Showing posts with label Varda Opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Varda Opinion. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 18, 2024

                             


Film review and interview with filmmaker Pierre Rehov

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

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

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

Filmmaker Pierre Rehov

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where children once played. The aftermath of October 7 

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

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

A burned out shell of a home, post October 7

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terrorists paragliding into Israel on October 7.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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



Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 



Wednesday, December 11, 2024




UPDATE: In response to the outcry, the Vatican has removed the offending nativity scene. See: Vatican removes nativity display featuring baby Jesus lying on keffiyeh. I will leave it up to the reader to decide if the removal of the display remedies the fact that the pope abused his own religion in service of antisemitic propaganda in the first place. (Hat tip to Ian.)

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

Trust me on this, the Baby Jesus was not wrapped in a keffiyeh at birth, and not at any other time either. Even Arabs wore turbans—not keffiyehs—until at least the early 18th century. And Jesus was not an Arab but a Jew.


Why, then, is there a nativity scene in St. Peter’s Square featuring a wooden Baby Jesus wrapped in a keffiyeh? 

One might put the anachronistic keffiyeh “swaddling” of the Baby Jesus down to artistic license. But “Nativity of Bethlehem 2024” by Bethlehem artists Johny Andonia and Faten Nastas Mitwasi, has nothing to do with art. The crèche is merely antisemitic propaganda dressed up fancy in olive wood, mother-of-pearl, stone, ceramic, glass, felt, and fabric.

At the unveiling of this “artwork,” the pope said its presence is meant to remind us of those who “suffer the tragedy of war in the Holy Land." But we know who he means. The pope means that ARABS are suffering, because, oh look! Here is Baby Jesus in a keffiyeh.


This is, after all, the same pope who suggested a global effort be made to determine whether Israel is guilty of committing genocide in Gaza—the same pope who called Israel’s actions in Lebanon as going “beyond morality.” The same Pope Francis who never once mentioned Hamas by name.

This all calls to mind a boring dinner I attended last week during which a fellow diner expounded at length in an annoying way as if only he were knowledgeable enough to weigh in on that particular topic. I made my excuses, and as I walked away, a word came to mind, pontificate. That’s what the annoying fellow diner had been doing. Pontificating.

An interesting word, I thought, no doubt derived from the word pontiff. The dictionary confirmed this for me, adding that the word comes from the Latin pontifex, or high priest. I gasped a little when I read that, though I’d long understood the significance of the ornate papal garments. It still felt like a terrible affront—a “borrowing” of a core concept in Judaism in service of an ideology proscribed by the Torah. 

The artwork titled “Nativity of Bethlehem 2024” represents, in a similar vein, a form of appropriation—an appropriation of Jesus to support a false narrative that casts him not as a Jew, but as an Arab. The viewer is presented with a distorted perspective, hearing nothing about the actual crucifixions of Jews on October 7 or the ongoing plight of hostages. There’s no mention of how many lives in Gaza could have been spared had the hostages been released, nor is there a single word about Hamas. All of this is deliberately kept from public scrutiny, seemingly with the blessing of the pope. 



Buy EoZ's books  on Amazon!

"He's an Anti-Zionist Too!" cartoon book (December 2024)

PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism (February 2022)

   
 

 

Wednesday, December 04, 2024

 

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

With the death of American hostage Omer Neutra now confirmed, that leaves at most three American hostages in Gaza left alive. All told, there are seven American hostages still held in Gaza; four of them, including Neutra, are dead, their families denied even the right to bury their dead and process their grief. Does it matter that come January 20th a new, tough-talking sheriff in the form of President Elect Donald J. Trump is coming to town?

It does and it doesn’t. The fact that someone in Israel’s corner is moving into the Oval Office doesn’t change the fact that the American hostages were betrayed by the most powerful nation on earth: America. It was always a possibility because that’s the way it goes with American Jews. American administrations come and go, some of them more and some of them less pro-Israel. Some of them more and some of them less antisemitic.

Joe Biden, or whoever operates under his guise, doesn’t care about some Jews who left America voluntarily to live in a state that is nothing but a pain in the neck to Joe. A thorn in his side. (Those pesky Jews.)

President Trump will be far better, as was proven on Monday afternoon following the news of IDF confirmation of Neutra’s death on October 7. Taking to Truth Social, President Trump issued a firm threat to Hamas:

Everybody is talking about the hostages who are being held so violently, inhumanely, and against the will of the entire World, in the Middle East - But it’s all talk and no action! Please let this TRUTH serve to represent that if the hostages are not released prior to January 20, 2025, the date that I proudly assume Office as President of the United States, there will be ALL HELL TO PAY in the Middle East, and for those in charge who perpetrated these atrocities against Humanity. Those responsible will be hit harder than anybody has been hit in the long and storied History of the United States of America. RELEASE THE HOSTAGES NOW!

Netanyahu offered Israel’s heartfelt thanks to President Trump for this strong show of support. Trump’s stern warning was exactly what was needed but had been sorely lacking every day for the past 424 days. The Biden administration, however, was focused only on restraining Israel while appeasing Iran. Biden and his handlers just didn’t care about a handful of American Jews who had chosen to leave the Land of Opportunity for a country that everyone hates.

The betrayal by America of its hostages in Gaza is real, and it should be food for thought for American Jews who have not yet been bit by the Aliyah “bug.” It’s a fact: American Jews cannot count on their government to protect them or help them in their time of need. The Biden Administration proves the point. Some presidents may indeed help American Jews when they are in trouble, but others won’t, and it won’t matter if said American Jews are held in Gaza, slashed in the face on a street in Brooklyn, or harassed and violently abused on an American university campus. Some administrations won’t care enough to come down hard enough on the perpetrators to put the fear of God into them.

Jews with American citizenship are, in the end, still less worthy of protection than other Americans. Witness the Biden administration’s lack of will to do much of anything at all for American citizens being held and brutalized in Gaza because they are Jews. Trump coming into office will change this dynamic for a while, and we can hope it will last a good long time, but for the sake of self-preservation, American Jews would be well advised to accept that America is not a place they can count on. When push comes to shove, American Jews may or may not receive the help they deserve at the time it is needed most.



Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 



Wednesday, November 27, 2024


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

Remember Ann Coulter? Thought so. You remember her, but when you hear the name perhaps you think, “Oh, yeah. I used to really like her. She was very popular.”

Then maybe you scratch your head, squint your eyes, and think back, “Didn’t she say something like “Jews need to be perfected?”

In fact, that is exactly what Ann Coulter said in 2007 to CNN’s Donny Deutsch, who clearly identified himself as Jewish during the course of their conversation on “The Big Idea.” Coulter said, just as clearly, that all Jews should be Christian and that Christians are “perfected Jews.”

Here’s the transcript in full:

DEUTSCH: Let me ask you a question. We're going to get off strengths and weakness for a second. If you had your way, and all of your - forget that any of them -

COULTER: I like this.

DEUTSCH: - are calculated marketing teases, and your dreams, which are genuine, came true having to do with immigration, having to do with women's - with abortion - what would this country look like?

COULTER: UMMMMM (pause) ... It would look like New York City during the Republican National Convention. In fact, that's what I think heaven is going to look like.

DEUTSCH: And what did that look like?

COULTER: Happy, joyful Republicans in the greatest city in the world…

Break

COULTER: Well, OK, take the Republican National Convention. People were happy. They're Christian. They're tolerant. They defend America, they -

DEUTSCH: Christian - so we should be Christian? It would be better if we were all Christian?

COULTER: Yes.

DEUTSCH: We should all be Christian?

COULTER: Yes. Would you like to come to church with me, Donny?

DEUTSCH: So I should not be a Jew, I should be a Christian, and this would be a better place?

COULTER: Well, you could be a practicing Jew, but you're not.
DEUTSCH: I actually am…

Break

DEUTSCH: That isn't what I said, but you said I should not - we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians, then, or -

COULTER: Yeah.

DEUTSCH: Really?

COULTER: Well, it's a lot easier. It's kind of a fast track.

DEUTSCH: Really?

COULTER: Yeah. You have to obey.

DEUTSCH: You can't possibly believe that.

COULTER: Yes….

Break

COULTER: No, we think - we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say.
DEUTSCH: Wow, you didn't really say that, did you?

COULTER: Yes. That is what Christianity is. We believe the Old Testament, but ours is more like Federal Express. You have to obey laws. We know we're all sinners -

DEUTSCH: In my old days, I would have argued - when you say something absurd like that, there's no -

COULTER: What's absurd?

DEUTSCH: Jews are going to be perfected. I'm going to go off and try to perfect myself -

COULTER: Well, that's what the New Testament says.

After a commercial break, the conversation continued.

DEUTSCH: Welcome back to "The Big Idea." During the break, Ann said she wanted to explain her last comment. So I'm going to give her a chance. So you don't think that was offensive?

COULTER: No. I'm sorry. It is not intended to be. I don't think you should take it that way, but that is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews. We believe the Old Testament. As you know from the Old Testament, God was constantly getting fed up with humans for not being able to, you know, live up to all the laws. What Christians believe - this is just a statement of what the New Testament is - is that that's why Christ came and died for our sins. Christians believe the Old Testament. You don't believe our testament.

DEUTSCH: You said - your exact words were, "Jews need to be perfected." Those are the words out of your mouth.

COULTER: No, I'm saying that's what a Christian is.

DEUTSCH: But that's what you said - don't you see how hateful, how anti-Semitic -

COULTER: No!

DEUTSCH: How do you not see? You're an educated woman. How do you not see that?

COULTER: That isn't hateful at all.

DEUTSCH: But that's even a scarier thought. OK -

COULTER: No, no, no, no, no. I don't want you being offended by this. This is what Christians consider themselves, because our testament is the continuation of your testament. You know that. So we think Jews go to heaven. I mean (Jerry) Falwell himself said that, but you have to follow laws. Ours is "Christ died for our sins." We consider ourselves perfected Christians. For me to say that for you to become a Christian is to become a perfected Christian is not offensive at all.


Why bring up Ann Coulter’s perfected Jew comments now, 17 years on? For one thing, to gloat. She pretty much dropped off the radar after that. Her followers just fell off in droves. I can’t even remember the last time I saw a mention of her. What Coulter had said was just too gross and disrespectful; she had crossed all lines of decency and as a result, repelled her audience.

But there’s another reason for bringing up Ann Coulter’s “perfected Jews” comment. Last week, some readers were disturbed by my suggestion that Mike Huckabee, Trump’s choice as ambassador to Israel, and Pete Hegseth, slated to become secretary of defense, avoid making public pronouncements comparing Judaism to Christianity and just do their jobs.

By the same token, I had urged Israel to resist speaking of shared or “Judeo-Christian” values during official events or meetings with Huckabee or Hegseth. We don’t need to bring these things in and they don’t belong. We should all of us stick to policy and steer clear of discussing religion.

That is the polite and respectful thing to do.

Both men—Huckabee or Hegseth—appear to be sensitive to Jewish sensibilities, beliefs, and rights. I have never heard either of them make a peep about the things we supposedly “share.” They are careful never to cross the line, no doubt more so than our Israeli leaders, who in their panting desire to have someone, anyone, like us, do sometimes get carried away and wax lyrical about what Jews and Christians share. But this kind of talk is inappropriate, no matter who does it.

It’s as simple as this: We don’t need to talk about everything. In matters of faith, people make a choice. Christianity and Judaism are diametrically opposed theologies. According to Jewish belief, God gave the Torah to the Jews, who are very clearly told that the Torah is everything, and that it is perfect and eternal. Christians, on the other hand, believe that the Torah, in and of itself, is unfinished, imperfect, and so they added to it.

This, of course, is an oversimplification. But on the face of it, it must be acknowledged that we obviously do not share anything. Jews say the Torah is enough. Christians say it is not. It seems obvious that if Christians adopted the Torah, it is already not the Torah, but something vastly different because of the great yawning chasm between these two religions—viewed by one as perfect, and by the other as imperfect. But that doesn’t mean we have to talk about it. We don’t have to talk about it at all.  

Ann Coulter, quite frankly, is an idiot, trying to be provocative. Telling a Jew that Jews need perfecting got her canceled, as it should have done. The things she said needn’t and shouldn’t have been said and aren’t by people of good character. At the same time, we don’t have to pretend that our religions are alike. We don’t have to say all this narishkeit* about the things we supposedly “share.” It’s dishonest.

No. We can't share our faiths, but together we can engage in polite, productive discussion and do good things for the world. That much is plenty for me, and likely enough for Mike Huckabee and Pete Hegseth, as well. But it wasn't enough for Ann Coulter the provocateur, who with her uncivil tongue, rendered herself utterly irrelevant.

*Foolishness



Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Wednesday, November 20, 2024



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

When Donald Trump won the election, there was great relief in Israel, something like a collective sigh. There was also anxiety. It’s a long time until January, and we don’t know how much longer the hostages can hang on. But there was, and is, a further cause for anxiety, and that concerns Trump’s cabinet picks, which here in Israel we can’t help but think: are these anointed ones good or bad for the Jews and for Israel?

Matt Gaetz

We might as well begin our examination with Matt Gaetz, Trump’s pick for attorney general, a bad choice by all accounts. Gaetz has what we call in Hebrew, “panim doresh steerot,” a face that needs slapping. There is a lot of noise about his sexual peccadilloes, corruption, and illicit drug use. We remember how Gaetz forced Kevin McCarthy out of his role as House speaker. It’s not as if Gaetz didn’t have plenty of support for the ousting of McCarthy. Nonethless, McCarthy insisted that Gaetz had led the charge against him specifically to wiggle out of an ethics investigation:

“I’ll give you the truth why I’m not speaker. Because one person, a member of Congress, wanted me to stop an ethics complaint because he slept with a 17-year-old, an ethics complaint that started before I ever became speaker. And that’s illegal and I’m not gonna get in the middle of it.

“Now, did he do it or not? I don’t know. But ethics was looking at it. There’s other people in jail because of it. And he wanted me to influence it.”

Indeed there are plenty of reasons to dislike Gaetz, but from the standpoint of the Jewish people, the main issue should be his horrid antisemitsm. Gaetz voted against the Antisemitism Awareness Act, saying that International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism would hold the bible itself as antisemitic because, Gaetz claimed, Christian scripture dictates that the Jews are responsible for Jesus’s death.

Um no. That would be the Romans. Which makes Gaetz a horrible person for pinning this death on the Jews. It’s that kind of slander that leads and has always led, to the letting of Jewish blood. There can be no benign reason for an educated person to say such things. Matt Gaetz hates Jews.

“This evening, I will vote AGAINST the ridiculous hate speech bill called the ‘Antisemitism Awareness Act,’” said Gaetz prior to the vote. “Antisemitism is wrong, but this legislation is written without regard for the Constitution, common sense, or even the common understanding of the meaning of words. The Gospel itself would meet the definition of antisemitism under the terms of this bill!”

Matt Gaetz, in addition to blaming the Jews for what the Romans did, invited Charles Johnson, a Holocaust denier and white nationalist, to be his guest at a 2018 State of the Union address. Gaetz claimed he hadn’t know these things about Johnson, then subsequently defended him, and denied the accusations. Johnson, said Gaetz, is “not a Holocaust denier. He’s not a white supremacist.” But Johnson is both.

When crazy Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene compared COVID public safety measures to the Holocaust, Gaetz defended her. “[Greene] defends Israel and attacks Democrats. Media falsely slams [Greene] as antisemitic. Some Republicans take the bait, sadly,” said Gaetz.

Our attorney general-to-be has been known to hire staff members who hang with white nationalists, and say white nationalist things. He called the ADL “racist” when that body called for Tucker Carlson to be fired from Fox News on account of Carlson pushing the Great Replacement theory. Matt Gaetz said that Carlson is “CORRECT about Replacement Theory.”

The Great Replacement theory, as described by the ADL, “claims there is an intentional effort, led by Jews, to promote mass non-white immigration, inter-racial marriage, and other efforts that would lead to the ‘extinction of whites.’”

RFK Jr.

Moving along, we come to RFK Jr., Trump’s pick for secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. RFK Jr. is another one for conspiracy theories. While dining with journalists, Bobby Kennedy Jr. aired a nutty conspiracy theory positing that COVID was designed to spare Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people.

“COVID-19. There is an argument that it is ethnically targeted. COVID-19 attacks certain races disproportionately. COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.

“We don’t know whether it was deliberately targeted or not but there are papers out there that show the racial or ethnic differential and impact,” said Kennedy, who also claimed that vaccine mandates made people less free than Anne Frank under Nazi rule.

After the footage was leaked, Kennedy went into damage control mode, claiming that he never EVER suggested the virus was designed to spare Jews.

“I have never, ever suggested that the COVID-19 virus was targeted to spare Jews,” wrote Kennedy. “I accurately pointed out — during an off-the-record conversation — that the US and other governments are developing ethnically targeted bioweapons and that a 2021 study of the COVID-19 virus shows that COVID-19 appears to disproportionately affect certain races since the furin cleave docking site is most compatible with Blacks and Caucasians and least compatible with ethnic Chinese, Finns and Ashkenazi Jews.”

RFK Jr.’s friendship with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan was cemented through just such views as these. Bobby Jr. in fact, called Farrakhan a “truly great partner” for helping him spread the idea that vaccines cause autism. Andrew Wakefield, now disgraced, concocted this “theory” in 1998 and was subsequently exposed as a fraud. When COVID hit, Farrakhan urged his congregants to "follow Robert Kennedy," claiming that scientists developed the coronavirus vaccine in order to "depopulate the Earth."

If RFK Jr. and Farrakhan agree on these nutty conspiracy theories, what other views might they share in common?

Of course, RFK Jr. was wise to quickly disavow his affinity for Farrakhan the antisemite at the outset of his presidential campaign. When asked about the relationship between during his campaign, Kennedy said he is an “opponent” of Farrakhan and "never endorsed anything that Louis Farrakhan has said," which of course, is a lie.

Should Jews look the other way on RFK Jr.? Perhaps. Bobby Jr., speaking to Reuters, expressed support for Israel’s fight against Hamas in Gaza, and for the return of the hostages. Asked if he was in favor of a temporary Gaza ceasefire, Kennedy said, "I don't even know what that means right now," commenting that every previous ceasefire was “used by Hamas to rearm, to rebuild and then launch another surprise attack. So what would be different this time?

"Any other nation that was adjacent to a neighboring nation that was bombing it with rockets, sending commandos over to murder its citizens, pledging itself to murder every person in that nation and annihilate it, would go and level it with aerial bombardment," said Kennedy.

"But Israel is a moral nation. So it didn't do that. Instead, it built an iron dome to protect itself so it would not have to go into Gaza," he added.

Nutty conspiracy theories notwithstanding, so far Bobby Jr. sounds okay on Israel. Perhaps he inherited his views from his father? Bobby Sr. spent time in Pre-State Israel, reporting for the Boston Post and was kindly disposed toward the Jews, and supported their efforts at statehood. Unfortunately, he was murdered because of this support.

Tulsi Gabbard

We come next to Tulsi Gabbard, who is to be national intelligence secretary. It’s hard to dislike Gabbard. She’s a serious person, and is unafraid to change her mind when changing her mind is called for. But she backed the Iran deal, and that’s a huge problem. Gabbard also voted against a House resolution to condemn the U.N. Security Council resolution regarding Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria, saying, "While I remain concerned about aspects of the U.N. resolution, I share the Obama administration's reservation about the harmful impact Israeli settlement activity has on the prospects for peace."

Seriously?? Jews building homes has a harmful impact on “prospects for peace?” That’s just reprehensibly antisemitic, and I don’t care how popular it has become to repeat the canard that Jewish families building homes, threaten peace. It’s a disgusting and stupid thing to say no matter how many people say it and no matter how often it is said. It’s just, pardon my French, total crap.

I hope that Gabbard will now be able to take a step back and examine the issue from a more commonsense position with good people to take her through it. Maybe now, as part of the Trump cabinet, she’ll educate herself on Israel. In her past, however, she has taken some problematic positions.

Gabbard defended Ilhan Omar, for example, when Omar tweeted that US support for Israel is “all about the Benjamins.” Speaking to CNN, Gabbard said, "There are people who have expressed their offense at these statements. I think that what Congresswoman Omar was trying to get at was a deeper issue related to our foreign policy, and I think there's an important discussion that we have to be able to have openly, even though we may end up disagreeing at the end of it, but we've got to have that openness to have the conversation."

Gabbard also voted for House Resolution 246, which expressed House opposition to the BDS movement and affirmed support for a two-state solution. When asked to explain her vote, Gabbard said she supported "a two-state solution that provides for the rights of both Israel and Palestine to exist, and for their people to live in peace, with security, in their homes. I don't believe the BDS movement is the only or best way to accomplish that. However, I will continue to defend those who choose to exercise their right to free speech without threat of legal action."

The two-state solution is a naïve and unworkable concept, and always was. Neither of the parties want it. So why do pols continue to push the two-state solution down the throats of people who do not want it, and do not see it as the solution it is touted to be? Why does Tulsi Gabbard, who is clearly a clear-thinking person, think the two-state solution makes any sense at all?

There can only be two reasons for supporting the two-state solution: 1) Anti-Jewish prejudice, that is to say, a desire to take land away from the Jews and give it to the people who want to kill them, and 2) Ignorance on the part of people who have never actually studied the matter. “Two-state solution” is just something people say. Endlessly. Meaninglessly. One would hope that Tulsi would know better.

But we have all watched Tulsi Gabbard evolve in her politics. We watched her leave the Democratic Party, become an Independent, and finally, become a staunch, pro-Trump Republican. Perhaps Tulsi’s views will evolve on Israel and antisemitism.

There is reason to be optimistic about Gabbard. Tulsi Gabbard criticized Biden and Harris for not joining a solidarity March for Israel as the Jewish State fights the war forced on it by Hamas. She is clear in that she supports a strong U.S.-Israel relationship. When Gabbard was still a Democrat, in 2015, unlike 58 other Dems, she did not boycott Netanyahu’s address to Congress, stating that “It’s unfortunate that an issue as important as preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons has been muddled by partisan politics. This is an extremely serious issue, at a critical juncture, that should not be used as a political football.”

Gabbard also said that it was important to “rise above the political fray, as America continues to stand with Israel as her strongest ally.”

Nice words and a real show of support for Israel.

Mike Huckabee and Pete Hegseth

Now we come to Mike Huckabee and Pete Hegseth. I know what you’re going to say. Why are they included in this list of potentially problematic Trump candidate members? Both are staunch friends of Israel. They don’t fall prey to propaganda, don’t use terms like “Palestinian” or “West Bank.” They don’t have a problem with Jewish sovereignty, or Jews building homes in their indigenous territory.

Take for example Mike Huckabee, who is slated to become the next ambassador to Israel. Asked whether he would stop using the terms “Judea and Samaria” to describe what most of the world now calls the “West Bank,” Huckabee said, “I can’t be what I’m not. I can’t say something I don’t believe. As you well know, I’ve never been willing to use the term ‘West Bank’. There is no such thing. I speak of Judea and Samaria. I tell people there is no ‘occupation.’ It is a land that is ‘occupied’ by the people who have had a rightful deed to the place for 3,500 years, since the time of Abraham.

“A lot of the terms that maybe the media would use, even the people who are against Israel would use, are not terms that I employ, because I want to use terms that live from time immemorial, and those are the terms like ‘Promised Land’ and ‘Judea and Samaria’. These are biblical terms, and those are important to me, and so I will continue to follow that nomenclature unless I’m instructed otherwise, but I don’t think that’ll happen.”

Huckabee has also said plainly that there is “no such thing as a ‘Palestinian.’” Being that there was never an Arab state called “Palestine,” that makes perfect sense. As Huckabee rightly stated during his 2008 failed presidential campaign, the assertion of the existence of a “Palestinian” identity, is only “a political tool to try and force land away from Israel.”

So far, there is not one thing here with which this writer disagrees.

Of the moronic idea known as the “two-state solution,” Huckabee commented in a 2015 interview on Israeli TV, that it is “irrational and unworkable,” and also said that “there’s plenty of land” outside of Israel in the “rest of the world” for a Palestinian state.

All true.

Pete Hegseth, picked for secretary of defense, says all the right things when it comes to Israel. At a 2018 Israel National News conference Hegseth spoke of the right of the Jewish people to claim their indigenous territory for themselves, and themselves alone.

"I, and others, had a chance to go see the Western Wall, the Temple Mount, the Western Wall Tunnels, and so much of the Old City," said Hegseth. "When you stand there, you cannot help but behold the miracle before you."

"It got me thinking about another miracle I hope all of you don't see as too far away. 1917 was a miracle, 1948 was a miracle, 1967 was a miracle, 2017, the declaration of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel was a miracle, and there's no reason why the miracle of the reestablishment of the Temple on the Temple Mount is not possible. I don't know how it would happen, you don't know how it would happen, but I know that it could happen, that's all I know," he said.

"A step in that process is the recognition that facts and activities on the ground truly matter. That's why going to visit Judea and Samaria, understanding that the very sovereignty over Israeli soil, cities, locations, is a critical next step to showing the world that this is the land for Jews, and the land of Israel," concluded Hegseth.

So why are Mike Huckabee and Pete Hegseth included in an article on Trump cabinet picks who might not be good for the Jews/Israel? Both men are respectful of Jewish beliefs and rights. That respect springs out of their Christian faith, which is fine. What would not be fine is if either the two men or Israeli officials began to speak about “shared values” or “Judeo-Christian values,” as if that were a thing.

Judaism stands alone. We Jews have our own faith, our own laws, and a religious narrative we do not share with Christians or those of other faiths. We should not want Christians telling us they are like us, and we should not want Israeli leaders to do so, either. That should be and must be a red line that is respected on both sides.

We can see the good in these two men without searching for nonexistent religious common ground. It is hoped that Huckabee and Hegseth understand these sensitivities and will remain as respectful to the Jewish people as ever. On the other hand, will official Israel be able to control itself—to refrain from slobbering over these men? It’s a problem.

It is so rare for Israel to have staunch friends, people who understand us, and believe in our right to our rights. Their sincere friendship makes us Jews feel like we actually belong to the family of man—at last there is someone who sees us.

Within this warm circle of cozy coexistence lies a temptation—the temptation to assert that we are alike. But we are not, and it is wrong to say otherwise. Hegseth, despite the allegations against him in the media, seems like a nice person. Huckabee, too. And that’s where the similarities start and end.



Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Wednesday, November 13, 2024



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

Trump trounced Harris and the next morning, she conceded. Now, all that was left was for Dems to do grieve. Except for the small matter of sitting down to Thanksgiving dinner with their Trump-happy relatives in just a little over 3 weeks—less at the time of this writing. Should Harris voters be expected to sit across the table from their cretinous MAGA cousins?

Not at all, explained Yale-affiliated psychiatrist Dr. Amanda Calhoun to MSNBC’s Joy Reid. “If you are going to a situation where you have family members, where you have close friends who you know have voted in ways that are against you . . . against your livelihood . . . it's completely fine to not be around those people and to tell them why.”


Calhoun’s advice, I’d venture to say, runs contrary to what most of us were taught by our mothers; namely that is courteous to set aside political differences at the holiday table for the sake of preserving family harmony. We can agree to disagree, because presidents come and go but family is family until death do you part. We spend time with family at the holidays not because they are entitled to our presence, but because it’s a tradition we value and cherish as a society.

In Israel, of course, there is no such November 28th conundrum to worry about. For one thing, most of those celebrating Thanksgiving in Israel are expat Americans. They left their families behind to make Aliyah, so there’s no one to argue with at table.

Then again, Thanksgiving is something expat Americans mostly celebrate for the sake of the food: turkey, stuffing, yams, gravy, cranberry sauce, and pie. And guess what? Sitting down to eat that meal will be pure pleasure not only because of the food and the lack of argumentative relatives, but because Donald J. Trump won—which means that this year, the only arguing around Israeli Thanksgiving tables will be over who gets the wishbone.

With our stateside cousins of course, it is a different story. We spend time with them only virtually in fits and starts. That makes it a little easier to avoid tense subjects. And if ever there was a tense subject it was this election, with most American Jews wildly at odds with their Israeli counterparts.

Our cousins care about the hostages, but not as much as they care about domestic issues, for example reproductive rights. They care about Iran, but they care about abortion more; they have been told that Donald J. Trump will take away their rights to their own bodies. Kamala Harris told them so.

Joy Reid told them so.

In Israel, we understand our Jewish cousins in America have domestic priorities. But we have trouble understanding how they feel about geopolitics. We don’t like to think that they are ignorant, but do they know they voted for a woman who helped fund October 7 and all that has happened in its wake?

Israelis are hyper-aware of these geopolitics. So much so that in the run up to the election, all of us were tense. I was tense. My neighbors were tense. We all knew that Israel’s enemies were watching and waiting to see who would win the election. My personal fear was that if Harris won, Hamas would take it as a green light to shoot all the remaining living hostages dead.

I did not dare tempt evil by voicing my fears, but now, in retrospect, I can talk about it because it didn’t happen—Harris lost. But it was rough. In the run-up to the election I could literally see those executions playing out in my mind’s eye. Over and over again.  It was hard to hold down food. Hard to breathe.

I don’t know if I was alone in experiencing these visions—but I know my feelings of dread and terror were not exclusive to me. Everyone around me felt the same way and we were all quietly speaking about it to each other. The election was the Sword of Damocles hanging over not just the hostages’ heads, but all our heads. This was something more than politics.

And it is that “something more” that makes it so difficult to be polite as we were taught, and set aside differences for the sake of family.

I know what you’re thinking. What’s the difference, Harris lost. But you see, it’s the vote that counts. It’s the vote that hurt and cut so deeply.

It’s hard to square it in our heads, how “family” could vote for Harris, someone who sends money to Iran and ties Israel’s hands. Someone who bears responsibility for the fact that the Jewish people are no longer safe anywhere in the world.

Many of us have a very hard time with this. We think of what happened on October 7, of the hostages and of the hundreds of soldiers who have been killed since, beautiful young people, older reservists with wives and children, and we can’t bring ourselves to agree to disagree and move on. It’s just too hard. We can’t look the other way and call it “only politics.”

I myself think back to certain lovely childhood memories from back when I was a toddler, and I don’t know what to do. We are family and yet this "family" prioritizes something other than me, my family here, and our people. They prioritized something other than the hundreds of Israeli soldiers who died defending our people—something other than the hundreds of thousands of Israelis who can’t go home to their homes in the north. 

How can I look the other way?

They put us all at risk.



Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Wednesday, October 30, 2024



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

Kamala Harris didn’t actually call Trump a Nazi, but she might as well have. Echoing allegations by disgruntled Former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly, she declared that Donald Trump wants a military that will be "loyal to him personally" and "obey his orders even when he tells them to break the law or abandon their oath to the constitution of the United States."

Vice President Kamala Harris continued on, saying, "It is deeply troubling and incredibly dangerous that Donald Trump would invoke Adolf Hitler, the man who is responsible for the deaths of six million Jews and hundreds of thousands of Americans. All of this is further evidence for the American people of who Donald Trump really is."

And there it is, Godwin’s Law. The longer the election dragged on, the more inevitable it had been that someone would bring in the Holocaust. Not in the sort of, “We must never forget the Holocaust,” kind of way, but in the sort of, “He’s the author of the Final Solution, Adolf Hitler himself,” kind of way.

Harris running mate Tim Walz was happy to run with it, remarking that Trump’s alleged comment regarding Hitler’s generals “makes me sick as hell.”

“Folks, the guardrails are gone. Trump is descending into this madness — a former president of the United States and the candidate for president of the United States says he wants generals like Adolf Hitler had,” said Walz, who has lied about his military service.

Walz said he was a retired command sergeant major, but he wasn’t. He claimed he carried weapons “in war,” but never saw combat. In truth, he skipped out on his battalion only months before they were deployed to Iraq. J.D. Vance, among many others, condemned these falsehoods as “stolen valor.”

This is something to keep in mind when weighing the credibility of those Walz “orange Hitler”-style slurs. But it gets worse with Walz. Much worse, in this Jewish writer’s opinion.

From The Hill:

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, compared former President Trump’s Sunday rally at New York’s Madison Square Garden in to a 1939 pro-Nazi event.

“Donald Trump’s got this big rally going at Madison Square Garden,” Walz said at an event in Henderson, Nev. “There’s a direct parallel to a big rally that happened in the mid-1930s at Madison Square Garden.”

An American Nazi Party held a rally at Madison Square Garden in February 1939 that lured 20,000 supporters to the iconic New York City landmark.

“And don’t think that he doesn’t know for one second exactly what they’re doing there,” Walz said.

When Walz speaks, he draws a picture. We can see that pro-Hitler rally in our minds. It hits you right in the kishkes.

Up next is Hillary Clinton. The former (failed) 2016 presidential candidate picked off where Walz left off, continuing on with the same “Trump is a Nazi” narrative, claiming that Trump with this rally was reenacting the infamous Nazi rally, held in that very same space. “Trump [is] actually re-enacting the Madison Square Garden rally in 1939,” said Clinton to CNN’s Kaitlin Collins.

“President Franklin Roosevelt was appalled that neo-Nazis, fascists in America were lining up to essentially pledge their support for the kind of government that they were seeing in Germany,” said Former President Clinton’s wife never-to-be-president Clinton.

"It is clear from John Kelly's words that Donald Trump is someone who I quote 'certainly falls into the general definition of fascist.' Who in fact, vowed to be a dictator on day one, and vowed to use the military as his personal militia to carry out his personal and political vendetta,'" said Clinton.

Harris, meanwhile, is not better than Walz or Clinton, only more boring—she doesn't believe her own rhetoric but is determined to get to the top with her gleaming eyes and maniacal laugh. She’s not even original. In fact, she’s a yawn. And frankly, unintelligent. 

“I invite you to listen and go online to listen to John Kelly … who has told us Donald Trump said, why — essentially, ‘Why aren’t my generals like those of Hitler’s, like Hitler.'

 “The American people deserve to have a president who encourages healthy debate … and certainly not comparing oneself in a clearly admiring way to Hitler.

“This is a serious, serious issue. And we know who he is. He admires dictators.

“The American people deserve to have a president who encourages healthy debate, works across the aisle, not afraid of good ideas wherever they come from, but also maintains certain standards about how we think about the role and the responsibility, and certainly not comparing oneself in a clearly admiring way to Hitler.”

Asked if Trump were a fascist, Harris' bluffed right on through. “Yes, I do,” she said. “Yes, I do.”

There was something in her smile. Something sly in it for that tiny split second.

Well, what else could Kamala Harris, famous for her word salads, do to win at this point but smear her opponent? She wants to be president, but has done so little to articulate her policies. Or rather, she’s articulated many words that go good with Thousand Island dressing.

As November 5 draws nearer, Harris seems to have stopped even trying to outline what it is she intends to do if elected president. Instead, she has begun this slow crescendo of hateful tropes, each day ranting and raving about Donald Trump ever more vigorously, insistently and repeatedly telling us that Trump is a very bad person.

There is a name for this. It’s called negative campaigning. Whether or not smearing one’s opponent is an effective strategy is up for debate, but it certainly seems the coward’s way out of articulating an actual policy. Something Harris can’t and hasn’t done.

We have seen Kamala Harris a lot these past weeks, Tim Walz, less so. I think they hide him. He’s scary. He has crazy eyes. And I did not like the look of hatred that flashed on his face, that downturn of the mouth when Walz was asked by a reporter about the hostages in Gaza—it was so quick I had to watch the exchange a few times to confirm it. Then the mask came down and Walz was Mister Friendly Guy once more—all smiley like he didn’t hear the reporter’s question. But we all saw it. I saw it. I saw Mr. Evil Man rear his ugly head for that little almost undetectable blip in time.

I dread the thought of Walz in a position of influence. Kamala is a power-hungry puppet who will not be kind to Israel should she win, but she is too stupid to craft or carry out policy, and that’s where others come in.

Will Walz distinguish himself as an advisor? Will he have a voice? More likely Walz is a signal to Israel-hating voters: Here is someone in Kamala’s corner.

Someone who hates the Jews.



Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive