We Need to Talk About Joe (Judean Rose)

Joe Biden is ahead of President Trump in key battleground states, according to a new Fox News poll, and the lead is significant. Biden passed Trump by 11 percentage points in Pennsylvania, 13 points in Minnesota, and 9 points in Michigan. The question is why, considering a Rasmussen poll released June 29, found that 38% of voters believe that Joe Biden has dementia. That’s almost four out of ten voters.

It’s no secret the mainstream media is pulling for Joe Biden. They want Donald Trump dethroned and a Democrat—any Democrat—installed in the White House. In spite of this fact, they too, cannot help but notice Joe Biden’s little (and not so little) brain farts. 

#BarelyThereBiden spent the last year forgetting Obama’s name, who the last President was, and when he was Obama’s VP.

Will Joe even remember he has a fundraiser with Obama tonight?

When Obama told Joe “you don’t have to do this,” he meant it.pic.twitter.com/qLosBxWM2f

— Trump War Room - Text TRUMP to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) June 23, 2020

The media has tried hard to recast Biden’s strange utterings as “gaffes.” See, for instance, here, here, here, and here. But it’s not a “gaffe” when he falls asleep during Hillary’s endorsement. 

Joe Biden has fallen asleep listening to Hillary Clinton during his own town hall pic.twitter.com/tCfbXwezys

— Caleb Hull (@CalebJHull) April 28, 2020

It's not a gaffe when he has his wife do the talking so he won’t have to speak. 

Jill Biden: "This moment reminds us that the presidency is about true leadership -- having the forethought to prepare for the worst, the backbone to lead through chaos, the character to move beyond politics." pic.twitter.com/lhwvRiaXHT

— The Hill (@thehill) April 26, 2020

It's not a gaffe when he has brain freeze. 

Not a gaffe, but a memory issue, when he forgets the President’s name.

Joe Biden forgets Trump’s name when asked about his cognitive decline. pic.twitter.com/eaNsj57sW6

— Matt Margolis 🇺🇸 (@mattmargolis) June 30, 2020

Especially not when the name of the president he served under is forgotten not once, but several times. 

Thread.

On multiple occasions, Joe Biden has forgot Barack Obama’s name.

"By the way, are you gonna stick with President on the following, President [awkward pause], the last guy, on this issue?"https://t.co/SUUXnsJpwy

— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) March 5, 2020

Which is why Obama told Joe Biden he didn’t have to do this—didn’t have to run for president. Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

#BarelyThereBiden spent the last year forgetting Obama’s name, who the last President was, and when he was Obama’s VP.

Will Joe even remember he has a fundraiser with Obama tonight?

When Obama told Joe “you don’t have to do this,” he meant it.pic.twitter.com/qLosBxWM2f

— Trump War Room - Text TRUMP to 88022 (@TrumpWarRoom) June 23, 2020

Joe Biden’s brain issues, of course, may not actually be dementia. The fact is, the presidential candidate has had surgery for not one but two aneurysms. Remember the bloody eye incident when Biden’s eye literally filled with blood on live television?

The hubbub surrounding this event prompted Biden to talk about his experiences with brain surgery in 1988. From the Washington Examiner:

“I ended up with what they call a cranial aneurysm,” Biden said at a campaign event on Friday. “I had to be rushed to a hospital in the middle of a snowstorm, and the fact is, the president was nice enough to offer a helicopter to get me there. I couldn’t go up because of the altitude. My fire company got me down in time for [a] 13-hour operation and saved my life.”

Biden suffered the burst aneurysm in 1988, when he was a Delaware senator. Believing that he was close to death, a Catholic priest was preparing to administer Biden's last rites. Surgeons clipped a second aneurysm before it bust a few months later.

A later piece goes into a bit more detail:

At the time of Biden’s brush with death in 1988, his wife, Jill Biden, feared that he would never be the same. In a forthcoming autobiography, “Where the Light Enters," Jill recounts Joe's doctor telling the family that there was a significant chance he’d have permanent neurological damage, particularly after he suffered a second aneurysm, a condition in which an artery becomes weak and bulges out.

"Our doctor told us there was a 50-50 chance Joe wouldn't survive surgery," she wrote. "He also said that it was even more likely that Joe would have permanent brain damage if he survived. And if any part of his brain would be adversely affected, it would be the area that governed speech."

This is a candid account of what happened back in 1988. But does this past history have implications for the present? And are Biden and his wife still being upfront with the public today? From the same piece:

The last time Biden disclosed information about his health was in 2008 when Dr. Matthew Parker, a physician the Obama campaign selected when Biden was the running mate, spoke to the press. Biden’s actual doctor, John Eisold, the physician who attended to Biden and the rest of Congress, was not the one to present the medical records...Parker said he didn’t know whether Biden had more aneurysms, and said “everything that could be done is being done.”

From the information revealed, it was not clear how often Biden has been screened for aneurysms, and there wasn't any other information provided when he was vice president. In contrast, records show that Barack Obama had at least four medical checkups during his presidency.

No law requires presidents, vice presidents, or candidates to have a medical checkup or to disclose what comes of it.

The article also makes the point that if Joe Biden had two aneurysms, he could well have another:

Dr. Babu Welch, a neurological surgeon with University of Texas-Southwestern’s O’Donnell Brain Institute, said that people who have had one aneurysm can always have another. People are supposed to undergo regular screenings shortly after they have an aneurysm, but then can space them out further as time goes on, he said.

Dr. Gavin Britz, director of the Houston Methodist Neurological Institute, said his research has revealed that people have a decrease in life expectancy after an aneurysm. The key, he said, is to make sure to catch them before they rupture.

The New York Times asks whether Joe Biden might have developed another aneurysm going so far as to suggest that having had two aneurysms, Biden is actually “more likely” to have a third:

A question arises: Has Mr. Biden developed a new aneurysm over the last two decades that could burst?

Doctors, who long thought that berry aneurysms were a once-in-a-lifetime event, now generally believe that they can recur. About 5 percent or less of patients who have had a berry aneurysm develop new ones at the original site or elsewhere in the brain.

“Over the last two decades,” said Dr. Robert F. Spetzler of the Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix, “we have learned much more about aneurysms, and the fact is that when you have had one aneurysm, you are more likely to develop another one. Although the likelihood is very low, it does exist.”

Are Joe’s “gaffes” a result of his aneurysm, or from his brain surgeries? And what would happen if another aneurysm were to burst while Joe was in office? That last may be a bit difficult to predict, but Wikipedia offers a history of what happened at that time, pointing out that Biden had a serious complication. We also learn that back then, Biden was sidelined from work for a full seven months, and that he was told his chances for a full recovery were somewhat slim (emphasis added):

In 1988, Biden suffered two brain aneurysms, one on the right side and one on the left. Each required surgery with high risk of long-term impact on brain functionality. In February 1988, after suffering from several episodes of increasingly severe neck pain, Biden was taken by long-distance ambulance to Walter Reed Army Medical Center and given lifesaving surgery to correct an intracranial berry aneurysm that had begun leaking. While recuperating, he suffered a pulmonary embolism, a major complication.

Another operation to repair a second aneurysm, which had caused no symptoms but was at risk of bursting, was performed in May 1988. The hospitalization and recovery kept Biden from his duties in the Senate for seven months.

In retrospect, Biden's family came to believe the early end to his presidential campaign had been a blessing in disguise, for had he still been campaigning in 1988, he might well not have stopped to seek medical attention and the condition might have become unsurvivable. In 2013, Biden said, "they take a saw and they cut your head off" and "they literally had to take the top of my head off." He also said he was told he would have less than a 50% chance of full recovery.

Biden has, until now, failed to share any appraisal of his cognitive state. And some voters may be getting nervous about that with November not so far away. The Hill had a piece in early July entitled, “Joe Biden must release the results of his cognitive tests — voters need to know.” The piece references more voter polls:

A recent Zogby poll found that 55 percent of likely voters surveyed thought it was “much more” and “somewhat more likely” that Biden is in the early stages of dementia, while 45 percent thought it was less likely. That number included 56 percent of independents and 32 percent of Democrats.

More worrisome for Biden, perhaps, is that about 60 percent of young voters between the ages of 18 and 29 thought it likely that Biden is suffering early-onset dementia, along with 61 percent of Hispanics. The good news is that only 43 percent of blacks doubted Biden’s mental capacity.

Another piece, from Chicago Sun Times (July 26), asks, “Can Joe Biden keep it together?” and speaks of “whispered doubt” suggesting the public may be concerned about Biden’s fitness for office:

There is a dreadful possibility, a whispered doubt that lurks at every Biden appearance.

“I watched, and sometimes cringed, at his performances in debates and other public appearances,” Laura Washington writes. “Biden stumbled over and mangled names, facts and concepts. At times, he seemed confused.”

It is only natural that Trump supporters would attempt to capitalize on Joe’s oopsies. Hence we have this ad from the Committee to Defend the President which speaks not about “gaffes” but asks if Joe Biden “has the mental capacity to keep America safe,” and then comes right out with it: “Does Joe Biden have dementia?”

Politico (July 3) emphasized the meanness of the dementia accusations referring to this election cycle as “The Dementia Campaign.”  An excerpt:

Just listen to Tucker Carlson on Wednesday night, the day after Joe Biden’s big Super Tuesday victory and the victory speech in which he was momentarily confused over which side of the podium his wife and sister were standing. “As a smart friend said last night, Joe Biden has spent his entire life trying to succeed in presidential politics,” the Fox News host chortled, “and now he has: Too bad he’s not there to enjoy it. Pretty funny.”

Politico wants to de-emphasize the dementia/brain damage and shift the focus to the mild impairment of age, stressing that we have a geriatric political culture:

The issue is especially acute now that so much power in American government is held by people older than 65. While rates of dementia are going down gradually in the United States, 65 is the age at which 20 to 25 percent of people have mild cognitive impairment and 10 percent have dementia, according geriatric researcher Kenneth Langa at the University of Michigan. Six members of the Supreme Court are over 65, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi will turn 80 on March 26, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell last month turned 78.

Joe’s brain issues, however much the liberal left wants to distract us, make it really difficult to resist watching and laughing at his latest “gaffes” such as the one about nurses blowing into his nostrils to get him moving.

.@JoeBiden: "I had nurses at Walter Reed hospital who would bend down and whisper in my ear, go home and get me pillows. They would … actually breathe in my nostrils to make me move, to get me moving.” pic.twitter.com/hxW1UYs7Ba

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) July 22, 2020

That “go home and get me pillows,” sends me into giggle fits, each and every time. But then I feel a little bit mean and even voyeuristic. And I can’t help but think: It’s not nice they’re putting this brain damaged guy out there like this. Why are they doing this: running this guy with brain damage?

I know what the conspiracy theorists think: if Biden wins the presidency, which he might win in spite of dementia, because he’s the Not Trump, he won’t be the one making the decisions. Instead, he will be a puppet. The Manchurian Candidate come to life. 

So who is really running the show? Deep State? Soros? Obama?

Someone/something else? And what does this mean for Israel, and for the world at large? 

Will Biden hang in there, or will the pressure and stress become too much, say during a debate with President Trump? And if it does become too much for the man who has twice undergone the neurosurgeon's knife, what happens next? Who will step in and take over the show?

Your guess is as good as mine. Which means that about all we can do is sit back and watch this public circus with guilty pleasure and not a little incredulity at the fact that, should nothing and no one intervene, the Democrats will vote for Joe Biden, despite his cognitive issues, come November. 

Because they definitely choose brain damage over Trump. 

---

---

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.

Read More

Yisrael Medad: Presenting Jabotinsky is a Matter of Saving a Soul (Judean Rose)

Yisrael Medad is Betar to the bone. Having joined the Revisionist Zionist movement of Vladimir (Ze’ev) Jabotinsky at the tender age of 17, Medad is still enamored of this Zionist figure and his controversial ideology. So much so it seems, that he’s translating Jabotinsky’s words into English, that others might access the work of this prolific genius.

What makes the work of Jabotinsky, a journalist by profession, so controversial? For one thing, Jabotinsky was at odds with the idea of intersectionality, of combining Zionism with other ideologies. He liked his Zionism pure. According to biographer Hillel Halkin, Jabotinsky called this singular devotion to the cause “Zionist monism,” refusing to link Zionism to, for instance, Jewish agrarianization or to socialism. Which put him at odds with, for instance, David Ben Gurion.

But the disagreement went deeper than defining what it means to be a Zionist. Jabotinsky founded the Jewish Legion to help the British fight against the Ottoman Empire, but was disappointed to discover that cooperating with the British brought the Jews no closer to a Jewish State. And then the British issued the infamous White Paper. That's when Jabotinsky founded the Irgun to revolt against the British, who could no longer be seen as a benevolent force. 

Ben Gurion, meantime, favored a policy of “havlagah” or “restraint," and looking the other way. He felt the Brits remained the Jews' best hope for attaining statehood.

About havlagah, Jabotinsky had this to say:

Vladimir (Ze'ev) Jabotinsky

.... I have mentioned the word "Havlagah", a rare word, never heard before in modern, every-day-life Hebrew language in the Land of Israel. It seems this word is now the most common and hated word in the Land of Israel... The Jews should not distort the facts and complain. In the Land of Israel there are young political activists from the left and the right who are not afraid to clash with British soldiers, who are forcing them to act like cowards. They do not fear about their own lives, they fear for the destruction of the 1917 Balfour declaration and the violation of the alliance between England and Jewish people... Any indigenous people will fight foreign settlers as long as they believe there is a chance to get rid of the foreign settlement danger. This is how the Arabs in the Land of Israel are acting and will act in the future, as long as they have the spark in their hearts that they could stop the transformation of Palestine into the Land of Israel... Therefore our settlement can (only) grow under a force which is not dependent upon the local population, behind an "iron wall" that the local population could not break.

 

Ze'ev Jabotinsky was a pragmatist. The Jews weren't going to hold their land by biding their time and twiddling their fingers. They weren't going to reclaim their territory by kissing up to the British, as they turned a blind eye to Arab terror. If the Jews wanted the land they would have to fight. And this willingness to face the truth made Jabotinsky, the boy from Odessa, a Zionist outlier, a figure of the right.

So how does a boy from New York end up in Israel, translating the works of a boy from Odessa? What makes a man devote his life to keeping the work of Jabotinsky, a man long dead, alive in our hearts? I spoke to Yisrael Medad to learn more:

Yisrael Medad

Varda Epstein: Tell us something about your background and your family, if you would.

Yisrael Medad: Both my parents were American-born, my mother from the Lower East Side and so prior to every Pesach and Rosh Hashana we were down there shopping and eating. My parents were quite American but also very ethnically and traditionally Jewish—yet of the style of Jewish at home and less so outside.

I attended synagogue and Hebrew school but we would drive up to The Bronx on Saturday afternoons. We kept kosher at home but ate at non-kosher restaurants. I remember once returning from shul on Yom Kippur (I started fasting when I was already 11 and my father had purchased me my own mahzorim (high holiday prayer books V.E.) and I came up in the elevator with someone who pressed the buttons for me as I knew it was forbidden, but my mother heard the elevator door slam just before I walked into the apartment. She asked if I used the elevator and when I responded in the positive, she slapped me. When I became bar mitzvah in 1960, we all became chozer b’tshuva (a religious returnee V.E.) but that’s another story. That my mother’s family was from Brody was a very prominent memory item.

I attended Yeshivat Chofetz Chaim and then went on to attend Yeshiva University. I joined Mizrahi Hatzair in 1962 (Yudi Henkin, now Rav Yehuda Henkin, was my madrich (adviser V.E.) but in 1964 I joined Betar.

Varda Epstein: When did you make Aliyah? What was the catalyst? Why Shiloh?

Yisrael and Batya Medad

Yisrael Medad: I spent 1966-1967 in Israel on a program called Machon L’Madrichei Chutz La’Aretz and so my earlier inclination to make Aliyah was sealed – we had a war that year which had me in a foxhole for a few days in June. My future wife, Batya, was similarly inclined and in August 1970, two months after our wedding, we boarded the Queen Anna Maria and arrived in Israel on September 5, after 12 days at sea.

We were first in the Old City of Jerusalem, then the Jerusalem neighborhood of Bayit Vegan, then London for a two-year emissary stint for Betar, back to Bayit VeGan and then in 1981 we moved to Shiloh.

We chose Shiloh for three basic reasons: we wanted a location about which no one could say Jews do not belong there; a place that needed us; and one where we felt we could make a contribution. As an example of such a contribution, in order to open the grade school in Shiloh, our oldest two daughters were required.

Varda Epstein: Can you tell us about your earlier work at the Begin Center and how you came to be translating Jabotinsky’s works?

A young Medad, right, with a fellow soldier in 1974

Yisrael Medad: My employment at the Begin Center began in 2000. Until then I was Geulah Cohen’s aide and director of Israel’s Media Watch among other jobs. I helped create the Begin Center’s Junior Knesset program, historical walking tours, a resource volume of national thinkers, and served in many other areas during the 17 years I was employed. I still remain as a research fellow.

As I had been in Betar and lectured on Jabotinsky and the pre-state underground struggle, joining the editorial committee for the new critical edition of Jabotinsky’s writings was, well, only natural. Then it was decided the volumes would be in English and I was appointed deputy editor. I had done translations of Israel Eldad, Uri Tzvi Greenberg and other Zionist figures and was quite familiar with the terminology, the historical framework, and other such necessary requirements for this work.

Varda Epstein: Last time we spoke you were working on the second volume, so you must be translating a lot of material. I know Jabotinsky was a prolific writer. Can you describe the scope of the items you are translating? Are you translating Jabotinsky’s plays and non-Zionist works and articles? Letters? How much material are you dealing with, exactly?

With Dani Dayan

Yisrael Medad: Well, at present, due to the situation and budget considerations, my work is in low gear. We are trying to work off the Hebrew, and this was spurred by a decade-long research project in Russia to find the approximately 2000 articles Jabotinsky published prior to World War One. These articles were penned during his Odessa and St. Petersburg periods as one of that country’s outstanding Jewish journalists. And these works are in addition to some 1500 or so articles we have already archived, not including his 5000 letters, published separately in Hebrew (now in 15 volumes).

Luckily, the Czarist secret police kept good archives (Jabotinsky, after returning from Italy in 1903, was suspected of being a socialist and was arrested twice). We want to search for his “unknown” works in Russian, as well. Some of his letters are really memoranda of several pages which we’ll also be including.

Varda Epstein: Jabotinsky was fluent in several languages. Did he write in several languages, too? You’ve told me you don’t really know Russian, so how do you manage?

With the late Moshe (Misha) Arens

Yisrael Medad: Jabotinsky wrote in several languages: English, French, Italian, and Yiddish, in addition to Hebrew and his native Russian. There is one instance when he was in Belgium and spoke for an hour, and each quarter of an hour he changed languages: from French to Walloon to English and on to Yiddish.

The one major essay I translated on the Bund and Zionism was first translated from its Hebrew. I then used four different translation engines to discover oddities or unusual grammar, semantics, or terminology and then I needed to go through every sentence with my collaborator on the Russian aspect of the work, Yehiel Fishzon, and with additional assistance from Netanel Bunimovitch and his wife Miriam Feyga, to fine tune, as the original translator of this work into Hebrew took a bit of license at times and even left out of few paragraphs. It took some three months just to complete the work on this one essay. And the main part of my work is taken up in just adding the footnotes to such articles.

Varda Epstein: What are some of the difficulties you’ve encountered in your translation work?

From left: Bobby Brown, Yossi Klein Halevi, Yisrael Medad

Yisrael Medad: An example is when the translator wrote “v’shalom al Yisrael” (literally: “and there should be peace on Israel”). Is that actually what Jabo wrote? No. He wrote: “на Шипке все спокойно (everything is calm on Shipka).”

It took me a week to write this footnote: “Jabotinsky employs an idiom expressing irony about those who are trying to hide a deplorable or dangerous state of affairs. It originated in the official reports of Lt. Gen. Feodor Radetsky on the battle for Shipka Pass in the Balkan Mountains, Bulgaria in December 1877 during the Russian-Turkish war. Despite his sentries freezing to death on duty, men blown off the mountain by strong winds and one-third of the soldiers falling ill, Radetsky’s dispatches assured: “Everything is calm at Shipka.” Besides that, recognizing exactly to what event Jabotinsky was referring to is daunting.

Varda Epstein: Why Jabotinsky?

Yisrael in a TV interview

Yisrael Medad: He is the most intelligent, well-read, most cultured Zionist thinker I know and one who, besides being a novelist, poet, translator, diplomat, soldier and a host of other life’s professions, was the most calumniated. Presenting his works, even in a small quantity, beyond the mostly political works that have already appeared, is a matter of saving a soul.

Varda Epstein: When do you expect the work to be completed?

Yisrael Medad: After my own 120.

Varda Epstein: Can you describe your projected readership? Who benefits from your work and how so?

Yisrael Medad: First, university students. Over the last decade and half there has been an explosion of academic works on Jabotinsky and Revisionist Zionism. In 2001 there was Michael Stanislawski’s “Zionism and the Fin de Siècle: Cosmopolitanism and Nationalism from Nordau to Jabotinsky” and just now, Brian Horowitz has published his collection, “Vladimir Jabotinsky's Russian Years, 1900-1925” following his and Leonid Katsis' 2015 translation and editing of Jabotinsky's “Story of My Life.”  There is a 2018 article by Gil Rubin on “Jabotinsky and Population Transfers Between Eastern Europe and Palestine.” These are interesting, critical, and potentially explosive subjects and should not be left solely to the academics of the left or of the center.

These are good books but in many places tend to be too critical and there is a need to put out the raw material. And there is the nefarious Dmitry Shumsky who corrupts Jabotinsky in too many instances.

Jabotinsky is today as relevant in the issues and themes he wrote about as a century or 80 years ago. Peter Beinart wrote recently of a semi-binational state entity of Israel-Palestine but did he reference Jabotinsky’s 1940 plan in his “Arab Angle – Undramatized?”

Varda Epstein: What do you see yourself doing next, at the end of this very long project?

Yisrael Medad: To continue doing more of what I do: blog, compose op-eds, research, translate, be funny and enjoy the family.

~~~

More from Yisrael Medad:

MyRightWord

JPost Media Column
JNS

Algemeiner Journal

Times of Israel

Israel National News

Green-Line JPost

Jewish Press

ShilohInSense (עברית)

@ymedad

---

---

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.

Read More

Bloggers Can Say More About Antisemitism (Judean Rose)

Bloggers, compared to journalists, can say more about antisemitism. That’s because the two disciplines—blogging and journalism—are different. In journalism, one has to adhere to journalistic standards and avoid bias. But the blogosphere offers possibilities beyond those standards.

In a blog I can say what I like—things you just can’t say in a straight news piece. As a blogger I write the things I think my readers should know—things that may not be politically correct. My responsibility as a blogger lies only in remaining faithful to my standards and sensibilities and those of my host. The reader’s responsibility, on the other hand, lies in accepting or rejecting my words, or skipping past them altogether.

This was the basis for The Comprehensive List of Antisemitic Celebrities. The freedom of being able to say what a journalist cannot. As a blogger, I don’t have to pussy-foot around a topic and stay within narrow journalistic confines. I can say more about a subject, more about antisemitism. I can say what I think. I can go out on a limb and say, “This too, is antisemitism.”

A List Was Born

I had wished for a reference like my list for a long time and when I mentioned it to others, they said that they too, would like to have such a list. The idea percolated for at least a couple of years. I was afraid that it would be a herculean task; that making such a list would be biting off more than I could chew.

But a couple of weeks ago, I decided to research the topic and see where it went. I started with the most recent news piece, the now-infamous Chelsea Handler Instagram post of Farrakhan speaking about racism that so many of her celebrity buddies liked. The Instagram post is gone, and Handler has apologized.

A journalist would have reported only the facts of the incident, without labeling the behavior of Handler and the others. But a blogger is allowed to express an opinion. And in my opinion, Handler, and all the meek little celebrities who liked her post, aligned themselves with a known antisemite. As supposedly “woke” people, I deemed it appropriate to include their names in my list.

Adhering To IHRA

This brings me to CAMERA-UK and Adam Levick’s Editors’ Note On Cancel Culture And Misuse Of The Term “Antisemitism.” The piece speaks of the importance of journalists adhering to journalistic standards, and in particular, adhering to the IHRA working definition of antisemitism when reporting on any possible expression of antisemitism. I agree.

Levick says we should be careful about what we label antisemitism. That we shouldn’t throw slings and arrows at people and media outlets, but at their behavior. Because we don’t want to mimic the current cancel culture zeitgeist in which a misbehaving celebrity loses his/her job and is shunned within both professional and personal spheres based on spurious charges and slander.

IHRA Is Subjective

It makes sense. But as a blogger, and possibly even as a journalist, it’s my right to say that the IHRA definition is subject to interpretation. This is perhaps why IHRA saw fit to follow the definition with a list of examples covered by the definition. The examples are prefaced by this introductory text (emphasis mine):

“Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:”

In other words, the contemporary examples of antisemitism listed on IHRA’s own page are not comprehensive, not final. The page suggests that we may have to always be watching things to see if what we see is or isn’t antisemitism according to the IHRA definition. And that leaves the process in the public’s hands, to some degree. Which makes the process of determining what does and doesn’t fit IHRA, at least somewhat subjective.

Strictest Sense

Now, as a journalist, I would have to interpret behavior as antisemitic only according to the strictest, most narrow sense of the IHRA definition. I would have to give benefit of the doubt and try to think if there’s something in the behavior that I can use as an out, a way to say “This is not necessarily antisemitic,” before casting aspersions.

And as a media consumer, I wouldn’t want it any other way. Don’t interpret my news. Let me read the facts and decide on my own.

But as a blogger, I can go broader. I can go all Potter Stewart and say I know antisemitism when I see it. And my readers expect that of me, as long as I make my case. I can say “This is what happened. I think it fits the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Here’s why.”

As long as I’m using the IHRA definition as my guide, I’m within my rights to expand on the examples given on the IHRA page, to interpret behavior according to my understanding of the IHRA definition. Which is why, as a blogger, I can say more about antisemitism.

Labeling Behavior, Not People

In terms of pointing out antisemitic behavior, rather than naming and shaming, I see Levick’s point. It’s Parenting 101. You don’t label the kid. You say the behavior is bad. You don’t say, “Bad boy!” but “It is bad to throw your food on the floor.”

But I think this misses the point of my list. “The Comprehensive List of Antisemitic Celebrities” is not meant to name and shame celebrities, but to offer information to the reader. It’s my way of saying, “Here’s something you may want to know about. If this is interesting or useful, fine. If not, next week I’m writing about squirrels sovereignty.”

In cancel culture, a call to action goes out. Fire him/her. Boycott this/that. Protest. Loot a store. But there was no call to action in the “comprehensive list.” I didn’t tell the reader what to do with the information or whether to do anything at all. That is the reader’s own business. Which is very different than the #metoo hashtag campaigns or the aggressive tactics of, for instance, BDS or BLM.

The fact is, the “Comprehensive List” includes no instructions on how my readers should relate to the information it contains. I didn’t suggest a boycott of Handler, Aniston, Portman, or Silverman. I suggested no action at all. I didn’t even mention how I personally intend to use this information, if at all. It’s just something to know.

Follow Your Conscience

A person’s private behavior is their own matter. When I found out Alice Walker was an antisemite, for instance, I decided never to give her royalties, again. That I would not watch “The Color Purple” or read the book. But I never suggested to anyone that they should follow suit.

The same is true of how I see a certain unnamed media outlet. Once I decide a particular outlet is anti-Israel, I don’t write for them. I don’t read their articles, but always look for an alternative source for the information. But that doesn’t mean others must do the same. My advice? Follow your conscience.

Blogging is da bomb. I can say that because I have done lots of writing in my time. All kinds of writing. Straight news pieces, blogs, marketing content, op-eds, classroom resources, and more. But I am content in my spare time to blog. Because only in a blog can I share the truth that is in my heart.

It’s Something—Take Note!

It’s where I can go beyond the strictest, most narrow sense of a definition to say: “There’s something here, something a journalist might not want to touch. But it’s something, so take note!”

That is the freedom that comes with being a blogger. I can say what a journalist cannot. But what you do with the information is your own business.

Believe it. Don’t believe it. Agree or disagree.

It's completely up to 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.

Read More

In Antisemitism as in Life, Ignorance is Always a Choice (Judean Rose)

Is it antisemitic to like a post of a Louis Farrakhan video that has nothing to do with Jews? Or is liking such a post just plain ignorance of the fact that Farrakhan is an ugly antisemite? A sign of cluelessness?

Is it antisemitic to criticize Israel and its duly elected leadership? Or could it be an honest opinion or about not knowing any better: not realizing you’ve been fed a load of propagandist hogwash? 

By letting lesser antisemites earn the label, do we dilute the significance of our cause? 

These are questions at the heart of the hot debate generated by last week’s column, an attempt at building a comprehensive list of antisemitic celebrities, a work in progress.

The article in question begins with the statement that building such a list is probably impossible. First, there’s the question of whom to include. Some wanted me to include, for instance, Barack Obama, who took pains to hurt Israel whenever possible. Obama is no longer a politician, and since he is famous, he certainly qualifies as a celebrity. Keeping things simple, however, meant sticking to a narrow definition of the celebrity as entertainer: singers, actors, and the like.

Speaking of Obama, some said that if we’re going to include actors for liking Handler’s Farrakhan post, we should include all the actors who supported Obama.

Others said we should include all the entertainers who supported the Iran deal, which surely poses an existential threat to the Jewish State.

Satisfying IHRA

Some commentators, notably CAMERA UK’s Adam Levick, felt that some of the celebrities listed had clearly crossed the line, while others hadn’t, and that the inclusion of the latter diluted the significance of the word antisemitism, by conflating the former with the latter. Levick referenced the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, stating that this should be the only accepted criteria for such a list. While I respect and appreciate Levick’s thoughtful disagreement, I find that interpreting a celebrity’s behavior according to the IHRA definition is somewhat subjective.

In fact I had referenced the IHRA definition in building my list, in particular noting the examples listed below the definition for illustration purposes, including the following:

“Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

Mental Boxes

Keeping the above in mind, prior to including a name on the list, I asked several questions, ticking off mental boxes:

Had the celebrity leveled similar accusations against other countries? Or are the accusations made only against Israel?

Is the celebrity voicing benign tourist-type complaints about the weather or the food in Israel? Or is the celebrity with the public platform singling out Israel for criticism by insulting Israel’s leadership and/or accusing Israel of malfeasance in relation to its Arab population and its legal maritime blockade of Gaza?

If the latter, it seems to me such criticism of Israel is dissimilar to criticism of other countries, and directly targets the Jewish State based on anti-Israel propaganda, alone. But should we blame celebrities for believing what they read in the media? For not taking the time to read more varied reports from which a truer, more positive picture of Israel might emerge? 

Yes. Because in antisemitism, as in life, ignorance is always a choice. Especially when it comes to singling out the Jewish State from one’s very public platform.

Liking A Public Figure

The same is true of liking a post of Farrakhan speaking out against racism—a post having nothing to do with this public figure’s very vocal and infamous expressions of antisemitism. If you’re going to put yourself out there and like a Farrakhan post, you better know what you’re liking. And by now, who doesn’t know who Farrakhan is, and what he represents? And if you don’t, why don’t you? You’re an adult. You are putting yourself out there in the public eye on a variety of causes, using your celebrity to stump for presidential candidates and to advocate for change.

The use of a public platform is a responsibility, and like all responsibilities, requires a familiarity with current events and a thorough study of the subject in question. If you like a Farrakhan video, you better know all about the man. That, in essence, is your job as a celebrity voicing support for a movement or a cause.

When Israel is singled out for criticism—or when a celebrity favors a post highlighting the views of a notorious antisemite—I believe the IHRA working definition of antisemitism has been satisfied.

Natalie Portman's Calculated Insult 

Take Natalie Portman. The Jewish actress, who was born in Israel (hence an Israeli citizen), received the coveted Israeli Genesis Prize but refused to attend the awards ceremony because she “did not want to appear as endorsing Benjamin Netanyahu, who was to be giving a speech at the ceremony.” But Portman announced her decision not to attend six months after she had confirmed her attendance to the Genesis Prize Foundation, and a full nine months after the award was announced. From the Genesis Prize website:

“This announcement was made almost six months after Ms. Portman confirmed her attendance at the Genesis Prize ceremony. Prior to accepting the Genesis Prize, Ms. Portman was made aware that the Genesis Prize is a partnership between our foundation, the Office of the Prime Minister of Israel, and The Jewish Agency for Israel. Moreover, we informed Ms. Portman that the Prime Minister of Israel presents the Genesis Prize and also delivers a keynote address at the award ceremony.”

So Portman accepted the award knowing that Netanyahu partners with the foundation, presents the prize, and delivers the keynote address at the award ceremony. But she let everyone think she was coming to Israel to accept the prize, then used her public platform, at the last minute, to insult the elected leader of Israel and to bash Israel’s policies on Gaza. In fact, Portman kept changing her mind: was she not coming to the awards ceremony to insult Bibi or to make a point about Israel’s policies in Gaza? Whatever the reason, it was a concerted attack on Israel: an insult, planned and calculated to embarrass Israel—to make Israel look bad.

Dave Lange (Aussie Dave) of Israellycool feels that Portman is within her rights to criticize Israel and Netanyahu, in part because she is an Israeli citizen. I disagree. Portman doesn’t live in Israel, doesn’t vote in Israeli elections and uses her celebrity to accuse Israel and Israel’s duly elected leadership of malfeasance. Her last-minute announcement regarding the Genesis Prize was planned, timed, and calculated to demonize Israel and its democratically elected leadership. Portman’s dissent with Israel’s prime minister and the policies of the Israeli government are based on a narrow, unflattering view of the Jewish State, an obvious byproduct of anti-Israel propaganda/biased media reports.

Comparing Israel to the Nazis

Portman’s statement (quoted in the above-linked Israellycool piece) regarding her decision to skip the awards ceremony further fulfills the IHRA working definition of antisemitism by accusing Israel of “atrocities” and appearing to compare Israeli actions in Gaza with Nazi activity during the Holocaust:

“Israel was created exactly 70 years ago as a haven for refugees from the Holocaust. But the mistreatment of those suffering from today’s atrocities is simply not in line with my Jewish values. Because I care about Israel, I must stand up against violence, corruption, inequality, and abuse of power.”

IHRA examples of antisemitism include: "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."

Portman seems to own her Israeli citizenship when she can use it to hurt Israel. But when she stumps for Obama in Ohio, she’s suddenly “Very Ohio,” though Obama’s intention to fund the mullahs’ nuclear program, with its expressed intention of obliterating the Jewish State, was well known.

Will the real Natalie Portman please stand up? Actually, I believe she has. Which is why she stays on the list. Of course, part of the problem of creating the list was how to document antisemitism while keeping things simple.

Portman Email Chain Scandal

Each celebrity’s name was linked to a single news item. In Portman’s case, I could have listed many more such items. There was, for example, that public temper tantrum about having her email address outed on an email chain about Gaza. Was Portman only upset about having her address exposed, or was she upset at being included in an effort supportive of the Jewish State of Israel? From Gawker:

“A few weeks before sending the email, Kavanaugh, an outspoken supporter of Israel, had become the first major studio head to denounce a letter, signed by actors Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz, that condemned the Israeli bombing of the Gaza Strip. He later wrote an editorial for The Hollywood Reporter calling for the film industry to stand with Israel against Palestine.

“Kavanaugh and Rotholz's forwarding habits were irritating enough to Portman that she'd previously asked Kavanaugh to remove her from the list: ‘you should not be copying me publicly so that 20 people i don't know have my personal info,’ she admonished the producer. ‘i will have to change my email address now.’

"’Sorry,’ he replied. ‘You are right jews being slaughtered for their beliefs and cannes members calling for the boycott of anything Israel or Jewish is much much less important then your email address being shared with 20 of our peers who are trying to make a difference. my deepest apologies.’ (Grimace emoji.)”

Antisemitic Or Just Clueless?

Moving along, many voiced disgruntlement at Jennifer Aniston’s name being included on the comprehensive list of antisemitic celebrities. Her name is linked to a story about all the celebrities who liked Chelsea Handler’s Instagram post with Farrakhan’s video about racism. She liked a post?? Why does that earn her the sobriquet of antisemite?

Because ignorance is a choice: lather, rinse, repeat. Farrakhan is a notorious public figure who has said so many horrible things that simply appearing in a photo with him is enough to damage reputations. The Southern Poverty Law Center called his organization Nation of Islam, a "hate group" (and so apparently did Martin Luther King). 

If Aniston doesn’t know about Farrakhan, she should. She has a duty to know before approving any message issuing forth from his mouth. But just for the record, here are a few choice Farrakhan quotes (see HERE for more examples):

“Satanic Jews have infected the whole world with poison and deceit.”

“The Jews have control over those agencies of government.  When you want something in this world, the Jew holds the door.”

“Jews were responsible for all of this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out, turning men into women and women into men…. White folks are going down. And Satan is going down. And Farrakhan, by God’s grace, has pulled a cover off of that Satanic Jew, and I’m here to say your time is up, your world is through.  You good Jews better separate because the satanic ones will take you to hell with them because that’s where they are headed.”

What makes anyone think Aniston would be woke enough to know about Farrakhan? Aniston has, in the past, used her celebrity platform to take a stance on other political issues, which suggests she keeps up with current events. Aniston’s political activism goes back to at least 2003 and the Second Intifada, when she, along with ex-husband Brad Pitt, created their “One Voice” peace initiative.

Aniston: Describing A False Equivalence 

At a time when Israeli civilians, including children, were being blown to bits on buses by suicide bombers, I found it particularly insensitive when Aniston and Pitt, in their joint statement, drew a false equivalence between Arab and Israeli society, suggesting that Israeli children, like their Arab counterparts, were growing up learning to hate:

"The last few years of conflict mean that yet another generation of Israelis and Palestinians will grow up in hatred. We cannot allow that to happen."

A quick glance at the work of IMPACT-se, shows that the opposite is true. Arab school children are inculcated with hate by their teachers and their textbooks every day in their UNRWA classrooms. Israeli textbooks, on the other hand, contain no such incitement or racism. Because this is contrary to Jewish values and the values of the Jewish State. Which is why Arabs are found alongside Israelis in every Israeli sector and sphere, including in the Israeli parliament, where Arabs make up the third largest party in the Israeli Knesset. Which is why accusations of Israeli “Apartheid” are equally spurious. (Also: Israelis were not blowing up buses of Arab civilians in 2003 or at any other time.)

Aniston and Pitt, with their false assertion that another generation of Israeli children are growing up in hate, fulfill this IHRA example of antisemitism: "Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such . . . "

Some might suggest that Aniston is merely clueless for liking Handler’s Farrakhan post, or for suggesting a false equivalence between Israeli and Arab children. But actions have consequences and if you use your celebrity platform to prove you are woke, you better actually BE woke, by being conversant with current events and the varied perspectives on these issues. Is Farrakhan worthy of a like when he speaks out against racism? Is he an upright human being one should like or quote? Are Israelis actually growing up “in hatred” or is that something you say to make you feel better about Arab terror?

Silverman: Defending An Assailant Of IDF Soldiers

Sarah Silverman was another addition to my list to which some readers took exception. Silverman’s name was linked to her support for then 17-year-old Ahed Tamimi, who was arrested for physical and verbal abuse of IDF soldiers. Linking to an Amnesty International campaign for Tamimi’s release, Silverman tweeted, “Jews have to stand up EVEN when—ESPECIALLY when—the wrongdoing is BY Jews/the Israeli government."

The IHRA definition of antisemitism includes this example: "Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation."

Is it wrong to arrest a 17-year-old who assaults the military? Would it be wrong in America? Or is it only wrong when Israeli soldiers are on the receiving end of the assault?

This is “as a Jew” criticism of Israel at its worst. Tamimi has been assaulting Israeli soldiers for years. From the link I supplied with Silverman’s entry:

“Many Palestinians consider her a political icon as she has a history of confronting IDF soldiers. Ahed Tamimi had first came to public prominence when, aged 11, she appeared in another video threatening to punch a different soldier.”

Exploiting Fame

Dave Lange has been documenting Ahed Tamimi’s behavior at Israellycool for years, dubbing Tamimi “Shirley Temper” due to her youth, her big blond frizz, and her temper tantrums. The Tamimi family is notorious for using its children to attack the State of Israel. The whole family is involved in one way or another in this effort. Why not? This is, after all, the same clan that is responsible for masterminding the Sbarro Pizzeria Massacre. Which is why none other than Arnold Roth, responding to Silverman’s tweet, wrote:

“Entertainers exploiting their fame are often a poor choice for clarifying what’s moral or good. Sarah, did you stand up for our daughter Malki and the other 15 Jewish lives extinguished by Ahlam Tamimi, Ahed’s cousin and role-model-in-life? Do you stand with Ahed’s call to kill?”

If Silverman is going to stick her neck out and criticize Israel, she has an obligation to know all the facts, from every angle. A simple Google search would have led her to Lange’s comprehensive coverage of Tamimi’s antics. Is it fair for Silverman to single out the Jews and Israel for criticism in regard to Tamimi’s arrest? In my opinion, her tweet is antisemitism according to the IHRA definition. Because a girl of 17 with a long, documented record of assault, no matter in which country the assault occurs, and no matter the religion of the victims she assaults, should be held culpable.

When celebrities use their public platforms to demonize Israel on the basis of propaganda, that's antisemitism. If you're going to single out the Jewish State, you better be basing your assertions on fact, or we'll call you out on them. Otherwise, it's gratuitous hate.

Criticism Of Israel, Alone

Is Portman leveling accusations against the democratically elected leaders of other countries? Is she turning down awards from other countries based on what she thinks about their leaders? No. Her accusations extend to Israel, alone.

Is Aniston merely clueless? No. She is a person who follows current events enough to start a peace initiative on behalf of people who don’t live in her own country.

What about Silverman, who fights for the freedom of a girl who has been made into an anti-Israel propaganda tool by her family? Does Silverman have a right to criticize Jews and Israel for detaining this “girl” who is now on the cusp of adulthood? Context is everything.

Silverman used her celebrity to call for the release of a person with a long record of assaulting Israeli soldiers. That cannot be understood in a kind light. Silverman is singling out Israel. We don’t see her demanding the release of anyone else assaulting soldiers in any other country. No. She only holds the Jews, her own people, to account. Only the Jews are not allowed to pursue justice in response to physical assault, according to Silverman.

Shades Of Antisemitism

I do understand that there are levels and gradations of antisemitism. I understand those insisting on nuance and proof. Because there is a difference between making a political statement and outright Jew-hatred. There's a difference between Mel Gibson calling Jews "oven dodgers" and liking a tweet that has nothing to do with Jews.

The point of making a comprehensive list, however, is that it should be comprehensive. The idea of such a list is to let these people know we see them. We know what these celebrities are doing. And their behavior is unacceptable, no matter how rich, talented, and beautiful they are.

When celebrities use Israel to virtue signal, they turn Israel into a common icon for everyday condemnation and abuse, in which Israel becomes the pivot on which all attacks turn. Celebrities use Israel to get attention. Because when they demonize Israel, they know they will receive applause and approbation. And this is disgusting.

It's Not Torah M'Sinai

The “comprehensive list of antisemites” is not Torat Moshe M’Sinai. My suggestion is that you use it as a tool to take a stand and defend your values. One commenter suggested as much: “I think the list is fine even if—especially if—it's as blunt a tool as those used by the critics. Let them stand on their own values and defend them. We are in an either/or world now. Take a stand and live with it.”

My feeling is that the links on each name in the list tell us to be careful about these people at a minimum. We need to be careful about people who like a post featuring a notorious antisemite, even if that “like” was totally innocent and clueless. There are all kinds of (poor) excuses for bad behavior. But ignorance is no excuse at all. Just as we wouldn’t give the Nazis a pass because they had “no choice” or because they were swept away by Hitler’s charisma.

Some say that being cavalier in my determination of who is and isn’t an antisemite is not strategic. Guilty as charged. I am not a strategist. I believe in speaking out against even a hint of antisemitism. You don’t have to be a Mel Gibson to make it onto my list. At the same time, there has to be something to look at. One friend wanted me to include John Travolta because of an old (dismissed) lawsuit in which the complainant alleged Travolta said Hollywood was run by old Jewish homosexuals "who expect favors in return for sexual activity." 

The case was dismissed. It’s hearsay. I have no reason to believe this report and neither do you. It’s a rumor, it’s only slander: an anecdote. So Travolta stays off the list. Unless you have something real to show me.

Ignorance Is A Choice

Clueless about the antisemitism of Farrakhan? Ignorance is a choice. So is speaking out against what you don't know about. Of the famous four sons of the Passover Seder, the last is an ignoramus. The famous commentator Rashi calls him “evil.” Because . . . wait for it . . .  ignorance is a choice.

Which is why some of those who made it onto my list are, according to one commentator, “just ignoramuses and dolts, not antisemites. Useful idiots. But, still, stupidity is not an excuse when the issues are not trivial. They are taking a position, and should be called on it.”

I concur. Antisemitism is an important topic and we should be able to discuss it with due frankness. We need to be aware of our enemies, their supporters, and their enablers. Sometimes the three are indistinguishable.

If we lived in a kinder, softer world, we could ignore the threat and be fine. But considering the times, we need to take note. And when push comes to shove, it doesn’t much matter if a celebrity is motivated by ignorance or hatred. Liking a post about Farrakhan is as bad as admiring Hitler’s paintings. It’s fruit of the poisonous tree.

You may disagree with this or that entry on the comprehensive list of antisemitic celebrities. But the IHRA working definition of antisemitism tells us that when you slander Jews, it's wrong. The IHRA working definition of antisemitism tells us that when you take a position against Israel, singling Israel out for criticism, it’s wrong. It stands as a basic denial of the right of the Jewish people to be a people, it's a denial of the right of the Jewish people to self-determination and self-defense. It’s siding with the enemy narrative. As such, there is no practical difference between anti-Zionists and antisemites.

Speech Has Consequences

One commenter wrote that in Judaism, we have a commandment to guard one’s tongue. “Because there is [the] realization that [the] consequences of one’s speech can be far-reaching and extremely damaging to others.”

We need to let people know that when they like a post focused on a notorious antisemite it makes us nervous. We need to let them know that when they single out Israel or the Jews for criticism, it’s wrong. Jews are made of DNA like every other people and we have a right to be treated as normal people. Our country has a right to be treated as any other normal country.

In this light, creating a comprehensive list of antisemitic celebrities serves as an attempt to dissociate ourselves from those who, with their unthinking actions and words, put the Jewish people in greater danger. Perhaps their deeds are unwitting. All the same, they aid our mortal enemies. We cannot afford to stick our heads in the sand, and ignore the things they do, clueless or not.

I will end this by saying thank you to all who helped to form the debate. I think the discussion helped to refine my own views. Thank you for letting me learn from you. I am sure you can see yourselves in this piece.

And to the world at large, know this: when you like a video of an antisemite or speak out against Israel and only Israel, or without fully knowing the facts, it makes you a willful ignoramus. Which makes you an antisemite. Because ignorance is always a choice.

No matter how famous you are.

---

---

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.

Read More

The Comprehensive List of Antisemitic Celebrities (in progress) (Judean Rose)

A comprehensive list of antisemitic celebrities doesn't exist and it would probably be impossible to create one. What follows is at least the beginning of such a list, to be updated as candidates are suggested (or out themselves in the public sphere).

What constitutes a celebrity? A decision was made to limit the list to entertainers, and to exclude antisemitic politicians and writers who surely deserve their own lists. All in good time. (Which is not a threat. If people go on record with their views, the public is allowed to take note.)

Do we include European celebrities? We can, and did, though Hollywood is king.

How is such a list useful? First and foremost, it serves to tell the world that antisemitism is evil. If we see it, we will call you out on it. Because antisemitism is evil and this is society's way of enforcing morality.

Can a Jew be an antisemite? Sadly yes. There are many inclusions to this list that are either Jewish or of Jewish heritage. The self-hating Jew is a real phenomenon. 

What is antisemitism? The official IHRA working definition of antisemitism aside, sometimes it's difficult to know, in particular when antisemitism involves criticism of Israel. Each name in the list is linked to an online news piece that serves as a source for the allegation (more about methodology HERE). Readers may not agree with every inclusion. For purposes of this list, the working guide was "where there's smoke, there's fire."

Does an apologetic statement get a celebrity removed from the list? It's possible, but in most cases, we must remain suspicious. After all, it's only good PR to apologize or remove a tweet deemed a bad move by the public (or one's publicist). There's really no way to know if an entertainer's apology is sincere.

Feel free to email me to suggest other candidates and if a source can be found backing assertions of antisemitism, the list will be updated to include them.

The Comprehensive List of Antisemitic Celebrities:

Keith Allen

Pedro Almodóvar

Jennifer Aniston

Rosanna Arquette

Gilad Atzmon

Joan Baez

Farid Bang

Javier Bardem

Harry Belafonte

Halle Berry

Russell Brand

Nick Cannon

Jessica Chastain

Julie Christie

Stephen Colbert

Sean (P. Diddy) Combs

Elvis Costello

Penelope Cruz

Ice Cube

Liam Cunningham

John Cusack

Rosario Dawson

Tam Dean Burn

Snoop Dogg

Lena Dunham

Jay Electronica

Brian Eno

Jane Fonda

Peter Gabriel

Jennifer Garner

Richard Gere

Mel Gibson

David Gilmour

Danny Glover

Bella Hadid

Gigi Hadid

Harry Hamlin

Chelsea Handler

Sean Hayes

Jeremy Irons

Jameela Jamil

Jay-Z

Felix Klein

Ken Loach

Annie Lennox

Dua Lipa

Madonna

Zayne Malik

Miriam Margolyes

Marc Maron

Nick Mason

Dieudonne M'bala M'bala

Viggo Mortensen

Achinoam Nini (Noa)

Cynthia Nixon

Gary Oldman

Mandy Patinkin

Maxine Peake

Michelle Pfeiffer

Brad Pitt

Letty Cottin Pogrebin

Natalie Portman

Vanessa Redgrave

Rihanna

Lisa Rinna

Seth Rogen

Mark Ruffalo

Mark Rylance

Wallace Shawn

Charlie Sheen

Sarah Silverman

Gloria Steinem

Juliet Stevenson

Jon Stewart

Meryl Streep

Oliver Stone

Tilda Swinton

Emma Thompson

Eddie Vedder

Harriet Walter

Roger Waters

Samuel West

Wiley

Susan Wooldridge

---

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.

Read More