Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: racism

Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts

Sunday, October 30, 2022

The @NYTimes mirrors its 1991 biased coverage of the Crown Heights pogrom

The New York Times today has an article, "How the Hasidic Jewish Community Became a Political Force in New York."

It mentions the 1991 Crown Heights pogrom, but it describes it in ridiculously evenhanded terms that don't reflect reality:

The Hasidic community began to carefully build relationships with elected officials, starting in the 1950s, when Rabbi Teitelbaum found common ground with Mayor Robert F. Wagner Jr.

A pivotal moment came in 1991 when the Crown Heights riots shook the city.

The violence and chaos was almost unimaginable. Overnight, Brooklyn streets had turned into combat zones, pitting groups of Hasidic Jews against mostly Black men — some holding longstanding grudges over what they saw as the Hasidic community receiving preferential treatment from the police and the city. Racial and antisemitic epithets filled the air alongside hurled rocks and bottles.

So I looked up the original coverage by the New York Times of the rioting, and this very close to what their original article, on August 21, 1991, had claimed:

Hasidim and blacks clashed in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn through the day and into the night yesterday as the two communities, separately and bitterly, each mourned a member killed, one in a traffic accident on Monday night and the other stabbed in the racial melee that followed.
Bottles, rocks and ethnic slurs were hurled as hundreds of police officers struggled to separate the screaming, taunting groups near the headquarters of the Lubavitcher sect, at 770 Eastern Parkway.

Yet the article went on to mention a number of outrages by the Black community - and not one from the Hasidim.

The very next paragraph summarized it:

As darkness fell, about 500 blacks, mostly young teen-agers, gathered at the intersection of President Street and Utica Avenue, where the accident had occurred and where the dead child had lived. They set afire at least three vehicles, one a police car, hurled rocks at houses owned by Jews and looted a sneaker store. Five reporters and photographers were beaten, two by police officers and three by black protesters.

Not one example of racial epithet was given. (There apparently were groups of Hasidim that threw bottles and rocks back at black youths who were attempting to hurt them.)

The other New York media was not so circumspect. Newsday's celebrated columnist, Jimmy Breslin, was nearly lynched from a cab, and not from Hasidim:

"And up in the higher echelons of journalism, some moron starts talking about balanced coverage."

Exactly. Covering a story like this as if there is "balance" between a murderous mob and a mostly peaceful group of Jews, between a tragic car accident and the purposeful murder of a Jew, is not balanced journalism - it is irresponsible pandering to avoid appearing to be racist.

And it is just as outrageous in 2022 as it was in 1991.

But, hey. maybe they thought that the angry blacks were merely anti-Zionist:

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!

A small example of how academic Jewish studies has been taken over by anti-Zionist politics

Recently, Joshua Karlip wrote in Commentary about how Jewish studies in American academia have been taken over by a wokeism that marginalizes and denigrates Jews:

In December 2020, I participated in a Zoom panel at the annual Association for Jewish Studies Conference that discussed the state of the field of Jewish historiography over the past two decades. One participant noted that the first two decades of the 21st century have witnessed a rise in studies of the history of anti-Jewish violence. In response, I offered what I considered an innocuous explanation. Over the past two decades, I suggested, Jews have experienced an alarming rise in violent attacks. Between 2000 and 2005, the second intifada targeted the Jewish civilian population of Israel, leaving nearly 1,000 dead. Here in America, we have witnessed synagogue shootings in Pittsburgh and Poway, as well as a steady stream of attacks, some deadly, on Jews who “look” like Jews—Orthodox men.

This explanation did not sit well with a senior scholar in the audience. “What you said was exceedingly Jewishly focused,” she lectured me. She then went on to “enlighten” me that those who attack Jews are not primarily targeting Jews. Rather, the true targets of their hatred are African Americans. These hatemongers simply are angry at American Jews for promoting African-American rights. She ended her disquisition with a challenge. If I were really serious about fighting anti-Semitism, she told me, I would openly ally myself with Black Lives Matter.

His article is specifically about his field, Jewish historiography, but we've seen similar absurdities in other Jewish studies fields, as in an article last year in Religion Dispatches that accused anyone who wants to see Judaism survive of being racist.

Or when 200 Jewish Studies academics last year signed a petition condemning Israel for defending itself from Hamas rockets and saying that Israel was engaged in "Jewish supremacy."

Or even recently, when the Association for Jewish Studies decided to stop accepting ads from Tablet magazine, because some members objected to some of Tablet's articles. The critics aren't even slightly ashamed at preferring woke politics over free speech, noting that "much of the magazine’s content is focused on decrying liberal 'wokeness'" - clearly a major crime in today's Jewish Studies cliques.

I saw a small example last week, when I tweeted, "If Jews rejoicing during their holiday upsets you, you just may be an antisemite."

If Jews rejoicing during their holiday upsets you, you just may be an antisemite. https://t.co/xAjJUmYR0b
— Elder of Ziyon 🇮🇱 (@elderofziyon) October 19, 2022

Zachary Braiterman, professor of Jewish Thought and Culture at Syracuse University, responded, "it's a show of force and deliberate provocation of Palestinians living in the Old City."

This struck me as bizarre, since the video showed no indication of any deliberate provocation. Arabs pass by the singing Jews without harm. The song being sung has nothing offensive. the dancing Jews looked exactly like dancing Jews going outside their shuls on Simchat Torah worldwide.

The conversation went like this:

EoZ: You are a professor of Jewish culture and you never heard of Jews dancing on Simchat Torah outside their synagogues???

ZB: i know what a rightwing show of force by radical rightwing religious nationalists in Israel looks like

EoZ: Funny, because it looks exactly like a Simchat Torah celebration in Teaneck or Boca to me.
Please, let us ordinary people know exactly what you see in this video that shows you are right. The song? The color of the Torahs?
I await your expertise.

ZB: because the intention is a show of force over against Palestinian people under Israeli control

EoZ: No flags. No insults. No slogans. The Arabs can pass by without issue. No incitement. They are doing in the Old City exactly what Jews did everywhere else. If you think they do not have the right to do in Jerusalem what Jews do in America, that says something about you, not them.

ZB: you are omitting the entire political context of a military occupation and threats of dispossession in E. Jerusalem

EoZ: So according to you, Jews have the right to dance outside on Simchat Torah everywhere in the world - except for Jerusalem's Old City. Even if they have NOTHING to do with Ben Gvir.
Do I have that right?

ZB: why not at the Kotel?

EoZ: Why not outside where they pray?

Braiterman insisted, three times, that the video showed Jews deliberately provoking Arabs, yet never offered any evidence outside the pompous "I know it when I see it."

In short, he sees religious Jews dancing and he assumes that they are bigots. He cannot even imagine that Jews dancing outside in Jerusalem are celebrating the holiday the way Jews do worldwide, and nothing more.

He then attempted to claim that Jews who quietly visit the Temple Mount are also deliberately provoking Arabs: "the religious zionists regularly do not respect Arab residents of Jerusalem or the sanctity of Har Ha'Bayit." I responded that this was absurd, they show far more respect for the Temple Mount than Muslims do. But he has a consistent position - when Jews show a love of Jerusalem's holy places, he assumes that they are really trying to attack Muslims and Arabs.

Braiterman throws all religious Zionist Jews into one bucket, pretending that they are all racists, all fans of Itamar Ben Gvir, all support attacking Arabs for no reason.

Stereotyping isn't sober analysis. It is bigotry.

I've prayed on the Temple Mount and would happily have joined the Simchat Torah dancing, and I am no fan of Itamar Ben Gvir. An Israeli friend told me "my guess would be that not only is it true that most religious Zionists oppose [Ben Gvir], but also most of his supporters are not religious Zionists."

The professor is not an antisemite. No one who spends two years writing a post on the Sefat Emet would be. But throwing all religious Zionists in the same racist bucket is, in a small way, just as bigoted as throwing all Jews into the same bucket.

Jewish studies is in deep trouble.

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!

Is the Brooklyn College "implicit bias training" on Yom Kippur really antisemitic?

The New York Post published on October 1:

Brooklyn College — which was recently ripped for campus anti-Semitism — scheduled “implicit bias training” for staffers on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish year when many of the faithful do not work.

The training is mandated for those who serve on job search committees with one of the four Zoom sessions set for 11:30 a.m. Wednesday, the morning of Yom Kippur.

“This biases the process against observant Jews and secular Jews who typically attend services on this one day of the year. Such Jews are afforded only three meeting opportunities, while all others are afforded four,” one Jewish professor said. “That sounds like implicit bias to me. Imagine, if that was done to a group that is viewed as a disadvantaged minority.”

A Brooklyn College spokesman said an additional training session was being offered on Monday.

“While classes are not held on Yom Kippur, the college is open on that day. In addition to these dates, staff or faculty can request an individual training session,” said spokesman Richard Pietras.

Is this antisemitic, or tone deaf, or not even an issue?

I am unclear whether the mandated training is to attend one of the sessions, or to attend all of them. If it is only to attend one session, and Jews still have a choice of three sessions (now four) )to attend, this does not sound like a problem at all to me - that choice of sessions should be plenty and from the Jewish perspective, the college is simply offering an additional session for those who have a free day on Yom Kippur and want to take advantage.

If attendance at all sessions is mandated, however, then this is saying that any Jews who go to synagogue on Yom Kippur would have automatically failed the requirement. The Jewish Press makes that assumption but I am not sure where they got that from. If I'm right, though, this is an artificial issue.

This Brooklyn College page that mentions the training indicates to me that only one session is needed for the mandatory training and it is normally offered three times a semester, meaning the Yom Kippur session is simply taking advantage of a day that non-Jews are probably free.

Brooklyn College has lots of problems with antisemitism. But when the charge is made, let's make sure it is warranted.

Before the 1970s, Jewish students were routinely faced with mandatory exams on Saturdays or holidays. Those days seem to be mostly over. If the college offers a reasonable alternative for Jews, then that's all that should be required. In this case, Brooklyn College added the Monday session after the complaint, so Jews are not excluded at all even if they must attend all four sessions.

There is plenty of real antisemitism to be dealt with. If my interpretation is correct, this is not one of those cases. And publicizing trumped-up charges of antisemitism will cheapen the cases when real antisemitism occurs on campus.

I think that the bigger issue is that Brooklyn College mandates classes that appears to insist that all white people - and presumably all "white-passing" Jews - are inherently, unavoidably and perpetually biased.

Assuming that Jews are racist and oppressors really is antisemitic.

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!

FAIR - Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting - shows extreme disrespect towards Israeli Arabs

FAIR - Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting - issued a report by Nora Lester Murad that claims that books for toddlers and youngsters that introduce kids to Israel are pretty much racist against Palestinians, because - they aren't about Palestinians.

However, Murad's critique exposes her own disdain for Arabs who live in Israel as well as her own hate for Israeli Jews.

Even though the books aren't about Palestinians, and aren't meant to be, she says that they"erase" Palestinians.

First, Murad claims that they erase through "appropriation:"

Rah! Rah! Mujadara!, for example, is a 12-page board book for ages 1–4 that has an attractive tagline: “Everybody likes hummus, but that’s just one of the great variety of foods found in Israel among its diverse cultures.”

There’s a subtlety in that tagline that may be lost on some. While diversity is acknowledged, it is represented only within the Israeli sphere, without its own history and separate identity. This is a political position that jibes with Israel’s intentional deployment of the term “Israeli Arabs” to refer to Palestinians with Israeli citizenship, whom Israel wants to incorporate as an Israeli minority, fragmenting them from the larger Palestinian community and from their national identity.

To progressives, referring to someone in ways that they object to - say, by using the wrong pronoun - is an unforgivable crime. But only a small percentage of Israeli Arabs refer to themselves as "Palestinian." According to a 2020 poll from Jewish People Policy Institute, only 7% referred to themselves as "Palestinian" while 74% referred to themselves as "Arab Israeli" or simply "Israeli."

FAIR is showing great disrespect to the people they are claiming to be defending from this book. And the simple children's book is far more accurate in its depiction of Arabs in Israel than FAIR is.

The critique then veers into the absurd:

Newbies to the the Israeli/Palestinian narrative war may also not realize that food is an active battleground. Palestinians consider Israel’s claiming of hummus and falafel, among other foods, to be cultural appropriation.

Palestinians, therefore, are likely to consider both the people and the food appropriated when the same [Muslim] girl is featured behind the text:

Blow, slow.
Taste. Whoa!
Brown fa-LA-fel,
big green mouthful!

Since the state of Israel is not even 75 years old, any food with a longer pedigree must have been originated by someone else. But while Kar-Ben Publishing is surely aware of this contention, they either choose to ignore it or intentionally intend to steer readers towards the Israeli narrative—by hiding the Palestinian one.

But does the book say that falafel is an Israeli-created dish, or does it say that it is a dish that Israeli citizens of all backgrounds enjoy? Clearly it is the latter - "the great variety of foods found in Israel among its diverse cultures." It mentions bagels too - does anyone claim that they are Israeli? Other foods in the book are meant to highlight the different cultures that come together in Israeli society: nowhere does it claim that malawach, mujadara, hummus, or bourekas were created by Israelis except in the fevered imagination of Nora Lester Murad.

Murad is apparently opposed to kids from different backgrounds finding things in common that they like from different cultures. This hardly seems progressive.

Murad then says that books about Israel that show the Dome of the Rock are "erasure through deception" because, she claims, "east Jerusalem" is not part of Israel. However, Israel disagrees, and so do many international jurists. To Jews, the idea of an Israel without the holy places is anathema and extraordinarily offensive. There is no deception there - people who say that all of Jerusalem is part of Israel have that right.

But FAIR doesn't recognize that right. We must all believe as they do, or we are racists. So tolerant!

The next "erasure" is "Erasure through both-sidesism." Yes, books about Israel that go out of their way to show Arab Israelis are awful, too - and her main target is, believe it or not, Sesame Street.

Welcome to Israel With Sesame Street (Christy Peterson, Lerner Publishing, 2021)...[has a] “both sides” approach, starting by teaching children how to say hello in both Hebrew and Arabic (pages 4–5). This “both sides” approach makes a nice visual while hiding Israel’s disrespect for Arabic and Arabic speakers, which is clear in the fact that Arabic had been an official language of Israel until it was officially downgraded in the 2018 Jewish Nation State Law.

Of course, Murad pointedly doesn't mention that the use of Arabic in government documents and in the public sphere is still mandated under Israeli law. Israel still supports and funds its Arabic-language schools. There is no disrespect in reality. But why let the facts get in the way of anti-Israel soundbites?

Presenting “both sides” is a device used to appear neutral, which conjures a sense of objectivity and truth. It is also a way to stake a claim to antiracism and respect. For example, page 11 says that Jerusalem is “special to people of many religions,” over a photo of Palestinian school girls, some wearing the Muslim hijab.

But presenting Palestinians only as linguistic and religious minorities of Israel, and not as a national group in and of itself, is an Israeli narrative tactic that dehumanizes Palestinians and undermines readers’ ability to understand Israel. While appearing respectful of diversity, the text and photo cleverly omit that Israel is an explicitly, self-declared Jewish state, that enshrines Jewish supremacy over non-Jews (and the corresponding inequality of Palestinians) by saying, in law, that only Jews have the right to self-determination.

A book for children that celebrates Israel's diversity is regarded as flawed because it should show what Murad declares to be the truth, that Israel is a racist state that doesn't give its Arab citizens equal rights.

This is all a lie, of course. The same poll I mentioned above shows that virtually the same percentage of non-Jews as Jews feel comfortable being themselves as Israeli citizens. Most Arab citizens of Israel are proud to be Israelis - but Murad the racist wants them to be considered part of a different nation that the vast majority want little or nothing to do with. The bigotry is in Murad's head and in her poison pen, not in the reality of Israel's non-Jewish citizens.

And by the way, virtually every Arab state declares itself to be an Arab state in their constitutions. By Murad's logic, they are all enforcing Arab supremacy. Does anyone think FAIR will ever mention that?

In Murad's twisted mind, Israel is by definition racist, so any children's book that doesn't highlight how terrible Israel is must be guilty of racism as well. The most bizarre part of her argument is that while it is obvious to all that children's books are meant to teach tolerance, which these books are doing, she is against it. Murad is the racist. Her arguments are as racist as those of a white supremacist upset at American schoolbooks that show white children playing with children of color without mentioning comparative crime rates for different groups.

Finally, Murad freaks out over a map in the Sesame Street book:

The 1949 armistice lines are clearly drawn, and Israel is only shown inside those lines. Egypt, Jordan and Syria are not named. But Murad looks hard to find bias, and of course she succeeds:

Page 6 of Welcome to Israel With Sesame Street incorrectly displays a map of Israel (“and Surrounding Area”) including the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the same shade of yellow. The outlines of the occupied Palestinian territory are visible but not labeled.

This is her entire argument - the yellow on the map of the territories is slightly different than the yellow of other countries. The actual lines that represent borders, prominently displayed, are meaningless to Murad's bizarre brain - the shade of yellow is offensive.

Hilariously, she sent this litany of paranoid complaints to Sesame Workshop, and they properly ignored her:

Welcome to Israel With Sesame Street, however, is not harmless. It uses subtle messages to contribute to erasure and distortion of Palestinians, which should cause concern among people who care about the educational reputation of the brand. Unfortunately, Sesame Workshop failed to respond to my several inquiries about this book.

Maybe because if she was honestly being as fair as FAIR pretends to be, she would realize that every single one of her complaints is baseless.

It would be amusing to see the same methodology used for children's books about "Palestine." Do they even mention or show pictures of Jews? Do they admit that Jews have the right to live in their historic homeland? Or are Jews not mentioned at best, and called "sons of apes and pigs" at worst?

If FAIR was fair, they would have a Zionist Jew do the exact same type of analysis on books pushing the Palestinian narrative, and see how they fare. Like the alphabet book that says "I is for Intifada." How are Jews represented there? How do they represent the emotional Jewish ties to Jerusalem? How are the feelings of millions of Jews taken into account?

Which side actually tries for coexistence, and which side wants to see the other be ethnically cleansed in the books meant for children?

The books being critiqued by her show smiling Arab children, some in hijabs. Find me a single children's book about Palestine that shows a smiling child in a yarmulke or tzitzit.

Just one.

That is the comparison that needs to be made to see which side is the side of progressiveness and tolerance, and which side is both implicitly and explicitly antisemitic.

For example, this drawing for Palestinian children contrasting Arabs and Jews is not exactly sending tolerant message. Yet I suspect it is a message that Murad wholeheartedly endorses all children should be exposed to..

Pro-Israel books go out of their way to teach tolerance. Pro-Palestinian books do the opposite. FAIR promotes the former as racist and doesn't want you to look at the latter.

FAIR isn't fair, and this article is exhibit A.

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!

Let's list the lies in Abbas' UN speech (part 2)

Continuing on exposing Mahmoud Abbas' lies in a single speech to the world...

Moreover, the Israeli government allowed the formation of racist Jewish terrorist organizations that practice terrorism against our people, and provided them with protection as they attack the Palestinians and call for their expulsion from their homes. At the top of these terrorist organizations are the Hilltop Youth, the price tag groups, Lahava, and the Temple Trustees, and these terrorist organizations are led by members of the Israeli Knesset, and, in this context, we call on the international community to put these terrorist organizations on the lists of global terrorism.

Have these groups placed bombs on Arab buses or encouraged their members to kill Arabs? I am unaware of that. However, some of them have done illegal things and they were arrested by the Israeli police. So claiming that Israel supports them is another lie.

Abbas is trying to say that Israel is guilty of everything he himself is guilty of. After all, the Al aqsa Martyrs Brigades are part of his Fatah organization and takes credit for terror attacks.

Israel has left us nothing of the land to establish our independent state in light of its frenzied settlement attack, so where will our people live in freedom and dignity? Where will we establish our independent state to live in peace with our neighbors?

The land situation is virtually the same as it was during the Oslo process.

Israel is imposing forged educational curricula in our schools in occupied Jerusalem, in violation of international law, and disrupts the presidential and legislative elections in Palestine, by preventing Palestinian citizens of Jerusalem from participating in them, as took place in three previous elections (1996, 2005, 2006), and enacts racist laws that it perpetuates a system of racial discrimination, an Apartheid against our people in front of the international community, and evades accountability and punishment, so why not hold Israel accountable for violating international law?

Here is a firehose of lies.

Israel is encouraging Arab schools in Jerusalem to use the Israeli curriculum, it is not forcing anything.

The curriculum is accurate and the criticisms of it by Palestinians are ludicrous.

Israel is not stopping Arabs in Jerusalem from participating in elections; they just have to travel a few minutes to get to a polling booth - or they can vote at post offices. Abbas is the one who has used Israel as an excuse not to hold elections.

Israel has no racist laws. The lists given by anti-Israel groups are not discriminatory.

Israel does not perpetuate a system of racial discrimination. It treats Arab and Jewish citizens equally, and it treats non-citizens differently from citizens, just like every other country does.

Israel does not practice apartheid and this is simply an antisemitic slur.

Israel has not refrained from the repeated violation of our land and its recent closure of the headquarters of six Palestinian human rights organizations operating in the Palestinian territory, in accordance with Palestinian and international law, after it had accused them in the past of being terrorist organizations, while the whole world rejected and condemned this accusation, after confirming it was baseless.

The links between those groups and terror groups, especially the PFLP, are beyond dispute.

More coming....

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!

100 years ago: When Harvard's president said that discrimination against Jews was GOOD for the Jews

In 1922, a Jew who graduated from harvard in 1900 wrote a letter to the president of the university Lawrence Lowell about newspaper reports that Harvard was limiting the number of Jews who would be accepted at the university.

Lowell's response was that limiting the number of Jews at universities was good for Jews.

The logic is convoluted and recognized at the time as being absurd, but this is how antisemites who don't consider themselves antisemites think.

The exchange of letters was published in the New York Times and various Jewish publications in June of that year. Here is Lowell's initial reply:

Dear Mr. Benesch: There is no need of cautioning you not to believe all that you see in the newspapers. As a colleague said to me yesterday, there is perhaps no body of men in the United States, mostly Gentiles, with so little anti-Semitic feeling as the instructing staff of Harvard University. But the problem that confronts this country and Its educational institutions is a difficult one, and one about which I should very much like to talk to you. It is one that involves the best interests both of the college and of the Jews, for I should feel very badly to think that these did not coincide.

There is most unfortunately, a rapidly growing anti-Semitic feeling in this country, causing—and no doubt in part caused by—a strong race feeling on the part of the Jews themselves. In many cities of the country Gentile Clubs are excluding Jews altogether, who are forming separate clubs of their own. Private schools are excluding Jews, I believe, and so, we know, are hotels. All this seems to me fraught with very great evils for the Jews, and very great perils for the community.

The question did not originate here, but has been brought over from Europe—especially from those countries where it has existed for centuries. The question for those of us who deplore such a state of things is how it can be combated, and especially for those of us who are connected with colleges, how it can be combated there —how we can cause the Jews to feel and be regarded as an integral part of the student body. The anti-Semitic feeling among the students is increasing, and it grows in proportion to the increase in the number of Jews.

If their number should become 40 per cent of the student body, the race feeling would become intense. When, on the other hand. the number of Jews was small, the race antagonism was small also. Any such race feeling among the students tends to prevent the personal intimacies on which we must rely to soften anti-Semitic feeling.

If every college in the country would take a limited proportion of Jews, I suspect we should go a long way toward eliminating race feeling among the students, and, as these students passed out into the world, eliminating it in the community.

This question is with us. We cannot solve it by forgetting or ignoring it. If we do nothing about the matter the prejudice is likely to increase. Some colleges appear to have met the question by indirect method, which we do not want to adopt. It cannot be solved except by co-operation between the college authorities and the Jews themselves. Would not the Jews be willing to help us in finding the steps best adapted for preventing the growth of race feeling among our students, and hence in the world?

The first thing to recognize is that there is a problem—a new problem, which we have never had to face before, but which has come over with the immigration from the Old World. After the nature of that problem is fairly understood, the next question is how to solve it in the interest of the Jews, as well as of every one else.

Very truly yours,
A. LAWRENCE LOWELL.

Lowell is saying that hating Jews is a natural part of being human. The more Jews, the more hate. If only there would be fewer Jews, then antisemitism can be limited.

In fact, as Mr. Benesch pointed out in his response, if there were no Jews at all, then that would solve the problem, right?

The last paragraph says it all. Too many Jews on campus is the problem, and Harvard was looking for a solution - and it found one: discriminate against them.

People use similar convoluted logic to justify bigotry today, and they are just as certain that there is no prejudiced bone in their bodies. And in a hundred years, we will marvel at how today's intelligent people accepted today's version of antisemitism as normal.

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!

Peter Beinart pretends antisemitism hasn't changed since 1944

One of the most important features of antisemitism is that it morphs over time to make Jews villains as circumstances change.

Jew-haters of the 18th century - where Jews were primarily considered Christ-killers (or the Islamic equivalent of "killers of prophets") - would not recognize the "scientific" antisemitism of Wilhelm Marr asserting that Jews were racially inferior and criminal. They would be mystified at the idea of the traditionally weak Jews in ghettoes being the Elders of Zion controlling the world.

Jew-hatred is insidious because it changes with the times, to claim that Jews are guilty of whatever the worst crimes of the age are. Today, that would be racism, violation of human rights, white supremacy, and colonialism.

But to Peter Beinart, in a discussion in Germany last month, antisemitism is exactly the same as it was in the 1940s, as he defines it here:

"By antisemitism I mean a kind of classical definition that says you don't like Jews because they're Jews, right, you say they have too much power, they stick together too much, you know, they're trying to rip everyone off, whatever."

As a master propagandist, Peter first frames the argument before he makes it. But he uses a false framework, and he knows it. He repeatedly says "classic antisemitism" because he knows that antisemitism does change, and today's antisemitism is as different from that of a hundred years ago as that one was from a hundred years before that.

The examples that he uses are telling as well. Beinart doesn't mention that classical antisemitism also says that Jews enjoy killing Christian children, that they poison the wells of the non-Jews, that they control the world politically. But he doesn't want to mention those examples in his definition, because the audience might realize that modern antisemites on the Left say that the Jewish State enjoys killing Palestinian children, that Israel poisons Palestinian water supplies, and that Zionists control the Western world.

Modern antisemites accuse the Jewish state of everything the "classic" antisemites accused Jews themselves of doing. Mentioning that fact would undercut Beinart's thesis that anti-Zionism has nothing to do with antisemitism.

His absurd extrapolation that Zionists are themselves antisemitic itself fits the pattern of how antisemitism morphs. After the Holocaust, antisemitism became a major social crime. So of course, anyone who supports Israel must be guilty of that crime, because Zionists and Israelis are guilty of every social crime, by the Left's definition. Beinart then twists reality to ensure that Israel is guilty of antisemitism just as Jews have been guilty of every social crime in history.

Beinart's selective definition of antisemitism is itself proof that anti-Zionism is modern antisemitism.

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!

Any support for Israel is "anti-Palestinian racism" according to left-wing UK Jewish group

From Jewish News (UK):

Anti-occupation group Na’amod have claimed they are opening a “conversation on anti-Palestinian racism” within the UK Jewish community after publishing a series of testimonies that are alleged to shed light on the scale of the problem.

So what are examples of the "anti-Palestinian racism" that they are so horrified at? The article lists:

Among a series of 18 personal testimonies from young members of the community, is a claim that a peaceful pro-Palestine protest at Bristol University was disrupted by a group of students hailing from north west London who “stormed the peaceful protest, sporting large Israeli flags as they frantically ran through the crowds of protestors.”

Holding an Israeli flag is racist? I'm not sure of when this happened, but perhaps it was this incident, which shows who the racists are:

However, the protest attracted a degree of controversy from fellow students. One group of Zionist Jewish students objected to the protest and stood by the marchers holding an Israeli flag. They reported that marchers shouted at them saying, ‘you are murderers’.

Second-year Languages student, Talia Rack said, ‘No side is blameless but it didn’t feel appropriate to counter-protest this march on Nakba day, in light of what happened on Monday in Gaza’.

So holding an Israeli flag is racist, but holding Palestinian flags and calling British Jews "murderers" is perfectly fine!

Another example of so-called Jewish racism:

A further testimony includes a claim that pointing out the appalling treatment of LGBTQ+ people in Gaza by Hamas to people holding “Queers For Palestine” banners is “a deeply racist idea — and one that often goes unchallenged in our community.”

Telling "Queers for Palestine" that they would be murdered by Hamas is a "deeply racist idea"?

There were two other examples given that were so vague as to be meaningless:

Another account suggests there are “overt examples of anti-Palestinian racism in the wider British Jewish Community” including “the occasional outbursts of certain members of the Board of Deputies to come face to face with naked bigotry.”

Other examples detail alleged racist responses to the Palestinians, while another testimony from former JFS pupil “Josh” says teaching around Israel at the school meant that “Palestinians were only referenced as an obstacle, a safety threat and a thorn in the side of Jewish freedom and safety.”

This is a list of people being offended at any point of view not their own - but there is not a single example of racism, by any definition.

Meanwhile, in Bristol, the openminded pro-Palestinian crowd routinely burns Israeli flags. Imagine how racist that would be if Zionists did that to Palestinian flags in Bristol!

Maybe the report will have more examples, but from what we see so far, the only thing this proves is that British pro-Palestinian Jews call anyone who disagrees with them "racist" - and they act worse than their supposed tormentors.

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!

Amnesty International UK is “institutionally racist”, “colonialist” - and its antisemitism is closely linked to that

Amnesty UK has an annual meeting where they vote on resolutions about various worldwide political issues. Nearly all of them pass with a huge majority, since they don't ask for funding - just vague commitments to "lobby" for the issue.

In 2015, one seemingly routine resolution was put up for vote to condemn antisemitism in the UK and lobby the British government to do more to protect Jews from attacks, which had increased dramatically in the previous year. That was the only resolution that year that was defeated by the Amnesty-UK crowd.

The excuse that Amnesty-UK used to justify not opposing antisemitism was "we can't campaign on everything."

Compare that to a similar 2020 resolution saying "AIUK should campaign against practices which discriminate against Ahmadi Muslims." That one easily passed 748-116.

Amnesty-UK has exhibited double standards against Jews on other occasions. They have a public space that they rent out to nearly all organizations who request it, and they have allowed virulent antisemites to use the space. But when a Jewish umbrella group representing many political opinions wanted to lease it, Amnesty refused to allow it.

In 2012, an Amnesty-UK leader tweeted a joke about Jewish MKs supporting bombing Gaza, even though plenty of non-Jewish MKs supported Israel's actions to stop rocket attacks.

The antisemitism is endemic. Which is why this story from The Independent is not surprising:

Amnesty International UK is “institutionally racist”, “colonialist” and faces bullying problems within its own ranks, a damning inquiry has concluded.

Initial findings of Global HPO’s independent inquiry into the charity were published in April but now the scale of the organisation’s issues with race have been laid bare in their final report.

Released to Amnesty staff members on Thursday, the 106-page document explains that equality, inclusion and anti-racism are “not embedded into the DNA” of the organisation.

“White saviour”, “colonialist”, “middle class” and “privileged” were among the words most used during the testimony and focus groups to discuss Amnesty.

Examples of racist incidents that left black and Asian staff uncomfortable include:

- Being regularly mistaken for other colleagues with similar skin tone
- Negative comments about fasting during Ramadan
- Treating black skin, hair and appearance as matters of fascination and touching hair without consent
- Rude comments about minority celebrities, politicians or events

The same "white savior" complex that permeates the so-called "human rights community" is closely related to the left wing antisemitism we've seen from Amnesty and Amnesty-UK. The mostly white leadership of Amnesty pretends that Palestinians are "people of color" under attack from white "Jewish supremacists" and as such have no responsibility for their own actions - the same kind of infantilizing of non-white people that this report highlights under the pretense of being anti-racist itself.

In short, groups like Amnesty are the pot that call the kettle black.

Yesterday, the head of Amnesty International Agnes Callamard lashed out against accusations of antisemitism in its report accusing Israel, the most diverse state in the Middle East of "apartheid." She claimed that calling out the obvious double standards and antisemitism in Amnesty are "weaponizing antisemitism."

Just as the previous probes finding that Amnesty-UK is systematically racist were dismissed by its leadership, so are the provable accusations of antisemitism.

Their objections in both cases are the same: we are the leaders in human rights, we are against discrimination, we work hard to hold others accountable for their racism, how dare you accuse us!

But accusations of racism and apartheid against Israel, falsely claiming that it deliberately targets Arab children, are the 21st century equivalent of accusations of Jews deliberately killing Christian children in medieval times.

Accusing those who call out leftist antisemitism as "weaponizing antisemitism" is as offensive as saying that those who document Amnesty-UK's racism are "weaponizing racism."

Groups like Amnesty hide behind the pretense that they fight some kinds of bigotry to justify their own.

Antisemites are racists, and racists are antisemites.

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!

"Pro-Palestinian" activists don't care about Palestinian racism

Here is one of the postponed/canceled events for "Israel Apartheid Week" at Lancaster University:

Notice that the theme of the event was supposed to be "United Against Racism."

Which is funny, because the intended speaker has written about racism - Arab racism against black Palestinians.

On his Facebook page, in Arabic, he wrote last month:

About three years ago, I read an article in the Al Monitor newspaper titled "Black Palestinians Shrug Off Racism"… After I read the article, I was angered, thinking "What?! We don't have racism in Gaza!" So I decided to write an article that would refute the original article. Then I began to conduct interviews with some dark-skinned youth, and I was shocked to find that yes, indeed, we do have despicable racism in Gaza, and dark-skinned people suffer because of our racism.

After I published the article, I was surprised to see that it reached the (Ministry of) Interior, and the criticism began to pour down on me, as well as accusation of being a traitor, and (people said that) I am trying to distort Gaza's image… And no one thought or felt even once what the wronged people (i.e. the black Palestinians) feel because of our racism.

The Al Monitor article mentions "According to Gaza Through History, a book by Ibrahim Sakik, wealthy families in the Gaza Strip participated in the slave trade hundreds of years ago." But there is not a single book about the history of black Palestinians.

The Israel haters say they are against racism, yet they know quite well that Arabs are racists - but that fact cannot be publicized because anyone who is brave enough to say a word is threatened by the Hamas or PA governments!

In fact, Palestinians learn when they are young that they are not allowed to criticize their own people or government at the risk of imprisonment and social stigma. The only people who can be insulted are Israelis and whatever Arab nations that seem to be aligned with Israel.

A society that cannot handle criticism can never grow. The Israel haters are doing their Palestinian pets no service when they censor any criticism of them - censorship that in the past has extended so far as to hush up stories of Western female "peace activists" being raped by Palestinians.

(h/t Ibn Boutros)

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.

Anti-semitism in anti-Israel protests? I'm shocked! (ElderToon)

From the socialist Worker's Liberty site:

I told the man that racism had no place on the demonstration, that his presence harmed the Palestinian cause, and that the document he was promoting was a racist hoax. In the course of what was probably a not a very coherent tirade from me, I mentioned that I was Jewish.

“Well, you're blinded by your bias because you're a Jew”, he said. “Only Jews make the arguments you're making.”

Thereafter the “discussion” became more heated, and several onlookers were drawn in. Several people backed me up, but several defended him.

Their defences ranged from, “he's opposing Zionists, not Jews”, to “he's not racist, Zionism is racist!”, to the perhaps more honest “Jews are the problem. If you're a Jew, you're racist, you're what we're demonstrating against.” One man, topless, but wearing a balaclava, said “fuck off, unless you want your fucking head kicked in.”

I walked away, angry and upset. I returned a short while later to find the placard-holder embracing two young men, before leaving. When me and some comrades challenged them, they told us he wasn't anti-Semitic, merely anti-Zionist. “Look, it says 'Zion'”, not 'Jews'. 'Zion' means Zionists”, one helpfully informed us.

...In 2009, during Operation Cast Lead, some Workers' Liberty members in Sheffield (three of us, incidentally, Jewish) took placards on a demonstration against the assault which, amongst other things, said “No to IDF, no to Hamas.” As it happens, I now think, for various reasons, that our slogan was misjudged. But no-one attempted to engage us in debate or discussion about it; we were simply screamed at, called (variously) “scabs” and “Zionists”, and told we must immediately leave the demo (we didn't). Our placards were ripped out of our hands and torn to pieces.

I don't make the comparison in order to express a wish that what happened to us in 2009 had happened to him in 2014. I wouldn't particularly advocate physically destroying the man's placard, or attempting to physically drive him and his supporters off the demonstration. But a movement in which “no to IDF, no to Hamas” is considered beyond the pale even for debate and discussion, and must be violently confronted, but a placard promoting The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion can be carried without challenge, even for a moment, and its carrier find numerous defenders, needs to change its political culture.

The author still downplays leftist antisemitism as an aberration despite his own experiences. Perhaps he should read this report from one of those horrible right-wingers about what is happening across Europe nowadays:

People who are "visibly Jewish," people wearing identifiably Jewish dress, have found themselves targeted for abuse. Demonstrators at the biggest central London march assaulted and verbally abused a Jewish woman who had expressed her support for Israel, calling her a "Jew Zionist" among other things, before stealing her mobile phone. In North London, a rabbi was abused by a group of 'youths' who shouted "F*** the Zionists," "F*** the Jews" and "Allah Akhbar."

All of this is mild compared to what has been going on across the English Channel in France. In suburbs and parts of central Paris the violence being perpetrated against the Jewish community culminated in the disturbing spectacle of Parisian Jews barricaded in a synagogue by a crowd of young North Africans seemingly intent on violence. When the police failed to turn up in any numbers, the Jews fought for themselves. These were not all "Jewish vigilantes" as some of the press disturbingly reported -- Jews in their 40s and 50s fighting their way through a mob.

Since then, the French authorities have banned -- as French authorities have the right to do -- some other planned "pro-Palestinian" protests. But the bans seem not to have worked. "Youths," as the media are prone to title the rioters, who mainly come from the suburbs of Paris and other cities, have taken to the streets, anyhow. There are videos of them smashing up pavements in order to get chunks of asphalt to hurl at police. A Paris suburb with a large Jewish -- not Israeli, just Jewish -- population has been a particular focus of protestors. In some video footage, protestors have been shown attacking police cars and assaulting public and private property. The French authorities are clearly trying to get a handle on the protests, but to a considerable extent, events have slipped from their control.

Similar scenes have been seen across the continent. In the Netherlands -- fresh from witnessing a pro-ISIS rally in Amsterdam -- there have been serious incidents at protests. There have been anti-Semitic chants, and the home of the Chief Rabbi in the Netherlands has been attacked twice in one week. In Austria, a soccer game involving an Israeli team had to be called off after Palestinian demonstrators broke onto the pitch. The stands had people waving anti-Israel banners and Turkish flags. But once they were on the pitch, the protestors assaulted the Israeli players, doing flying kicks at them and then further kicking and punching them. Some of the Israeli players fought back and the game was halted.

Most disturbing of all, perhaps, have been events in Germany. During pro-Palestinian protests in Berlin and other German cities, there were chants of "Death to the Jews" and "Gas the Jews." The president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, Dieter Graumann, described some of the demonstrations as "an explosion of evil and violence-prone hatred of Jews. Never in our lives did we believe it possible that antisemitism of the nastiest and most primitive kind would be chanted on the streets of Germany."

And it is in Germany that such sentiments have met their most appropriate public and political opposition. There, at least, the nature of these protests has not been glossed over. On the contrary there has been a suitable soul-racking over this. How could such a cry have gone up in this country, of all countries? The major German magazine, Bild, has run a cover with the headline, "Raise your voice: Never again Jew Hatred!" The cover is dotted with famous figures in German public life from the President and Chancellor Merkel to other political and public figures. The montage sends out a powerful message. The question is, of course, whether that is enough.

Arab admits poisoning family because he "hates Jews"

From YNet:

A Palestinian man residing in the West Bank village of Beit Furik, near Nablus, was arrested for allegedly poisoning a Raanana family and a police volunteer in October 2011.

Adnan Othman Nasaara, 46, has reportedly admitted to lacing food and drink in the Lerner family home with pesticides, because he "hates Jews."

The police also arrested two other suspects in the case. One has been identified as Hassan Abd el-Rahim, 27, from Tira, who denies involvement in the act. The identity of the second suspect has not been revealed.

According to the police, he admitted his involvement in the case and reenacted it for the investigators.

Police investigator Ilana Kosinovesko told Ynet that in his interrogation, Nasaara said he "hates Jews because they're Jews."

But YNet says something curious:

Major-General Ilan Mor, of Hasharon Subdistrict Police, said that it was unclear whether the suspect was planning to perpetrate similar nationalistically-motivated crimes in the future.

When the criminal admits that he "hates Jews because they are Jews," how can anyone construe his crime as "nationalistically motivated"?

Israel's critics accuse Zionists of bringing up anti-semitism at the drop of a hat, and yet YNet is going out of its way to claim that an admitted anti-semite is really just "pro-Palestinian"!

UPDATE: Hebrew-speaking commenters note that the Hebrew phrase "for nationalistic reasons," על רקע לאומני, is a known euphemism for racial attacks.

Arab Racism: The story the Left ignores

Here's a story about racism that was published three days ago, but that was ignored in the major leftist websites. Wonder why?

From The Economist:

THE multilingual, fashion-conscious residents of Beirut, Lebanon’s capital, fancy their city to be cosmopolitan. But not everyone is welcome. Black people and foreigners from Asia and elsewhere in the third world who make up the bulk of migrant workers are often turned away from the city’s smarter venues. Conscious of the bad blood this can cause, Lebanon’s government has warned beach clubs against barring entry on the basis of race, nationality or disability.

But racism is unlikely to be erased overnight, either in Lebanon or in many other Middle Eastern countries where blacks are routinely looked down on. Racist taunts are often heard on Egypt’s streets, and in Yemen, darker-skinned people, known as al-akhdam (“the servants”), who make up perhaps 5% of the population, are confined to menial jobs and tend to dwell in slums. In Libya rebel militias often targeted darker-skinned people from nearby countries such as Chad and Mali and from countries further south, accusing them of being mercenaries of Muammar Qaddafi.

Filipinos, Sri Lankans and Chinese-Americans, among others, whisper of racist slurs both at work and on Lebanon’s streets. “When black or Asian friends visit,” says a young Lebanese professional, “I’m at the airport the moment they land to make sure immigration officers don’t ask inappropriate questions. It’s a disgrace.”

Some people blame the legacy of the slave trade, which brought sub-Saharan Africans, as well as others, to the region from the 7th century onwards. But Nadim Houry of Human Rights Watch, a New York-based lobby group says that racism persists in the region because governments have been lax about tackling it. “There are racists everywhere in the world, but in many countries it is now taboo to make comments, partly because there are laws against it,” he says. “Here, even when there is legislation, it is never applied.”

Snobbery makes things worse. Millions of foreigners in the Middle East do cleaning and building jobs which locals consider beneath them. Sponsorship schemes often deny such workers basic rights. “People just see us as cheap labour,” says a Filipino university graduate who makes $200 a month in a Beirut beauty parlour. Some beach clubs have already said they will ignore the new regulation. Their customers, they say, would not tolerate having to rub shoulders with the dark-skinned servant class.

Will there be any soul-searching in the Arab world about this explicit racism? Will the "pro-Palestinian" crowd notice that Arab racism makes the bigotry of some Israelis pale by comparison? Will there be follow-up stories in the media about this, which might shame some Arabs?

No, no and no.

(h/t D)