the article: Hoffman, it is clear, wants to celebrate her distress in a Jewish way. But the closest thing she can get to kosher-style anguish is by referencing the Holocaust and her family roots in the Ukraine:

It is not 1939, and yet the police are still slaughtering unarmed Black men and women in the name of “justice,” still separating refugee families at the border and putting their children in cages, still performing medical experiments on female-bodied prisoners.

Sound familiar?

My recurring nightmare of Nazis breaking into my house and capturing me is becoming more tangible, but now it’s informed and comprehensive and absolutely terrifying. And while I’m a fan of Quentin Tarantino’s Inglorious Basterds, I don’t think I’ll be knocking Nazi skulls anytime soon. I’m more prepared to find myself in a police-state wherein me and my loved one’s basic liberties will be stripped and some of our lives taken, along with members of every other oppressed group in America.

I am not going to back down from this fight, mainly because I have nowhere else to go — as a descendant of Ukrainian Jews, my ancestor’s recent homeland does not exist anymore.

Which is odd, because last I looked, the Ukraine still exists. Or so Google says:

Ukraine is a large country in Eastern Europe known for its Orthodox churches, Black Sea coastline and forested mountains. Its capital, Kiev, features the gold-domed St. Sophia's Cathedral, with 11th-century mosaics and frescoes. Overlooking the Dnieper River is the Kiev Pechersk Lavra monastery complex, a Christian pilgrimage site housing Scythian tomb relics and catacombs containing mummified Orthodox monks.

But I don’t blame Lauren for not wanting to go back to the Ukraine. I wouldn’t want to go back there, either. It was bad enough the first time.

Still, to say she has nowhere else to go—why not go back to the place her family came from in the first place—before they were expelled and forced to wander? Why not go back to Israel, where today there is a flourishing Jewish State? But no, it’s not on Hoffman's radar. Nor was it apparently on the radar of her Sephardic friend Rebecca Brier:

Rebecca Brier, 37, who asked to use an alias, feels differently. She and her husband are in the process of getting Portuguese citizenship for themselves and their two young children.

“If there’s one thing I’ve learned from my family, it’s that it’s okay to be the first one to go,” she said. “It’s harder with kids. We speak Spanish, but Spanish is not Portuguese.”

Brier said she is mainly torn between leaving her family behind in the Bronx or figuring out how to get them all to Portugal.

“We’ve set up our lives around our support system, our family. If we left, would we be that anchor again? At some point, flight becomes easier, because if I fly, at least I still have my family.”

On the other hand, if she would only make Aliyah to Israel, the Briers would have new family everywhere they turned. As new immigrants they would be embraced and surrounded by fellow Jews, living proud and free in their indigenous territory. But no, Brier instead prefers to return to the land of the Inquisition, where Jews were tortured for their beliefs, forced to go underground with their observance, and slaughtered if they refused to convert. Somehow this is, to Brier, infinitely preferable to moving to the Jewish State.

“But not everyone has the luxury of leaving,” continues Hoffman:

Aviva Davis, 21, is a biracial Jew whose ancestry is more closely linked to slavery than the Holocaust. They feel it is a luxury that white Jews are able to consider leaving at all.

“I would love to have an escape plan, but it’s not a viable option for me,” they said. “Where would I go? My ancestors were carted over here as slaves — white Jews can trace citizenship back to their ancestors. It’s very frustrating for me to feel like I have nowhere to go.”

Leaving aside the odd use of the pronoun "they," um. Where would "they" go? To ISRAEL. Where Jews of every color of the rainbow live full, satisfying, Jewish lives.

But no. These people are stuck in a time warp of pogroms, auto-da-fé, and slavery:

As Brier said, “Do we become Jews lighting candles in the closet in Spain? Or do we flee to the Ottoman Empire? I’m not sure who did it right. But the trauma is still there.”

As I write this piece, no one knows who will win the 2020 presidential election. But one thing I know for sure: Israeli Jews did it right. They left the trauma and the ghettos behind to build a beautiful, shining new world, where anything is possible, and dreams can come true.

H/T Ardie Geldman

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.