Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Tuesday, September 05, 2017

Arabs are the "settler-colonialists," not Jews

One of the mainstays of the modern university is the idea of settler-colonialism. This argues that certain societies are birthed by settlers implanted in a foreign territory, either directly by or with the consent of an imperial power. These colonists then dominate and eradicate the indigenous population. They develop bellicose cultures that eliminate the natives from historical, literary, and other narratives. Primary examples often cited are the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, South Africa and Rhodesia, and Israel.

The settler-colonial argument against Israel posits that Zionism was an imperial tool of Britain (or, alternatively, that Zionism manipulated the British Empire); that Jews represent an alien population implanted into Palestine to usurp the land and displace the people; and that Israel has subjected Palestinians to “genocide,” real, figurative, and cultural.

According to this argument, Israel’s “settler colonialism” is a “structure, not an event,” and is accompanied by a “legacy of foundational violence” that extends back to the First Zionist Congress in 1897 or even before. With Zionism thus imbued with two forms of ineradicable original sin, violent opposition to Israel is legitimized and any forms of compromise, even negotiation, are “misguided and disingenuous because ‘dialogue’ does not tackle the asymmetrical status quo.”

But Middle Eastern history is not amenable to these formulations. Among the many concepts abused and perverted by the Palestinians, accusations of Israeli “genocide” rank the highest for blatant audacity, and for twinned calumny and odiousness. The settler-colonial idea deserves attention for three reasons: its comparatively recent adoption by Palestinians and their advocates; its broader currency in the academy; and its obvious and ironic falsity.

The idea of Jews as “settler-colonialists” is easily disproved. A wealth of evidence demonstrates that Jews are the indigenous population of the Southern Levant; historical and now genetic documentation places Jews there over 2,000 years ago, and there is indisputable evidence of continual residence of Jews in the region. Data showing the cultural and genetic continuity of local and global Jewish communities is equally ample. The evidence was so copious and so incontrovertible, even to historians of antiquity and writers of religious texts, some of whom were Judeophobes, that disconnecting Jews from the Southern Levant was simply not conceived of. Jews are the indigenous population.

...Ironically, the same cannot be said for the Palestinian Arabs. A recent analysis by Pinhas Inbari reviewed the history of Palestine (derived from the Roman term Palaestina, applied in 135 CE as a punishment to a Jewish revolt). Most notably, he examines the origin traditions of Palestinian tribes, which continue even today to see themselves as immigrants from other countries. ...

...Palestinian genealogies that show their own tribes originating outside the Southern Levant are prima facie evidence of Arab settler-colonialism. And while narratives of the Arab conquests of Byzantine Palestine and North Africa cannot be taken at face value, they are pure ideological expressions of settler-colonialism. In 634-37 CE, Muslim armies commanded by the Caliph Umar conquered the entirety of the Levant before invading Armenia and Anatolia in 638 and Cyprus in 639.

The subsequent Islamization and Arabization of the Levant was a long and complex imperial process that entailed reorganizing the region into administrative provinces, instituting new social categories for the purposes of taxation and control, implanting settlers and reapportioning lands as estates, and encouraging conversion to Islam. Over the centuries, other settlers migrated and were intentionally implanted, including, in the 19th century alone, Egyptians fleeing from and imported by Muhammad Ali from the late 1820s to the 1840s, as well as Chechens, Circassians, and Turkmen relocated by the Ottoman Empire in the 1860s after its wars with Russia. Tribes of Bedouins, Algerians, Yemenis, and many others also immigrated during that century.

....It is, then, the Palestinians who are the settler-colonialists, not the Jews or even the Zionists. Does this realization change anything? Does removing a term from the rejectionist toolbox bring the cause of negotiation and peace any closer? This seems unlikely. But in the longer term, facing certain truths will be necessary for Palestinians and Israelis alike. One is that rejection of Israel, at its core, is not a function of Palestinian nationalism and local identity but Islamic religious opposition to Jewish autonomy and sovereignty. Another is that tendentious categories like “settler-colonialism,” which ironically undermine Palestinian claims to indigenous status, should be dispensed with in favor of honest appraisals of history.

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.

Over and over I keep hearing the word “narrative”. Most often it is spoken by people who insist on the importance of understanding and respecting the “Palestinian narrative.”

How many people have actually paused to consider what “narrative” means? More importantly, how should we respond to a narrative that is not our own?

As a storyteller, a marketer, narrative is something I am very familiar with, something I deal with every day. The narrative is critical, it is a driving motivator, it is what convinces people to “swallow the bait”, to buy whatever it is that you are selling.

The thing is that “narrative” is just that – the story you tell. There is a perspective, a narrative and then there are facts. These words are not synonyms. Each is important and none should be confused with the other.

Perspective is an individual point of view, the way a person sees the world.

Is your glass half full or is it half empty? Is an event positive or negative? These are decided by personal perspective.

The way an individual is raised and the culture he or she is immersed in, effects their perspective but does not control it. Often the individual will automatically conform to the reigning attitudes of society, but not always. If I am raised in a strictly mannered culture it is most likely that I will adopt the social norms and mores as my own however, my individual perspective might see the strictness as oppressive and stupid, leading me to rebel and be different. This is what led the invention of the bra, to women wearing pants and many other sudden deviations in the way things were always done – one person saw things differently, behaved accordingly and in response others changed their perspective as well.

Narrative is the story we tell ourselves about ourselves and our place in the world.

Every individual has a story he or she tells themselves about themselves and the life they are living. Nations also have a narrative, a story that is collectively used to define that people or state. Narrative on both the individual and national levels shapes the way you feel about yourself and, subsequently, the way you are treated by others.

Facts are well... facts.

We may be living in a “post-factual” world but that doesn’t mean that facts have ceased to exist. It is true that history books are written by the winners and good vs bad are often a matter of perspective (or in the case of nations, narrative), however, even if these things are true, there are still undeniable, provable, facts. People can dispute facts all they want but cannot make them go away without lying or turning the argument in to something that has no relation to facts (emotion based arguments).

Your perspective does not influence where or when the sun rises and sets. Perspective cannot make water cease to be wet or fire cease to be hot. Perspective may determine a war to be a triumph or a tragedy but there is no arguing when it happened or who emerged victorious.

What do they teach in school these days?

I recently had a conversation with a history teacher who teaches Zionism in a prominent Israeli school. Disturbingly she seemed unable to differentiate between perspective (the individual point of view), narrative (on the national level) and facts.

It is popular to focus on understanding the “other”. In Israel, this always seems to mean teaching Jews to understand the Arab narrative (“We are victims, you victimized us”). Somehow teaching Arabs to understand the Jewish narrative never seems to come up.

The rationale is: “If we (the Jews) don’t understand the perspective of the other (the Arabs), how can we have a discussion with them?”

And I agree with that.

Being familiar with the story of the “other” facilitates effective discussion. Understanding that this story motivates behavior is critical. At the same time, understanding that someone thinks a certain way and behaves according to the way they were raised is very different from accepting their behavior or accepting their narrative.

Narrative is a story, it is not facts.

I might feel like a princess. My guy can call me a princess all day but that doesn’t mean I have a kingdom to rule over (unless we are calling my kitchen a kingdom). A person or a nation can say that I or my people victimized them all day but that doesn’t make it true.

One can dispute whether or not certain policies are appropriate or not. Certainly, many of Israel’s policies towards our Arab citizens and Arab neighbors are hotly disputed. At the same time, there are facts that are undisputable (unless the arguments are based on lies and utter disregard for facts):

· The land of Israel is historically the land of the Jewish people. This is known from the bible, through countless archeological finds and references in the cultural documents of other nations (including the Koran).

· There never was a Palestinian Nation State.

· There has been a continuous Jewish presence in the land for 3000 years.

· Religious Jews pray facing Jerusalem three times a day, every day. The Jewish people have been yearning to return to Zion for 2000 years and in the last century – we did.

· In 1948, the nations of the world officially acknowledged Israel to be an independent homeland for the Jewish people.

· In 1948, 1967, 1973 Arabs tried to wipe the Israel off the map and failed.

The “Palestinian Narrative” is important to understand because that is the driving force behind activists of the younger generations. Those that are too young to have witness these events themselves are not raised with facts, they are raised on a story and that story has become the only “truth” they know. The Palestinian story is told so often and with such passion that even many of the older generations, people who should know better because they were there, are getting confused.

When we forget the facts we end up comparing stories

Why does this matter? If the facts don’t matter what we end up comparing stories. Everything being equal, it is the better story, the story told with more passion and conviction, that wins – with no connection to right or wrong, justice, rhyme or reason.

At the moment, the “Palestinian narrative” is winning, hands down. This should not be happening, not only because the facts do not support that story but because the Jewish story is so much more glorious and empowering.

Why would you root for the story of the perpetual victim when you could choose the story of those who miraculously overcame all odds? Why would you choose the story of violence and hate over the story of self-sacrifice and love?

To put it in a completely different light, the “Palestinian” narrative is most damaging to Arabs. Their story does not inspire the creation of a better life for the downtrodden. In fact, it is a story that keeps the downtrodden, down. It teaches Arab youth that they are victims of the Jew, that the path to improving their lives is to throw their own lives away in attempt to be rid of the Jews. Instead of teaching life, this story teaches death – for the Jew and often for the Arab as well.

And while the majority of the Arab population is busy hating the Jew, fighting the Jew, Arab rulers are busy enjoying the opulence of their corruption. The Arab people suffer while their rulers have access to all the comforts and pleasures of life. More than it is used against the Jewish people, the “Palestinian” narrative is used by Arab and Muslim leaders to distract, control and retain power over their own people.

If we truly want peace, we must unravel the narrative.

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.

09/05 Links Pt1: Haley: How the US Is Stepping Up Efforts Against Hezbollah; UN's Glass-House Syndrome

From Ian:

Nikki Haley: How the United States Is Stepping Up Efforts Against Hezbollah

That status quo with UNIFIL was unacceptable, so the United States refused to accept it. Last week, when the peacekeeping mission’s mandate came up for renewal, we pushed for changes to make sure UNIFIL is doing its job – and, critically, when it’s prevented from doing its job, that we know about it.
Following tense negotiations with just a day left before UNIFIL’s mandate expired, we reached agreement in the Security Council on a series of changes to how the mission will operate.
Our changes will make UNIFIL step up its patrols and inspections which will help disrupt Hezbollah’s illegal activity. UNIFIL will now enhance its visible presence on the ground and its ability to detect and deter incoming fighters and weapons.
Most importantly, our changes require UNIFIL to report when it is prevented from seeing something it wants to inspect. From now on, when the peacekeepers encounter a Hezbollah roadblock, they have to tell us the details of where, when and why they got stopped. This transparency will put an end to the ignorance about what’s really going on in southern Lebanon. When UNIFIL is prevented from doing its job, the Security Council will know about it. And if the UN refuses to act on this information, the world will know about it.
For the United States, this is a time for strength, resolve and accountability at the United Nations. That’s what our effort at strengthening UNIFIL was all about.
This is an important step, but there is much more to do. As the proxy for the outlaw Iranian regime, Hezbollah will not give up its terrorist goals. But just as Hezbollah is stepping up its efforts, the United States, and now the United Nations, are stepping up our efforts against them.

Russia Threatened to Veto anti-Hezbollah Move Led by Israel and U.S. at UN

"Russia worked behind the scenes to protect Hezbollah during last week's discussions in the UN Security Council on a resolution to renew the mandate of the UN peacekeeping forces (UNIFIL) in southern Lebanon, talks with Israeli officials indicated. A classified cable sent from the Israeli UN delegation to Foreign Ministry headquarters in Jerusalem reinforces that view.
Unlike in previous years, last week's decision to renew UNIFIL's mandate was not just a technical matter. Under American and Israeli pressure, several paragraphs were added to the text saying that the UN forces must increase their presence in the area south of the Litani River in southern Lebanon, and explicitly stating that UNIFIL forces have full authority to act to prevent violations of UN Resolution 1701, which ended the Second Lebanon War.
However, during the negotiations over the wording of the resolution, significant portions endorsed sought by the United States and Israel were removed, chiefly the direct reference to Hezbollah as conducting prohibited military activity in southern Lebanon that is in violation of Resolution 1701. It was Russia that ensured all mention of Hezbollah was omitted.
Two Israeli officials said that during the talks over the wording of the decision, the American delegation inserted several paragraphs relating to Hezbollah's illicit activity in southern Lebanon. One referred to the press tour that several armed Hezbollah men conducted along the Israeli border – an action that violated Resolution 1701.
The Israeli officials say the Russian diplomats who took part in the discussions about the wording of the decision opposed the American version and said that if the final version included any mention of Hezbollah, Russia would exercise its veto. Israel's UN delegation described the Russians' stance in a cable sent to the Foreign Ministry last Friday. 'The Russians watched from the side and their red line was that they would not consent to Hezbollah being named in the resolution,' said the cable.

Hezbollah reacts to IDF drill: We are ready for any act of Israeli stupidity

A senior Hezbollah official taunted Israel Tuesday, saying that "we are ready for any attack or Israeli stupidity."
The official, who was quoted by several Lebanese media sources but was left unnamed, spoke out in reaction to the IDF's announcement Monday that forces have launched the largest military drill in the past twenty years in preparation for a potential war against the terror organization.
"We [Hezbollah] are fully alert and ready at any time for any possible scenario," the official was quoted as adding. He had also reportedly retorted that "The Israelis won't succeed in surprising us, because Israel knows full well [what] Hezbollah's capabilities are after the loss it suffered in 2006, which deterred the IDF."
The official had also allegedly assessed that the IDF launched "the large military drill" due to "Hezbollah's military capabilities."
Other Hezbollah associates who were also unidentified by Lebanese media were quoted as speculating that Israel is carrying out the immense drill in order to prepare to face a renewed battle. The Jewish state is going to be forced to confront an entirely different and strengthened entity than the one it faced a little over a decade ago during the Second Lebanon War, they threatened.
IDF commanders have repeatedly affirmed this claim in recent years, saying that Israel has indeed been preparing itself to contend with an enemy that no longer fights in guerrilla-style groups and has amassed a significant arsenal of weapons as well as knowledge and training.

Back in 2005, the mother of all solutions to the the problem of Gaza was Israel's Disengagement from Gaza.

The favorable opinions at the time illustrated, in hindsight, how poorly the Disengagement and Gaza were understood, especially by even the most respected pundits.

Map of Gaza. Credit: CIA World Factbook. Source: Wikipedia

August 15, 2005, Roger Simon wrote about Abbas's responsibility following the dismantling the settlement and moving Israelis out of Gaza:

But if events continue without a major snafu, the ball will soon enough be in Mohammed Abbas' court. Gaza will be his playground and he will have Hamas and Islamic Jihad to deal with. I don't envy him.... As we used to say on our own playground, "No backsies!"
Of course, Israel lives right next door to this Gazan "playground" and they are the ones suffering from the fact that there are "No backsies". It is the Disengagement that has made the city of Sderot so famous. And synonymous with Hamas missile attacks.

August 19, 2005, Charles Krauthammer wrote that following the withdrawal from Gaza, deterrence will bring the Palestinians themselves to shut down the rockets:

Israel should announce that henceforth any rocket launched from Palestinian territory will immediately trigger a mechanically automatic response in which five Israeli rockets will be fired back. There will be no human intervention in the loop. Every Palestinian rocket landing in Israel will instantly trigger sensors and preset counter-launchers. Any Palestinian terrorist firing up a rocket will know that he is triggering six: one Palestinian and five Israeli.

Israel would decide how these five would be programmed to respond. Perhaps three aimed at the launch site and vicinity and two at a list of predetermined military and strategic assets of the Palestinian militias.

...Once Israel leaves, there is no way to dismantle the rockets. Deterrence is all there is. After but a few Israeli demonstrations of "non-massive retaliation," the Palestinians themselves will shut down their terrorist rocketeers. [emphasis added]

Aside from the fact that such a solution is untenable, in the early years of the Palestinian "democracy" many overestimated how far free elections can take a country that freely chooses to elect terrorists to lead them.

August 20, John Derbyshire on National Review's "The Corner" wrote that the disengagement would create a Gazan state, bringing a sense of responsibility that would curb Palestinian aggression:

The Arabs should be very worried about this. If I am just a state, and you are just a state, then we might go to war, as states do, given any of the traditional definitions of casus belli.

Israel has fought wars against Jordan, Egypt, and Syria; but she has never fought a war against Palestine. What would an Israeli-Palestine war look like? If I were a Palestinian Arab, I think I'd hope never to find out.

With Western influence and pressure available to keep Israel perpetually in check, it is debatable just how afraid Palestinian Arab leaders actually are.

Of course, not everyone was blind. Natan Sharansky understood the consequences of the Disengagement. In an interview in the Winter 2005 edition of the Middle East Quarterly, Sharansky showed he knew what was coming:

MEQ: Is your opposition to the Gaza disengagement plan a matter of principle, or are you concerned over its practical implementation?

Sharansky: Questions of principle and practical matters are always connected for me. I was against the disengagement plan not because I believed we should stay in Gaza but because one-sided concessions could transform Gaza into a beachhead for a terrorist state. If a Palestinian democracy developed, then a Palestinian state would not be dangerous. As I said many years ago, it is very important that the depth of our concessions match the depth of democracy on the other side. If disengagement were linked to democratic reforms, I would be all for this plan. But I object to any plan that leaves territory for terror. [emphasis added]

Natan Sharansky. Credit: Nathan Roi - The Jewish Agency for Israel, Source: Wikipedia

Krauthammer wrote in December 2, 2005 about amazing recent progress in defusing the Arab-Israeli dispute:

...the Gaza withdrawal was a success. On the Israeli side, it was accomplished with remarkable speed and without any of the great social upheaval and civil strife that had been predicted. As for the Palestinians, without any fanfare whatsoever, their first-ever state has just been born. They have political independence for 1.3 million of their people, sovereignty over all of Gaza and, for the first time, a border to the outside world (the Rafah crossing to Egypt) that they control.

...As a result, Israel's regional isolation is easing, as Islamic countries from Pakistan to Qatar to Morocco openly extend or intensify relations, while anti-Israel rejectionists such as Syria and Hezbollah are isolated and even condemned by name in the U.N. Security Council.

How did this come about? Israeli unilateralism and Palestinian maturation.
Then Krauthammer himself punctures the balloon and admits it's all about Israel's military prowess, and not about Israeli concessions nor Palestinian maturity:

It's not that many Gazans would not like to continue the romance of revolutionary terrorism and jihad. But they no longer have the means. The separation fence makes it almost impossible to launch attacks into Israel. And rockets launched into Israeli towns are met by retaliatory Israeli artillery barrages that make the rocketeers rather unpopular at home. A similar equilibrium will be achieved on the West Bank when the fence is completed next year.
All this goes to show that hindsight really is 20-20. And that's a good thing -- considering that the accuracy of pundit predictions is not even close to 50-50.

For example, even now the people who are supposed to have a grasp of the situation are still coming up empty.

Last week Trump's Mideast Peace Envoy Jason Greenblatt declared that PA Must Rule Gaza, Hamas Has Failed to Meet People's Basic Needs:

Jason Greenblatt, U.S. President Donald Trump's special envoy for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, said on Wednesday that the Palestinian Authority needs "to resume its role in the administration of Gaza," in light of the damage that Hamas has caused to the Gaza Strip. Greenblatt made this statement during a tour of the Israel-Gaza border area together with IDF Maj. Gen. Yoav Mordechai, the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories.
Odd that there is no mention of Abbas by Greenblatt in that article.

Also, the article notes that Obama tried the same thing, pushing for a UN Security Council resolution to reinstate the PA in Gaza following the 2014 Gaza war. But nothing came of it -- because both the Israelis and the Palestinian Arabs objected.

Is it any wonder the mainstream media in the West ignored this story.

After all, consider Abbas's poor record on Gaza.

Although he was elected chairman of the PLO in October 2004 and then president in January 2005 with 66% of the vote, by the end of 2005, Abbas's popularity was at such a low point that there were rumors he might resign. Symbolic of his lack of control was his inability even then to put a stop to the Qassam rockets being fired from Gaza into Israel:

Abbas even said that the Qassam rockets being fired from the Gaza Strip at Israel are "Israel's problem" and that he does not intend to interfere. "Let the Israelis deal with it," he said.
Not surprisingly, a July 2017 poll by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research found that 62% of Palestinian Arabs want Abbas to resign.

And Trump's envoy advocates a return to PA control of Gaza?

The best analysis I ever heard of the situation in the Middle East was the one given by George Will. Years ago, in addressing the problem of the Arab-Israeli conflict he said it was not a problem, it was a mess. The difference between a problem and a mess, he said, is that a problem has a solution.

When Trump suggested that he was willing to let the two sides work things out and he would support it, regardless if it was a two-state solution or something else -- that was a different, and necessary, approach.

Trump's about-face is not good for either the parties involved nor for the US.

During the heady days of the Disengagement in 2005, one could understand the idyllic optimism that had politicians as well as the pundits seeing peace over the horizon.

Today, the Trump administration has no excuse.

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.

Now the Houthis (and their Iranian sponsors) are accused of being "Zionist"

Old habits die hard, and the Arab penchant to call anyone you oppose a "Zionist" is one that will be around for a while.

A writer named Dr. Adel Al-Shuja, who seems relatively prominent, wrote an essay, picked up by several Arabic news sites, where he claims that Houthis in Yemen are actually Zionists, following the orders of their Iranian Zionist masters.

"The leaders who lead the Houthi group are aware that they are working for Zionism while the vast majority of this group does not realize this," Al-Shuja says. That's how the Houthi logo can say "Death to Israel, Damn the Jews" while it is really Zionist.

Yousee, Israel's ties with Iran remained strong even after the Shah was toppled. The Ayatollah Khomeini may have hated everything about the Shah but apparently he shared his love for Israel. But he kept that part of his philosophy quiet.

But what does Israel want to take over Yemen for?

Glad you asked. You see, "Yemen is the light of civilization that sheds light on human civilizations." This "disturbs neighboring countries that have no civilization or history. " Those Jews, jealous of the rich emeni culture, want to steal it.

The second reason is because Mount Dod in Saada is really the "Mountain of David" supposedly mentioned in the Torah. So it is very important to Jews.

The Jews who used to live in Yemen before 1948 lived in the Beit Baws section of Sana'a, and now that section of town (after 69 years of being a slum) has become a hot real estate market. Those Jews again.
Of course, the fact that the Houthis are destroying beautiful Yemeni cities like Sana'a is really all the proof you need to know that they are "Zionist."

Finally, we have this proof:

I will show you, for example, the similarity between Zionism in Palestine and Houthi Zionism in Yemen. Zionism in Palestine bought Palestinian lands and properties to expel them from their land. This is just like the Houthi Zionists, who buy houses and land in Sa'ada, Amran, Sana'a, Hajjah and Hodeidah in preparation for the expulsion of the Yemenis.

Al-Shuja warns his readers: "We are in a critical stage. Either we eliminate this Zionist seed, while it is still in its infancy, or we become what the Palestinians have become."

At least Dr. Al Shuja admits that the Jews bought the land!
.

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.

Sometimes you just can't parody these idiots.

From Steven Salaita, the professor who keeps losing his teaching positions, at The New Arab, referring to a NYT column by Bari Weiss where she says that cultural appropriation is a good thing:

Weiss knows, or should know, that the controversy about Israel's appropriation of Palestinian food - most infamously its claim to hummus, a lucrative product in Europe and North America - has nothing to do with Jews eating Arabic food. In fact, it has nothing to do with Jews at all. That ludicrous idea is possible only because Zionists aggressively conflate Jewishness with Israel.

Instead, it has everything to do with a deliberate, decades-old programme to disappear Palestinians. Referencing Arab defensiveness about traditional dishes without mentioning colonisation or ethnic cleansing is a whitewash.

Weiss provides a textbook example of liberal Zionist disdain presenting as multicultural devotion. Palestinians are well familiar with that hustle.

When Zionists (or their oblivious collaborators) claim Arabic food as Israeli, it's not a paragon of intercultural harmony but the studious destruction of Palestinian culture. We can mitigate ambiguity by avoiding the word "appropriation," which doesn't adequately capture the dynamics of Israel's voracious appetite for anything that can be marked "Indigenous," which it needs to shore up an ever-tenuous sense of legitimacy.

"Theft" is more accurate. It is also rhetorically superior. Discourses of modernity exalt cultural interchange, but no good liberal supports piracy.

We should remember that while chefs, shopkeepers, and propagandists validate the theft, the main culprit is the Israeli government, which brands falafel the "national snack" and advertises a plethora of Levantine dishes as authentically Israeli in tacky Brand Israel campaigns.

State involvement in the pilfer of Palestinian food illustrates that we shouldn't reduce the issue to individual consumption. It's a systematic effort to validate settler colonisation.

It's no shock, then, that Palestinians and their neighbours get salty whenever hearing the phrase "Israeli hummus." Using Arabic food as a symbol of Zionist identity hands over the day-to-day victuals of the native to the coloniser. It's a project of erasure, a portent of nonexistence, a promise of genocide.
...
Such is to be expected of an ideology defined by a rapacious appetite for other people's possessions. "Israeli" couscous, hummus, falafel, shawarma, fattoush, mjuddera, and knafeh, like the state forever aggregating glory from deception, is merely a rawboned fantasy nourished by a gluttonous diet of empty calories.

Calm down, Steven. Count to ten and breathe.

You are an idiot.

Israelis aren't trying to erase Palestinian history - because there is no history to erase. Hummus and falafel are no more "Palestinian" than they are Israeli.

And, yes, no Israeli who matters claims that these are originally Israeli foods! Salaita builds his entire bizarre rant on the idea that Israelis are claiming that these Levantine foods are less than 70 years old, and no one says that.

Saying that falafel is Israel's national dish does not imply that Israelis claim to have invented it (although the falafel sandwich in pita with salad actually was invented in Israel by Yemenite immigrants.) It doesn't mean that Israelis want to steal Arab cuisine. It only means that Israelis like falafel a great deal. It really isn't that difficult to understand.

And yes, Israeli chefs (like all good chefs) take foods from other cultures - and often change them so much as to make them their own.

In this essay, Salaita shows how poor an academic he is. Salaita thinks of Israelis as thieves first, as his last paragraph shows, and then he writes this entire crazed article so he can twist the facts into that slander.

Moreover, saying that the phrase "Israeli hummus" is a "promise to genocide" should be, in a sane world, a guarantee that no university will ever hire Salaita - on the grounds of sheer stupidity.

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.

09/04 Links Pt2: Collier: Exposing an antisemitic fraud; Phillips: The Greater Danger is on the Left

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: The Greater Danger is on the Left

So who’s more dangerous for the Jews right now, the far-left or the far-right?
After the violence at Charlottesville over the neo-Nazi rally, widespread fury was directed at President Donald Trump who was thought to have said the two were equivalent (which in fact he didn’t do).
I certainly don’t believe they are equivalent. The left is currently much more dangerous, not only to Jews but to the west in general.
You may need to lie down after reading that. For the prevalent Jewish view is that only far-right whites pose a serious danger.
Since all neo-Nazis and white supremacists are potentially lethal Jew-haters, many Jews think that all potentially lethal Jew-haters are neo-Nazis or white supremacists.
This is ludicrous, just as it is equally absurd to think Nazi slogans or symbols are only deployed by far-right whites. Last weekend, a man who threw a glass bottle at Jewish girls in Stamford Hill while shouting “Hitler is a good man; good he killed the Jews” was described by the police as a “light-skinned black male”.
More to the point, left-wing antisemitism is running at epidemic level. The Labour Party is convulsed by it.
Demonisation of Israel based on serial lies, double standards and a near-supernatural attribution of cosmic malevolence is the default position on the left.
For David Duke has heaped praise on Jeremy Corbyn for battling the “Zionists”. According to the Elder of Zyon [Ziyon] blog, the neo-Nazi Stormfront website has quoted the obsessively Israel-hating Mondoweiss and Electronic Intifada sites more than 100 times each; it has quoted Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada more than 35 times, and Mondoweiss writer Max Blumenthal more than 80 times.
Both Blumenthal and Abunimah have written for the Guardian. Both demonise Israel in language almost indistinguishable from the rantings against Israel by David Duke.
By the left’s own lights, that makes Corbyn and the Guardian complicit with neo-Nazis and white supremacists. Unlike the left’s tactic of character assassination, however, this is not a wildly unfair smear by association. (h/t dabney)

UK synagogue hosts Muslim cleric who urged ‘jihad against the Jews’

A London Orthodox synagogue hosted an “extremist” Muslim cleric who has previously called for jihad against Jews in Palestine.
Concern was raised after news that Catford and Bromley United Synagogue – an affiliate member of the United Synagogue – hosted influential imam Shakeel Begg, together with Christian religious leaders, at an event in mid-July.
Begg is head of Lewisham Islamic Centre and regularly preaches to thousands of members, but in 2013 he sought to sue the BBC for defamation, in a High Court case concluding in October last year, after ‘Sunday Politics’ presenter Andrew Neill labelled him “an extremist preacher… with extremist positions”.
Begg denied this but was unsuccessful at trial, the judge instead finding that he “promoted and encouraged religious violence,” after considering a selection of Begg’s speeches from 2006-11.
The court noted Begg’s fondness for quoting Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Baz, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia from 1993 until his death in 1999, who was a primary driver of the fundamentalist Salafi-Wahabi Islam.
The judge said Begg quoted bin Baz “without equivocation” in saying that “solidarity amongst Muslims means making jihad against the Jews and fighting the Jews in an Islamic Jihad until the Territory [Palestine] goes back to its proper people”.

David Collier: Exposing an antisemitic fraud: The case of ‘State of Terror’ by Thomas Suarez

As each page of the Thomas Suarez book, State of Terror, is turned, another horrific statement against Zionists appears. The book was called a ‘tour de force‘ by Ilan Pappé. Jenny Tonge referred to its central ‘truth‘. Publishers Weekly suggested it is ‘an impressive display of historical excavation’.
So we (David Collier and Jonathan Hoffman), went digging to see if the Thomas Suarez story ‘held up’ – to see if he had used his sources properly when he wrote his book. This meant dozens of visits to the National Archives at Kew, and other days spent diligently reading books by anti-Zionists such as Ilan Pappé, Hanna Braun and Yosef Grodzinsky. There is no getting away from it. ‘State of Terror‘ isn’t just a vile book, it isn’t just antisemitic, it is a pyramid of errors. Far too many for this to ever have been accidental.
As Thomas Suarez opens his introduction he uses a quote from 1946. He forgets to tell his readers that he cannot confirm it was ever said. This is the way the book begins. The first archive file he lists says something very different to the way he describes events in 1938. This is the way the book ends. Between these two are a couple of hundred pages full of unsupportable libels. We know they are unsupportable because we checked some of the source material behind the claims. Today we publish our report.
Most of the errors inside the book stem from sloppy research. The result of a rabid little man, motivated by hatred, grabbing at archive files in a desperate attempt to find something, anything, that sounds like it is attacking Zionists. Suarez is no historian and does not possess the frame of mind to provide context to anything he writes. For a wannabee historian, this is a fatal weakness.

The amazing color-changing Linda Sarsour

On Friday I noted that Linda Sarsour claimed to be a "woman of color" in this tweet where she tried to deflect criticism about her attempts to divert Hurricane Harvey aid funds for her pet political projects:

I made fun of her at the time, asking her if her wishing that she wanted to remove Ayyan Hirsi Ali's vagina if she was "smearing a woman of color."

Just curious, @lsarsour - when you said you wanted to remove @Ayaan Hirsi Ali's vagina, were you smearing a woman of color?
— ElderOfZiyon (@elderofziyon) September 1, 2017

Today I made a poster making fun of Sarsour's pretending to be a "person of color" while Jews of any color are always considered "white."

What I didn't realize is that the photo I used in this poster came from a video about hijab published by Vox earlier this year, where Sarsour was featured. And in this video she says, explicitly, that before she put on her hijab she was just "some ordinary white girl from New York City."

Before putting on her hijab, Linda Sarsour admits she was white. Now she claims to be a "person of color." Neat trick! @lsarsour pic.twitter.com/4km7rs0sjj
— ElderOfZiyon (@elderofziyon) September 4, 2017

Sarsour magically changed from white to a "woman of color" in an instant!

She's the new Rachel Dolezal!

By the way, you are not allowed to criticize my blog anymore. I wear a yarmulka, which make me a "Jew of color" and therefore immune to criticism. At least by the logic of some people.

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

The temple my family belongs to has a number of kid-friendly events, many of which involve musical celebrations featuring young singers. And one song that frequently rings out is called “Not by Might and Not by Power,” which the late Debbie Friedman (who helped transform the music of the Reform and Progressive Jewish movements) composed based on words from the Book of Zechariah.

The number brings back positive memories of when my own kids were younger and joining in the chorus, which goes “Not by might and not by power, But by spirit alone shall we all live in peace.” But every time that song was sung, it also reminded me of what an unfair fight we face when battling against those at war with the Jewish state.

Some friends and allies would likely dismiss the sentiments of “Not by Might” as one more example of “kumbaya thinking,” the tendency of many Jews to try to find common ground and avoid conflict at all costs, even when faced with situations when conflict is unavoidable or a foe is teaching their children to fight until victory over those hoping to prevail by spirit, rather than might.

Like so many situations in the real world, the duality of compromisers vs. militants misses some critical points, starting with the experience of Jewish history. Once again, I am in the debt of Professor Ruth Wisse who summarizes and reflects on the challenging relationship between Jews and Power in her masterful short book of the same name.

Jews, after all, were once citizens and rulers of a political entity, the original Jewish state, and (like all small powers in antiquity) had to contend with the continual encroachment of numerous imperial neighbors such as the Babylonians, Assyrians, Greeks and Romans. The lessons of most of these conflicts were mixed, with the fall of the first Hebrew kingdoms to Babylon by a failure of Jewish arms, followed by a restoration of that nation due to the act of generosity by a Persian king (who many thought acted as an agent of God).
The Greek conquerors both captured the land and tried to force Hellenized culture onto the monotheistic Jews, only to repelled (again, by arms) by the Brothers Maccabee. But it was the experience with Rome which provided a unique historical lesson to the Jews, setting up a struggle between compromise and force that informs us millennia later.

For in various revolts against Rome in the First and Second centuries AD, the Jews faced off against the superpower of the day, a foe whose legions had made Rome the undisputed ruler of the Western world. And despite the hopelessness of their cause, the Jews fought on and rekindled their revolt again and again, each time deciding that the imbalance of power would be rectified by having on their side the one true God.
The failure of this quasi-religious, but ultimately political conflict was total, with the Jews first defeated, then defeated again and disbursed throughout the empire, their political homeland erased from the map (until the last century).

Now some Jews still take heart in the courage and steadfastness of their ancestors in the face of odds that should have informed them that defeat was certain. But many more internalized another more significant lesson that might (in the form of armed Jewish revolt) led to near destruction, while spirit (in the form of Judaism recast in the new Diaspora in religious rather than political terms) kept the Jewish nation alive for centuries after Rome was just a memory.

Given this background, who can blame Jews for their peculiar relationship with any sort of power (political, military or especially state)? If recent history demonstrates that spirit alone will not save Jews from the ovens or give birth to a state, older history shows that might and power do not provide all of the answers and, indeed, might create the very problems (such as lack of Jewish independence) they tried to solve.

This debate between might and spirit has been going on so long with sides so hardened that little light is shed when proponents of each side argue their positions, which today use the terms (or, more often, accusatory labels) of “Left” and “Right” as the foundation for sterile debate.

Lost in all of this history, however, is an example worth thinking about: that of Rome.

While it might seem odd to look at our historic enemy and destroyer for lessons, keep in mind that Rome was not an empire like the Mongols who simply pillaged and enslaved, enjoying war for its own sake and caring little for anything but spoils. Rather, Rome’s success (especially its military successes during the Republican era) came from the careful deliberation it took before entering a conflict (bordering on hesitancy) coupled with a resolution to never back down once conflict began.

Today, Jewish might - while nowhere near as huge as in our enemy’s imaginations - is not inconsiderable. Yet part of that might derives from the hesitancy with which it is applied.

As needs to be pointed out again and again, the people who sing “Not by Might and Not by Power” have created for themselves a wondrous homeland - precarious certainly, but a state with which those who built it (and those of us who look on from the sidelines) can be justly proud.

In contrast, those teaching their children and grandchildren the virtue of fighting to the end live in societies where totalitarians compete with religious fanatics, each promising triumph but delivering only sterility and death.

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.

09/04 Links Pt1: Haley says 'enough is enough' on N. Korea; Iranians at the Gates

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: The true Colonialist Settlers in the Land of Israel

At the core of the leftist onslaught against Israel lies the belief that it is a “settler”, colonialist enterprise through which the Jews, with no historical claim to the land, turfed out the indigenous Palestinians whose home it had been since antiquity. In fact, the precise opposite is true: the “Palestinians” are the true settlers and colonialists while the Jews are the only extant indigenous people and the only people for whom the land of Israel was ever their national kingdom.
I wrote here recently about a JCPA paper, Who Are the Palestinians, in which Pinchas Inbari ridiculed the absurd claim made by some of them that they are the descendants of the Canaanites, whom Joshua conquered in the Bible when the Jews entered the land that became Israel.
Now a paper by Alex Joffe for the Begin-Sadat Centre for Strategic Studies expands upon Inbari’s review to provide a magisterial demolition of this ludicrous attempt to write the Jews out of their own history.
“The idea of Jews as “settler-colonialists” , Joffe writes, “is easily disproved. “A wealth of evidence demonstrates that Jews are the indigenous population of the Southern Levant; historical and now genetic documentation places Jews there over 2,000 years ago, and there is indisputable evidence of continual residence of Jews in the region. Data showing the cultural and genetic continuity of local and global Jewish communities is equally ample. The evidence was so copious and so incontrovertible, even to historians of antiquity and writers of religious texts, some of whom were Judeophobes, that disconnecting Jews from the Southern Levant was simply not conceived of. Jews are the indigenous population.
“… Inbari’s review, along with many additional sources of information he did not address, demonstrates that modern Palestinians are, in fact, derived from two primary streams: converts from indigenous pre-modern Jews and Christians who submitted to Islam, and Arab tribes originating across the Middle East who migrated to the Southern Levant between late antiquity and the 1940s. The best documented episodes were the Islamic conquests of the 7th century and its aftermath, and the periods of the late Ottoman Empire and the British Mandate.

Kim is 'Begging for War' Haley seeks toughest UN sanctions, says 'enough is enough' on N. Korea

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley on Monday called on the body's Security Council to impose the strongest possible sanctions against North Korea, in response to the rogue nation’s most recent nuclear test, saying “the time for half measures … is over.”
Haley spoke at U.N. headquarters in New York, after North Korea claimed to have conducted an underground test overnight Saturday on a hydrogen bomb.
It was the country’s sixth such test, following five previous ones on a nuclear weapon and recent launches of inter-continental missiles to land such warheads on foreign soil.
“We cannot kick this can down the road any longer,” Haley said at the special U.N. meeting convened on the matter. "The time for half measures by the Security Council is over.”
Her statements follow President Trump on Sunday condemning the test in the strongest terms.

Iranians at the Gates

Unless something changes, Israel is sprinting headlong into another violent confrontation along its northern border, this time against either Iranian troops or Iranian backed fighters with missiles made to order from Tehran.
The disappearance of the Islamic State from wide swaths of Syria, together with the superpowers’ lack of interest (or desire) in removing Syrian President Bashar Assad from power, are paving the way for an Iranian takeover of the territories until recently held by the jihadist group.

At the same time, massive numbers of Hezbollah troops loyal to Iran have entrenched themselves in southern Lebanon, whether in visible lookout points or “environmental protection” posts, according to Israeli military officials.
Israel won’t abide by this. The presence of Shi’ite forces on the border, be they Hezbollah or other Iran-backed militias, together with Iran’s efforts to bring in game-changing weapons, signal that the era of calm that Israel has enjoyed since the summer of 2006 is coming to an end.
On Saturday, Iran’s new defense minister said the country was prioritizing boosting the country’s missile program and export weapons to shore up neighboring allies.

"The Socialism of Fools": NYT article on Leftist antisemitism - from 1971!

There is nothing new under the sun. I kept trying to pare it down but practically every paragraph has relevance today. The roots of today's leftist antisemitism clearly come from the late 1960s, although they follow earlier leftist antisemitism from Marx himself.

From the New York Times, January 3, 1971:

TWENTY‐FIVE years after the end of World War II and the collapse of the most anti Semitic regime in history, anti‐Semitism appears to be on the rise around the world. But unlike the situation before 1945, when anti‐Jewish politics was largely identified with rightist elements, the current wave is linked to governments, parties, and groups which are conventionally described as leftist. Various New Left activists in different countries, American black militant groups, Arab “socialist” spokesmen, and East European Communist governments have moved on from anti‐Zionist to anti‐Jewish and fully anti‐Semitic statements and acts. And though the extreme right remains relatively weak in Western countries, its news‐ papers have become much more open about referring to “Jewish conspiracies.”

...
THE most important expression of anti‐Jewish sentiments in the West takes the form of attacks on “Zionists” and the state of Israel by every section of the left, except the Democratic Socialists. As the war in Vietnarn peters out, the various in carnations of the extreme left new and old, anarchists, Maoists, Trotskyists, Black Panthers and Communists — have reoriented their international emotional priorities to identify the heroes as the Arab terrorists and freedom fighters, and the villains as Israel and its American ally. In Germany, New Left students, in a sickening replay of the behavior of their Nazi predecessors of 1928‐33 (university students were the first stratum in Germany to back the Nazis, giving them majorities in student council elections as early as 1931), chant as they parade: “Mach die Nahe Osten rot; schlag die Zionis ten tot” (“Make the Near East Red; smash the Zionists dead”). Dieter Kunzelmann, who played a major role in the demonstrations at the Free University of Berlin during the late nineteen‐sixties, and who is now in the Middle East with the fedayeen, being instructed, according to his published letters, “in the use of explosives ... [and] the manufacture of time bombs,”; has written from Amman that the German left must break down the pro‐Semitism that emerged out of German guilt at the Holocaust, that Germany must get over “der Judenknax” (the “thing” about the Jews) (Encounter, Nov., 1970).

French New Left spokesmen have openly defended the need to speak in anti‐Semitie terms when supporting the Arab cause. Jean Bauberot, former leader of the French Student Christian Association and currently editor of Herytem, a New Left journal, wrote in the May‐July, 1969, issue that to “demonstrate the intricacies of the Palestine problem” leftists must “use expressions which, taken by themselves, appear to resemble certain lines from ‘Mein Kampf.'” The French New Left also has expressed its pro‐Arab feeling by violent action. Members of the Mouvement Contre le Racisme Anti Arabe, formed by people active in the revolutionary movement of May, 1968, were responsible for attacks in October, 1968, on the Rothschild Bank in Paris.

The open expression of anti Zionist and anti‐Jewish feelings by important segments of the French left has resulted in the revival in some quarters of a traditional Catholic religious‐based anti‐Judaism. An article last fall in L'Arche, the monthly Journal of the French Jewish community, reports on the attacks on Judaism and Israel which have diffused from the student New Left to various Catholic groups. They deny the historic claims of the Jews to Israel on the theological grounds that the church, rather than contemporary Jewry, is the true heir of ancient Israel. They claim that, for a Christian, the only solution of the Jewish problem is “the final conversion of this people to Christ resurrected,” It is striking that these ancient concepts have reappeared not among conservative Catholics, but among the progressives who cooperate closely with the New Left, while the French bishops have criticized these beliefs as counter to Catholic doctrine as defined by Vatican II.

THE American New Left largely shares the pro‐Arab terrorist views expressed by the movement in Europe. In general, however, the white American left has been more inhibited than the European in expressing anti ‐ Semitic statements, probably because so much of its audience and mass base is Jewish. Nevertheless, some of its spokesmen have called for terrorism against American supporters of Israel. Eric Mann, a leader of the Weathermen, writing in The Guardian of Oct. 17, 1970, stated: “Israeli embassies, tourist offices, airlines and Zionist fund‐raising and social affairs are important targets for whatever action is decided to be appropriate.” A student of Weathermen activities, Ross Baker, professor of political science at Rutgers, has seriously raised the question as to whether the recent series of bombings in Rochester, N. Y., of assorted governmental and Establishment targets—which include two synagogues — “might be the assertion that Weathermen's embrace of the Palestinian Liberation Movement has been translated into depredations against Jewish religious institutions in America.” There is, of course, no evidence as to which group was responsible for the bombing in Rochester, but the pattern followed does strongly suggest that it was a leftist or black militant one.

Overt expressions of anti Semitism have occasionally appeared in American New Left organs. Thus, in an article, “Jews Riot in the Ghetto,” in The East Village Other of Oct. 18, 1968, Philip Anthony fantasized in a crudely anti Semitic fashion concerning the consequences of the possible assassination of Albert Shanker, president of the New York teachers’ union. The article included crude parodies of Yiddish expressions and accents. ...

The same objective has been pursued by linking Zion ism and Israelis to complicity with the Nazis in the murder of European Jews. An article by Tabitha Petran in the Nov. 21, 1969, issue of Fire (the publication of the Revolutionary Youth Movement faction of S.D.S.) claimed that after Hitler came to power “Zionist leaders offered the Nazi Government their cooperation in finding a solution to the Jewish question.” She went on to argue that collaboration with “organized Jewry ... remained ‘the very cornerstone’ of [the Nazis’] Jewish policy.” Supposedly, “hundreds of Zionist leaders were permitted to escape to Palestine” during World War II because they collaborated with the Nazis by withholding “from the masses in Eastern Europe the fact that they were marked for shipment to death camps.”

STUDENT and intellectual radicals, whether Jews or not, have historically had a penchant for self‐hatred in the form of approval for anti intellectual populism, and have defined wisdom as coming from the instincts of the masses, of the uneducated, of the poor. Currently, such masochistic populism in the United States takes the form of identifying with the values, statements and tactics of black militant groups. Many of these have increasingly engaged in anti‐Semitic propaganda, often only partially disguised as anti‐Zionism.

The most overt expressions of anti‐Semitism have come generally from the most militant of the black organizations, the one with closest ties to sections of the white New and Old Lefts, the self‐described Marxist‐Leninist Black Panther party. The party goes out of its way to Identify as Jews those in the Establishment who oppose it and who happen to be Jews. Thus, in the Dec. 21, 1968, issue of The Black Panther, Eldridge Cleaver attacked Judge Monroe Friedman, who presided over the Oakland, Calif., trial of Huey Newton in the following terms: “If the Jews like Judge Friedman are going to be allowed to function, and come to their synagogues to pray on Saturdays, or do whatever they do down there, then we'll make a coalition with the Arabs, against the Jews....”

The Panthers nave even argued that Judge Julius J. Hoffman gave the Jewish defendants in the Chicago conspiracy trial better treatment than he gave Bobby Seale. Connie Matthews, international coordinator of the party, wrote in The Black Panther of April 25, 1970, that there was an alliance between the Jewish judge and the Jewish defendants:

“It was a Zionist judge, Judge Hoffman, who allowed the other Zionists to go free but has kept Bobby Seale in jail and sentenced him to four years for contempt charges. Bobby Seale alone stands trial again in April on conspiracy charges. With whom did he conspire? The Zionists?

“The other Zionists in the ... trial [i.e., Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin] were willing and did sacrifice Bobby Seale and his role in the conspiracy trial to gain publicity.”

Now clearly Rubin and Hoffman are in no way “Zionists.” This is simply a code word for Jew, just as it has become in Eastern Europe.

Though opposed to all capitalists, the Panthers single out Jewish businessmen for attack. Thus, a statement in the May 19, 1970, issue of the party newspaper declares that they are against “Zionist exploitation here In Babylon, manifested in the robber barons that exploit in the garment industry and the bandit merchants and greedy slum lords that operate in our communities.” In describing a tenants’ action in Atlantic City against a landlord, an article in the June 13, 1970, Black Panther praises the ten ants for “gathering together to form a United Front against Zionist Pig Sobel. . . .” The article concludes with the exhortation: “ALL POWER TO THE PEOPLE — DEATH TO THE ZIONIST PIGS.” And as if to prove that the reference to Sobel was not fortuitous, the paper a week later carried a story on “Substandard Housing in America” which referred to buildings “owned by a Zionist by the name of Rosenbaum."

To make Jews (or “Zionists”) as a group responsible for the actions of single individuals is anti‐Semitism in its purest form. Ironically, it would appear that the very fact of disproportionate participation of Jews in leftist causes is a major cause of subsequent anti‐Semitism. In the United States, the integrationist movement was largely an alliance between Negroes and Jews (who, to a considerable extent, actually dominated it). Many of the interracial civil rights organizations have been led and financed by whites, and the majority of their white members and big financial contributors have been Jews. Insofar as a black effort emerged to break loose from involvement with whites, from domination of the civil rights struggle by white liberals and radicals, this meant concretely a break with Jews.

THE white left, both new and old, while increasingly anti‐Israeli, and occasionally anti‐Semitic, does not engage in the kind of virulent anti Semitism which may be found among the black militant left and the white extreme right. But it is important to reiterate that the white left does not challenge black anti‐Semitism. This is not because it fears to criticize the black militants. ....Yet in all of this criticism, anti‐Semitism is never mentioned. The white left acts as if it were of no consequence, or as if no one on the left were capable of it.

The same double standard with respect to anti‐Semitism is seen in the response of much of the American leftist press to the propaganda themes of the Arabs. On one hand, it accepts the self description of a number of Arab states and movements as socialist, though little is nationalized or socialized in these countries, and though the inequality of income and land ownership is greater in all the Arab nations than in Israel. More significant, however, is the fact that the American left‐wing press also ignores the fact that the Arab militants, as well as a number of Arab governments, have been ready to use whatever sources of anti‐Semitic, anti American, anti‐capitalist or anti‐Israeli feelings exist to foster their cause.

The Arabs, of course, like other critics of the Jews on the far left and right, insist that they are only anti‐Zionist. Yet there is clear evidence that anti‐Semitism — not simply anti‐Zionism — has deeply penetrated Arab groups and governments. Many official Egyptian books and pamphlets dealing with the Palestine problem, for example, have reprinted or cited as factual the hoary mythological “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion,” a document put out in the late 19th century by the Czarist police, which purports to contain the details of an inter national Jewish conspiracy to control the world.
...
At least one prominent French New Left spokesman, Jean Bauberot, has acknowl edged and sought to justify the repeated anti‐Semitic state ments in Arab propaganda, “To be against all forms of racism is as stupid as being against all forms of violence,” he wrote. “We must begin by saying that the Palestinians have the right at present to appear anti‐Semitic to us. . . . The [Middle East] situation is a racist one, and if we refuse the Palestinians the right to name their oppressors, this amounts to a right to disband them culturally” (Harytem, May‐July, 1969).

Not surprisingly, Arab spokesmen have been willing to work with extremist groups on the right as well as the left. And the far right has reciprocated in many countries. When the Belgian Jean Robert Debbaudt, a veteran of the German SS Walloon Legion, announced the re‐formation of the fascist Rexist movement founded by the Belgian Quisling, Leon Degrelle, he concluded his announcement with the words: “Vive Leon Degrelle! Vive Al Fatah! Rex vaincra!” The West European neo‐Fascist magazine, La Nation Europeenne, which stands for a unified anti‐Communist Fascist Europe, has only two foreign representatives, one in Algiers, and the other in Cairo. It has carried many advertisements from Arab sources, e.g., publicizing fairs in Algiers and Iraq, or French language anti‐Zionist books?

The ultrarightist, racist American National States Rights party, for example, has repeatedly expressed pro Arab, pro‐guerrilla sentiments in its newspaper, such as: “The time has come for us White Christian Americans to come to the aid of our good anti‐Communist Arab friends and demand that the Government stop aiding the Jews” (The Thunderbolt, Dec., 1969). ... Arab materials increasingly appear in left‐wing, right‐wing and black‐nationalist papers which share an antipathy to Israel and Jewry.

...
THE fact that this time the predominant weight of the anti‐Semitic thrust is on the left rather than the right will surprise only those who are unaware of the considerable literature on anti‐Semitism it the socialist and other leftist movements. The identification of the Jews with international finance, with capitalism, with the status of businessman, with Shylock has long replaced the image of the Jew as Antichrist for many on the left and right. Karl Marx himself accepted the stereotype which linked Jews with capitalism. Thus, in his essay on “The Jewish Question,” he wrote: “What is the worldly cult of the Jew? Bargaining. What is his worldly God? Money. . . .”

Some leftists have been willing to accept or tolerate anti‐Semitism since the mid 19th century as some sort of groping toward a progressive anticapitalist position by masses in contact with Jewish businessmen. ...[F]avorable reactions to popular anti Semitism among German and Austrian Socialists led August Bebel, the famous German Socialist leader, to describe anti Semitism as “the socialism of fools.”

The task of analyzing the sources of these sentiments among the left is further complicated by the fact that, as we have seen, Jews play a very great role in various radical groups, both new and old, both student and adult. Some who have tried to analyze the special appeal of leftist universalistic ideologies to Jews have argued that identifying with a universalistic movement, one which rejects all forms of religious or ethnic particularism and all group loyalties, as the extreme leftist movements do, appeals to members of minority groups who seek to escape the stigma of belonging to an unpopular minority. To some degree the literature on “Jewish self hatred” and on “Jewish anti Semitism” suggests that adherence to radical causes has been a way of escaping one's Jewishness. Hence, one finds youths of Jewish origin who react with fervor to every nationalist cause but that of the Jews, who are sensitive to every slight against every other minority, but not to overt attacks against Jews, not even when directed against Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin.

In expressing directly or in directly a disdain for Jewishness, the young New Leftists are following in a classic tradition set by a number of prominent Marxists of Jewish origins, who could find it in their hearts to be concerned about many national groups, but not the Jews. The famous Polish Jewish revolutionary Rosa Luxemburg specifically repudiated any concern with the plight of the Jews in a letter written in 1917, in which she indicated that the exploited of Asia and Africa were “so much closer” to her than the Jews that “I cannot find a special corner in my heart for the ghetto; I feel at home in the whole world.” In “Are the Jews a Race?,” the only book on the Jewish question written by a major Marxist theoretician, Karl. Kautsky, who was also of Jewish origins, criticized Judaism as the major source of medieval thinking left in the modern world, one which must “dissolve . . . and disappear.” And like Marx, Kautsky wrote about Judaism: “The sooner it disappears, the better it will be, not only for society, but also for the Jews themselves.”

The Jews have suffered severely in the past from the insensitivity to the consequences of anti‐Semitism exhibited by many “internationalist” leftists, both Jewish and non‐Jewish. The late Isaac Deutscher, a leading Marxist analyst, and himself of Polish Jewish background, wrote in his book “The Non‐Jewish Jew”: “If, instead of arguing against Zionism in the nineteen‐twenties and nineteen thirties I had urged European Jews to go to Palestine, I might have helped to save some of the lives that were later extinguished in Hitler's gas chambers.” Today, the revival of anti‐Semitism, or of a tolerance for it when expressed by “progressive,” proletarian, Third World or racially oppressed people, not only increases the insecurity of Israel, but severely endangers Soviet Jewry. ...

The author goes on to say that not all Leftist thinkers are antisemitic, but the trend is troubling.

It goes even more so today. The explicit Jew-hatred is toned down but the roots of today's "anti-Zionism" is clearly yesterday's explicit antisemitism. That is, after all, the only logical reason for the obsession with Israel's crimes, real or mostly) imagined.

No criticism of explicit Leftist antisemitism? Check.
No criticism of Arab antisemitism? Check.
Embracing antisemitic motifs under the guise of "anti-Zionism"? Check.

The main difference is while the 1970s-era Jewish leftists joined to run away from Judaism, now they happily pretend to embrace their Jewishness - to shield their fellow Leftists from the charge of antisemtism. Even though most of them know nothing about Judaism and they want to know less.

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.