Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, December 18, 2019

Charles Krauthammer, A Bar in Arizona, and the Imaginary Concept of "Surprise" Antisemitism (Judean Rose)

The late Charles Krauthammer was a wise man, but the wisdom of our elders doesn't always inoculate us against the sudden shock of antisemitism. An essay on the movie Borat, in Things That Matter: Three Decades of Passions, Pastimes and Politics, may be the proof. Violent American antisemitism? Krauthammer, wise as he was, never saw it coming.

The book, a compendium of decades of essays, lays bare Krauthammer's fearful grasp of medicine, social science, and politics for all to see. But it's not just what Krauthammer knows. It's that he informs his topics with the force of his own convictions. He's a man of integrity. He's likable.

So you nod as you read the essays slowly, with a dictionary and a cup of tea nearby. Krauthammer was mostly right in the things he wrote over the decades. But he was wrong in thinking that antisemitism quiescent, was antisemitism gone. Like so many, Krauthammer was lulled into thinking that America was safe from the kind of antisemitism we've now seen at Tree of Life, Poway, Jersey City, and Brooklyn.

Near the end of the 2015 book, we come to several Krauthammer essays touching on Jewish topics, including the November 2006 Washington Post op-ed, “Borat the Fearful.” Here, Krauthammer takes Sacha Baron Cohen to task for whipping up the crowd in an Arizona bar with "Throw the Jew Down the Well."

Baron Cohen could easily have found what he seeks closer to home. He is, after all, from Europe, where synagogues are torched and cemeteries desecrated in a revival of antisemitism—not “indifference” to but active—unseen since the Holocaust. Where a Jew is singled out for torture and death by French-African thugs. Where a leading Norwegian intellectual—et tu, Norway?—mocks “God’s Chosen People” (“We laugh at this people’s capriciousness and weep at its misdeeds”) and calls for the destruction of Israel, the “state founded . . . on the ruins of an archaic national and warlike religion.”

Yet, amid this gathering darkness, an alarming number of liberal Jews are seized with the notion that the real threat lurks deep in the hearts of American Protestants, most specifically southern evangelicals. Some fear that their children are going to be converted; others, that below the surface lies a pogrom waiting to happen; still others, that the evangelicals will take power in Washington and enact their own sharia law.

This is all quite crazy. America is the most welcoming, religiously tolerant, philo-semitic country in the world. No nation since Cyrus the Great’s Persia has done more for the Jews. And its regard is to be exposed as latently antisemitic by an itinerant Jew [Baron Cohen] looking for laughs and, he solemnly assures us, for the path to the Holocaust?

Look. It is very hard to be a Jew today, particularly in Baron Cohen’s Europe, where Jew-baiting is once again becoming acceptable. But it is a sign of the disorientation of a distressed and confused people that we should find it so difficult to distinguish our friends from our enemies.

Krauthammer gives an accurate depiction of the state of antisemitism in Europe and in the United States respectively, at the time when Borat hit the theaters. Then it seemed the overt antisemitism of France or Norway was something that could never happen in America. Yet nine years later, when Krauthammer published "Things" he still couldn't have foreseen the spate of violent American antisemitism that would begin with the Tree of Life Massacre.

Krauthammer understood some things about American antisemitism even in 2006. He saw the insistent belief, the mantra of liberal Jews, that the threat of antisemitism could come only from religious freaks and white supremacists, from those on the right. Then, as now, there was society-wide denial that antisemitism might also come from the left.

This concept, the idea that antisemitism can spring only from the right is a message that continues to be amplified by the progressive left, even when proven wrong. This is what happened with Rashida Tlaib’s recent tweet in regard to the Jersey City shootings. Tlaib found the tragedy tweet-worthy only when she thought it a case of white antisemitism. Once Tlaib discovered that the perpetrators of the Jersey City shootings were black, she deleted* her tweet.

Going back to 2015, when Krauthammer published “Things that Matter,” violent American antisemitism was still largely mythological. There was the 1991 Crown Heights murder of Yankel Rosenbaum; the exception that proved the rule. But American antisemitism wasn't about killing people. That was something that didn't happen in America.

It wasn’t only Krauthammer who thought that way, of course. And this is what makes American antisemitism, “surprise” antisemitism. It's something we thought could never happen in America.
Krauthammer's essay embodies that false sense of security.

This is not to say that Krauthammer is wrong, therefore Baron Cohen is a prophet. It's doubtful that Baron Cohen saw Tree of Life coming, and the entire subsequent string of attacks. But perhaps what he saw and meant to convey is that antisemitism can be sudden with no lead up, no signs or warnings.

Once one knows of Tree of Life and the way the act burst onto the screen, we must stipulate that it's one of the ways it can happen, antisemitism without warning. That there can really be no such thing as "surprise antisemitism" because when it happens, as it happened at Tree of Life, it turns out it's just one more manifestation of the beast.

This may be what Krauthammer missed, and what Sacha Baron Cohen tried to show us in a bar in Arizona. "Surprise antisemitism" was always a myth. Antisemitism can happen without warning. Even in America.

Antisemitism, in fact, can lie dormant for the entire almost 250 years of a young country’s existence, then come roaring forward without warning, like a sudden clap of lightning from the sky.

Krauthammer never would have seen it coming. Not Tree of Life, Poway, or Jersey City. Because even a wise man like Krauthammer won't see the signs of antisemitism when they aren't even there to be seen.

And this is the real lesson we learn from that Arizona bar: that when it comes to antisemitism, we won't always get a warning. It may be we'll never see it coming.

And the thing about antisemitism is that it's tricky like that. It can show up on your American doorstep, a complete surprise. Which is what makes "surprise antisemitism" a terrible and misleading misnomer.

A completely imaginary concept.

*Follow the link to see Elder of Ziyon’s excellent scoop on the subject of Tlaib's deleted tweet.

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 "chilling effect" of not being allowed to compare Jews to Nazis

There's another, unspoken issue that is implied by the critics of the Trump executive order on combating antisemitism.

Even if the order violated the First Amendment and forced universities to act against anti-Israel speech defined under the IHRA - which it manifestly doesn't - the critics are implying that it is impossible to advocate for Palestinian rights without falling foul of the IHRA definition.

Is it?

It is not antisemitic, under IHRA or any other definition, to say Palestinians deserve a state. Or that Israel doesn't treat them fairly. Or that they are oppressed. Or that the Nakba was terrible. Or that they aren't treated equally as Israeli citizens. Or that settlements are an obstacle to peace. Or that Israel kills civilians unfairly. Or that the separation barrier hurts Palestinians. Or that Israel uproots olive trees. Or that settlers treat Palestinians badly. Or that Israeli soldiers don't respect Palestinian human rights.

Zionists might not agree with statements like that, and many of them are flat-out false, but they aren't antisemitic.

But critics of the IHRA definition are saying that Palestinians must be allowed to say that Israel is a Nazi state, or that Israel is an apartheid state (which they would never say about Lebanon even though they treat Palestinians worse than Israel does) or that Israel is a racist endeavor from the start, or that the Nakba is worse than the Holocaust. These statements are not only false but they cross the line into antisemitism because they treat Israel to a standard that no other nation is held to, and in the case of a Nazi analogies, they are meant directly to attack and hurt Jews by saying they are as bad or worse than those who killed 6 million of them.

Is it really so hard to advocate for Palestinian rights without descending into antisemitism? Those who have written against the EO apparently believe that - so instead of defending Jews from antisemitism, they are defending the right of anti-Zionists to be antisemitic.

Again, the EO does no such thing. People can spout on campus that Israelis are Nazis because that is free speech; they cannot harass Jews on campus and block them from joining organizations based on their supporting Israel.

But isn't it strange that the critics of the EO, all of whom profess to be against antisemitism, are arguing for the right of anti-Zionists to be antisemitic?

Few of them would make a similar argument that the existing Title Vi has a "chilling effect" for white supremacists on campus to say racist speech on free speech grounds. But it is exactly the same.

The critics are defending antisemitic speech in ways that they would never dream to defend racist or sexist speech. If there is a moral or legal difference between antisemitic speech and racist speech, let them explain exactly why.

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.

12/18 Links Pt1: Word of the Week: 'Nation'; Islam's Reformation: An Arab-Israeli Alliance Is Taking Shape in the Middle East; Turkey allowing Hamas to plot attacks on Israelis from its soil

From Ian:

Word of the Week: 'Nation'

When Romantic-era nationalism came about, it got termed that because it was the idea that a people should determine its own government and life, and “nation” is a word for people. All kinds of nations decided that they didn’t like being a population within countries that were large, multinational empires and that they wanted to separate off and form their own nation-states — countries populated largely by one people. We use “nation” sloppily to mean “sovereign country” or “state” now because following the rise of nationalism, the nation-state became the sort of default idea of a country in our heads. Why is the term “nation-state” not redundant? Because a state is a politically sovereign area, and a nation is a group of human beings with some shared, binding history, culture, language ... whatever, so long as they understand themselves to be a people and/or are understood by others to comprise one.

Poles are a nation, and they wouldn’t stop being one if Poland stopped being an existing sovereign country (this thesis has been rather repeatedly and dramatically stress-tested). Greeks are a nation, Greece is a country. Armenians, like Jews, were in the 19th and early 20th centuries not a majority in any area, so the ethnic violence surrounding nationalism didn’t turn out very well for them during the period of the breakdown of the great empires. The Armenian people were nearly destroyed in a genocide during a world war and only after that was given the area that is now the sovereign country of Armenia with its capital in Yerevan. The idea was that having a nation-state is a matter of survival for a people.

In this sense, neither Jewry nor Israel is unique or special at all, except in being late to a party that most other nations occupying the former great Imperial Zone of Europe threw in the previous century. Only in 1948, after the same sort of thing happened to Jews that happened to Armenians, did they succeed in the nationalist project to get a state, Israel, for the previously existing people, Jews. That’s why the obsession with Israel and Palestine seems like a matter of Jew-hatred to people who understand this history and these words: It’s one piece of a historical process involving dozens of basically identical situations, and the Jewish one is what gets all the condemnatory United Nations resolutions and ranting by Noam Chomsky.

So, Trump’s executive order on Jews as a nation only affirms the idea of Jewish peoplehood that is, first, totally coherent within the ordinary framework of how we understand nations, and second, only doing about Jews what Title VI already does for other demographic categories. Suddenly a lot of people don't like the constitutional implications of applying the Civil Rights Act the day it extends to Jews? Well, that seems odd. Debate the policy all you like, but this is not the Wannsee Conference, and everybody pretending it is has revealed that they do not understand the very elementary issues here and should read more and seethe less.

Ambassador Ron Dermer: 'Jews are both a people and a faith'

Israeli Ambassador to the US Ron Dermer has thanked US President Donald Trump for signing an executive order to fight antisemitism on college campuses.

"Last week, President Trump used his executive authority to confront Jew-hatred on college campuses, which have become ground zero in the shameful attempt to defame and demonize the Jewish state and where many Jews feel unsafe to express their identity," Dermer said on Tuesday during a candle lighting event ahead of Hanukkah at the embassy of Israel in Washington.

"I found it interesting that when President Trump made that decision, a debate broke out on social media about whether Jews are a people or merely a faith," he added.

"For over a century, anti-Zionists, both Jewish and non-Jewish, have sought to deny that Jews are a people. Anti-Zionist Jews have denied that Jews are people out of a genuine fear that non-Jews would persecute them for being part of a separate nation," he continued.

“Anti-Zionist non-Jews have denied that Jews are a people in order to deny the Jewish people the right of self-determination that all peoples enjoy. Either way, regardless of what one's motives are and what nonsense goes on in the Twitter-sphere, the fact is that the Jews are both people and a faith,” he remarked.

Islam's Reformation: An Arab-Israeli Alliance Is Taking Shape in the Middle East

A new narrative is emerging in the Middle East. The anti-Semitic craze to destroy Israel was powerful in the 1960s, but now, Sunni Arab neighbors are changing course. Islamist leaders are losing their appeal - at a time when Iran, with its brand of theological fascism, poses a threat to Israel and the Arab world alike.

Polls show that the percentage of Arabs expressing trust in Islamist parties has fallen by well over a third since the uprisings of 2011. The number of young people who say they're "not religious" is also on the rise. This generation wants Arab leaders to increase economic prosperity, minimize political conflicts, and build alliances, including with Israel.

I regularly meet Egyptians and others who desperately want to normalize relations with Israel and they offer three reasons. First, the events of the Arab Spring exposed the fanaticism of the Muslim Brotherhood and other related Islamists, with the hardliners now being viewed as a threat to both Islam as a faith and Muslims as a people.

Second, the need to stand firm against Iran is becoming a cause that unites Israel with Sunni Arabs and anti-Tehran Shiite Muslims in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. The mullahs in Tehran support Hizbullah, which is dedicated to destroying Israel, but they also meddle in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen.

Finally, and most intriguingly, Israel is being seen by moderate Arab governments as a trade and security partner as the West sends mixed signals. As one Arab prince said recently at a private meeting: "Who else will fly in joint missions against Iranian targets with us?"
For 70 years the Arab world was driven by an anti-Semitic ideological craze to wipe out Israel. But before that came a far-longer history of coexistence and respect. The people of Israel are honored repeatedly in the Quran, which confirms that Jews have every right to settle in and around Jerusalem. It was Omar, a friend of the prophet, who invited Jews back into Jerusalem in 637 after five centuries of being banished by the Romans.

Leftists say philo-semitism is antisemitism. That means Judaism itself is antisemitic, and the circle is complete.

Mairav Zonszein at +972Mag, criticizes a Tel Aviv speech by Elan Carr.

Elan Carr, the State Department’s special envoy for monitoring and combating anti-Semitism, told a group of Israelis and Americans Tuesday night that in order to combat anti-Semitism, teaching the Holocaust is not enough. The U.S., he believes, needs to “educate on philo-Semitism.”

This is too much for Zonszein, who then articulates a still new concept of the Left that loving Jews is antisemitic:

Philo-Semitism, which is sometimes referred to as “positive anti-Semitism,” is an inverse form of anti-Semitism that views Jewish stereotypes — including that Jews are smart, rich, and cunning — with admiration. While on its face, philo-Semitism appears to cast Jews in a positive light, it effectively affirms the beliefs of anti-Semites while tokenizing and exceptionalizing Jews, often conflating them with the State of Israel. In its essence, philo-Semitism, like anti-Semitism, sets the Jews apart as a group distinct from society at large, which is precisely what makes it so dangerous.

So, according to the geniuses of the far Left, it is just as bad for people to go to Jewish doctors or lawyers as it is to boycott them. People who want Jewish neighbors are just as bad as those who try to keep them out of their neighborhoods.

In fact, people who love Jews for their perceived scholarship, charity and morality are dangerous, just as bad as those who hate Jews for their perceived greed or ambition.

(There was once an All in the Family episode where bigot Archie Bunker insisted on getting a Jewish lawyer. That kind of "philosemitism" may exist but it is very rare, and even where it exists, it is far better than antisemitism - a true antisemite would refuse to deal with any Jew.)

Zonszein alludes to those who admire Israel as a bastion of success, morality and strength in an ocean of bigotry and hate. And this seems to be the real reason that Leftists hate philosemitism - because loving Israel is inseparable from philosemitism. And loving Israel is the cardinal sin of the far-Left, so it must be redefined into a form of bigotry, the worst insult possible.

The most ridiculous, and telling, criticism of philosemitism is that it "sets the Jews apart as a group distinct from society at large."

Judaism itself sets Jews apart from the rest of the world!

Jewish law and tradition itself ensures that while Jewish survival depends on a separateness - hence Jewish dietary laws, the prohibition of intermarriage, and countless other examples. It doesn't mean that Jews cannot exist in the larger non-Jewish world or must live in ghettos; Jews have always been part of the larger society. As a minority, it is important for preservation of the religion and the peoplehood of the Jews to establish some separation.

According to the leftist anti-philosemitism doctrine, Jewish law and tradition is antisemitic.

It gets more absurd. Its says explicitly in the Jewish scripture (Deuteronomy 14:2): "Thou art a holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be His own treasure out of all peoples that are upon the face of the earth."

God Himself is antisemitic.

(Extending things a little more, the NAACP is racist.)

Obviously, these leftist arguments are ridiculous. Yet is also ironically proves that the Jewish Left is eminently unqualified to speak about antisemitism.

Because, you see, if they are against any sort of Jewish distinction from any other person, that means that they cannot speak as Jews on any topic. They have abrogated their own Jewishness, since their fervent hope is to be indistinguishable from non-Jews. Eating bagels and lox on Sunday mornings is distinction and therefore antisemitic. Synagogues that cater to Jews are antisemitic. Hillels on campus are antisemitic. Being proud of being Jewish is antisemitic.

They want Judaism to disappear so that there is no longer any distinction between Jews and non-Jews. They do not want to consider themselves Jewish at the risk of distinguishing themselves and contributing to antisemitism, in their twisted worldview.

Therefore, since they are against a separate Jewish existence, they have abrogated the right to use the "As A Jew" argument - since the very words "As A Jew" makes them different from non-Jews. The phrase itself is antisemitic according to them. They only use it cynically to bolster their arguments against Judaism and a Jewish nation.

In short, the Jewish Left argument that philosemitism is as dangerous as antisemitism is, by definition, antisemitic.

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 Islamophobia Tango

Recently, there has been a controversy in England over a column written by Melanie Phillips on Islamophobia published in TheJC:

Palestinian misdeeds, including Jew-hatred, can’t be acknowledged. Nor can the Jew-hatred coursing through Muslim society in general.

And that’s because the Islamic world is given a free pass on the grounds that it is the historic victim of the west. So any such criticism is silenced by the claim it is “Islamophobic”.

Shockingly, some Jewish leaders have gone along with this travesty, even equating “Islamophobia” with antisemitism.

This displays a quite stunning ignorance and naivety. Of course, true prejudice against Muslims should be condemned, just like prejudice against Hindus, Sikhs or anyone else.

But the taunt of Islamophobia is used to silence any criticism of the Islamic world, including Islamic extremism. This is the second issue which ties people up in knots over antisemitism.

“Islamophobia” was invented by the Muslim Brotherhood to mimic antisemitism, the concept which these Islamists falsely believe immunises Jews from criticism — itself an antisemitic belief.

So “Islamophobia” appropriates to itself the unique attribute of antisemitism — that it is deranged — in order falsely to label any adverse comment about the Islamic world as a form of mental disorder.

The concept of “Islamophobia” is thus profoundly anti-Jew. To equate it with the dehumanising, insane and essentially murderous outpourings of Jew-hatred is obscene.

In response, the Board of Deputies of British Jews tweeted:

.@JewishChron's fearless journalism has been at the forefront of tackling antisemitism & its denial. The publication of this piece was an error. Anti-Muslim prejudice is very real & it is on the rise. Our community must stand as allies to all facing racism https://t.co/V2H7iVGHuz
— Board of Deputies of British Jews (@BoardofDeputies) December 17, 2019

I'm not certain of the origins of the the term "Islamophobia" as currently used - I've seen claims that it was created by Iran, not the Muslim Brotherhood - but Phillips' main point is true: the term is used to shut down debate in much the same way that Israel-haters claim that Jews use antisemitism. Except in the case of Islamophobia, it is true.

Notice that Phillips was very careful to distinguish between actual anti-Muslim bigotry, which she rightly condemns, with the far more expansive idea of "Islamophobia," where any criticism of Islam or how Muslim nations act are considered a form of bigotry. This was lost on her critics, who cannot distinguish between the two - thus proving her point by attacking her in order to appear liberal and woke.

What seems to be lost in this discussion is the history of the "phobia" part of "Islamophobia."

For 150 years, there has been a dance between Western fears of Islam as a strange, exotic but potentially deadly ideology and Muslim stoking of those fears to bend Western diplomacy to their will. Here's a typical example, the first and last paragraphs of an article from 1882:

Or this from 1895:

The West has been afraid of a pan-Muslim jihad ever since the concept entered general knowledge. Muslims were regarded as exotic and unpredictable, seemingly walking around with scimitars which were always ready to be used against infidels, and as such deserving of a wide berth.

It didn't take long for Muslim nations to realize this and use this Western fear of Islam to their advantage. The sheer unpredictability of fatal Muslim anger keeps Westerners on edge and wanting to appease Muslims in order to stay on their good side. Whether it is the British reacting to Arab pogroms in Palestine by limiting Jewish immigration, or Western newspapers refusing to publish images of Mohammed that caused murderous rampages, Muslims have realized that their occasional

eruptions have political advantages.

Palestinian leaders have used the threat of Arab anger and the "Arab street" literally every day for decades in order to gain political advantage. An example from today: Mahmoud Abbas' spokesman said, "Without Jerusalem there will be no state, no peace and no stability for anyone." This is an implicit promise to the world of a permanent state of Islamic terror if Palestinians don't get their way, but it is still taken seriously by the West instead of being treated like a mob-style threat it is - which would be rejected if uttered by anyone but a Muslim.

The fear of Islam is not bigotry. It is a tango between a fearful West and a politically astute Muslim world that takes advantage of that fear.

The modern flavor of what is called Islamophobia is a slight variation of that fear - the fear of liberals of being labeled bigots, so they bend over backwards to ensure not the slightest possibility of offending Muslims - many of whom are more than happy to adopt the role of a thin-skinned people for whom every criticism of their religion or their countries is evidence of hate. Many Westerners themselves now work hard to forestall even the slightest possibility of potential offense, what Richard Landes calls "proleptic dhimmitude." The US wants to move its embassy? No, the Arabs worldwide will have massive deadly demonstrations - so don't do it!

To a large extent, this Western fear of Islam contributes to the infantilizing of Muslims and Arabs. The underling logic behind it all is that they are not assumed to be normal, rational people. The true irony of the leftist attitude towards Islam is how patronizing it is. This is why, for example, human rights groups will not hold Muslim nations to the same standards as they hold Israel and the US.

The real solution is to treat Muslims and Arabs like adults, who must take responsibility for their actions - whether it is sexism in the form of hijab laws, or calling them out on threats of riots to affect Western foreign policy, or any of dozens of other examples. Psychologists know that students will act the way teachers expect them to act and it applies to the wide world as well. As long as the West treats Muslims to a lower moral standard than themselves, the Muslim leaders will do everything they can to make their people live down to those expectations.

Is it really so radical to treat everyone by the same moral standards? Isn't that what liberalism is meant to be?

It takes two to tango, and the West can end the dance.

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.

For the first time, Gaza farmers are shipping strawberries to England, Qatar and the UAE.

Five tons were exported so far.

This is the very beginning of the strawberry season, and some 2500 tons are expected to be shipped to Western European and Gulf countries.

What doesn't get much attention is that Israel is helping the process. Gaza cannot export directly so it all goes through Israel, and the strawberries earmarked for Europe are flown through Ben Gurion Airport.

Which is not the sort of news you see reported in the media.

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.

12/17 Links Pt2: Why we should applaud Trump's executive order on anti-Semitism; The London Terror Attack Exposes Deradicalization Program’s Failures; HRW Whitewashes Hezbollah, Hamas, and PFLP

From Ian:

The Jewish Dilemma in Europe and Beyond

What with anti-Semitism on both left and right, economic stagnation, and demographic decline, European Jewry faces dim prospects, writes Joel Kotkin:

Perceptions of Jewish success combined with a weak economy and the shrinkage of the middle class have ignited a resurgence of right-wing populism across the continent. In some countries, notably Russia, Poland, Belgium, and parts of Germany, anti-Semitism of the traditional right-wing variety has been mainstreamed, often by nationalist parties such as the AfD in Germany, the Freedom Party in Austria, and Jobbik in Hungary.

This development is most notable in Eastern Europe, where economic conditions are less than ideal. Asked whether “Jews have too much power in the business world,” according to a recent Anti-Defamation League survey, 72 percent of Ukrainians agreed, as did 71 percent of Hungarians, 56 percent of Poles, and 50 percent of Russians. . . . [A] third of Austrians, according to a recent CNN Poll . . . complain Jews have too much influence in finance, as did a quarter of French and German respondents.

Contemporary leftist hatred of Jews has its roots in the post-Stalin alliance with Arab nationalist and Islamist regimes seeking to obliterate Israel. . . . As the famous Nazi-hunters Serge and Beate Klarsfield told me and my wife over two decades ago in Paris, French leftists would see huge potential in appealing to Muslims who now outnumber Jews by roughly ten to one. Although often out of sync with the very liberal social agenda of the European left, Muslims increasingly constitute a powerful constituency for French socialists, who have been losing ground among their traditional white working-class base in recent elections.

Over the long term, if current trends hold, the Jewish future will be essentially that of Israel. . . . Many in these countries may well say “good riddance” to the Jews, but it represents a tragedy not only for the Jewish people but for Europe and the world.

Why we should applaud Trump's executive order on anti-Semitism

History tells us that anti-Semitism is often just a form of gateway racism, the proverbial “canary in the coal mine of intolerance.” As Ahmed Shaheed, the United Nations special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, noted in his recent Human Rights Council report on anti-Semitism: “Anti-Semitism, if left unchecked by governments, poses risks not only to Jews, but also to members of other minority communities. Antis-Semitism is toxic to democracy and mutual respect of citizens and threatens all societies in which it goes unchallenged.”

Until now, the absence of a legal definition of anti-Semitism has been an Achilles’ heel for those who expect colleges and universities to take a stronger stand against campus anti-Semitism. Valid monitoring, informed analysis and investigation, and effective policy-making all require uniform definitions. While there can be no exhaustive definition of anti-Semitism, because it can take many forms, the IHRA definition has been an essential tool for identifying contemporary manifestations of anti-Semitism.

While some object to the idea that the Jewish people fall under Title VI’s rubric of race, color or national origin, such objections are misplaced. First, the OCR has placed Jews, Muslims and other religious groups under Title VI’s jurisdiction since 2004. Second, as any proponent of intersectionality theory should agree, Jewish people can see themselves as a lot of things — a race, nation, religion, ethnicity, culture, etc. Clarifying that for purposes of anti-discrimination provisions is entirely not problematic.

Jewish students need protection; at this writing, more than a half-dozen states are considering similar legislation. As one of the primary drafters of these state bills, I applaud the Trump administration for demonstrating leadership and sending a message that intolerance is unacceptable.

Government officials and institutions have a responsibility to protect citizens from acts of hate and bigotry motivated by discriminatory animus, including anti-Semitism, and must be given the tools to do so. President Trump’s executive order is one such tool, and as such it should be celebrated.

Someone should ask Obama for his response to the consensus judgment by Washington Post, NY Times, CNN et al that his admin's 2010 guidance on protections under the Civil Rights Act was literally equivalent to the Nuremberg Laws and Soviet purges.
— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) December 16, 2019

The London Terror Attack Exposes Deradicalization Program’s Failures

With no viable deradicalization program in place, we can be reasonably confident that many terrorists being released from prison will leave the same as they entered, or worse. Radical ideology is not changed by a mere stint in prison. Deception is often used to disguise true beliefs.

A clear example of this is recently-released terrorist Kevin James, who was caught posting on social media his current view of non-Muslims. “Getting ready for Jum’ah in the land of dogs and pigs,” he wrote. “May Allah free me from it soon.”

Prosecutors argued that James “has shown he cannot be taken as his word that he will abide by the terms and conditions of his supervised release. … He lies about where he intends to go; he lies when confronted about his conduct; and he lies about the underlying facts that result in his discipline.”

Proven, effective conditions of supervised release are needed to protect us from another violent attack by a released terrorist. We know from the Khan attack that electronic monitoring by itself is insufficient. Khan was wearing a monitoring device when he carried out his attack. He chose a place — a public conference on prison rehabilitation — where he was allowed to be in order to carry out his attack.

Several steps must be taken to contain the threat of terror attacks by released offenders and those radicalized in prison. First, early release of incarcerated terrorists must be discontinued. Second, those who are released when their sentence is completed must be placed under stringent supervision by specifically trained personnel. Monitoring must include not only the ex-offender’s geographical location, but his or her Internet and telecommunications use, especially social media. Finally, a national registry for convicted terrorists is essential for providing local authorities with the information they need to protect their communities.

A similar registry has been effective with released sex offenders, and it will work with released terrorists.

When calling a person a Jew is their biggest insult, you know Iran's leaders are antisemitic

Some people still try to claim that Iran isn't antisemitic, but simply anti-Israel. The few thousand Jews who still live in Iran tell any visitors - while Iranian security officials are in earshot - that everything is wonderful. Credulous Westerners believe them.

Usually, Iran is careful to keep blatant antisemitic attitudes under wraps. But sometimes the facade cracks.

A lengthy article in the official Iranian Mehr News describes how the Saudi royal family is supposedly really Jewish.

The convoluted story says that the Saudi family is all from the Jewish Bani Al-Qinaqa tribe, who were naturally immoral, that the Sauds destroyed Muslim holy places but preserved Jewish sites in Khaybar, and that today the Saudis are pro-Israel and anti-Muslim.

While the conspiracy theory of one's enemies really being Jewish is a well known trope in the Arab world (both Egyptian president Sisi's allies and the Muslim Brotherhood accuse each other of being Jewish,) we see that the Iranians also consider being Jewish as the ultimate insult.

After all, if Iran treasured Jews as much as they claim, then why should the Saudis' alleged Jewish roots matter one bit?

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.

From the latest Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research survey summary:

In light of the suspension of peace negotiations, Palestinians support various alternative directions: 60% support popular non-violent resistance; 52% support a return to an armed intifada; 42% support dissolving the PA; and 28% support abandoning the two-state solution and demanding the establishment of one state for Palestinians and Israelis. Three months ago, 50% said they prefer a return to armed intifada and 40% said they prefer to dissolve the PA.

Imagine if more than half of Israelis supported a new war with Palestinians, there would be screaming headlines. But the world expects Palestinians to prefer terrorism (which is what an "armed intifada" means.) No news coverage.

Other notable findings that the news media doesn't deem newsworthy:

61% of the public want president Abbas to resign while 34% want him to remain in office.
A majority of 54% (59% in the West Bank and 45% in the Gaza Strip) believes that it will not receive a fair trial if it finds itself in a Palestinian court.
A majority of 55% (60% in the West Bank and 48% in the Gaza Strip) thinks that the Palestinian judiciary is rules according to whims and interests; 42% disagree and believe that it rules according to the law.
Perception of corruption in PA institutions stands at 82% while perception of corruption in the institutions controlled by Hamas in the Gaza Strip stands at 67%.

Once again, it is amazing how little reporting on actual Palestinian attitudes there is, given how many journalists are there.

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.

12/17 Links Pt1: Pompeo Blasts House Democrats For ‘Foolish’ Stance On Israeli ‘Settlements’; NJ elected official wonders if anti-Semitic shooting was justified; Israel Must Be Wary of Two-Faced Jordan

From Ian:

Pompeo Blasts House Democrats For ‘Foolish’ Stance On Israeli ‘Settlements’

As The Daily Wire reported last month, 106 House Democrats sent a scathing letter to U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that expressed “strong disagreement” with the Trump administration’s recently promulgated legal assertion that so-called Israeli “settlements” in the biblical Jewish homeland of Judea and Samaria do not per se violate international law.

The House Democrats’ hysterical letter accused Pompeo of “ignoring international law” and “undermin[ing] America’s moral standing.” The congressmen continued: “If the U.S. unilaterally abandons international and human rights law, we can only expect a more chaotic and brutal twenty-first century for Americans and our allies, including the Israeli people.”

Conservative Zionists quickly and assertively pushed back against the tendentious missive. The Coalition for Jewish Values (CJV), which identifies as “the largest rabbinic public policy organization in America,” wrote its own powerful letter that deconstructed the House Democrats’ misleading claims. Frequent Daily Wire contributor and CJV Managing Director Rabbi Yaakov Menken told The Daily Wire at the time: “Word to the wise: If you claim to be pro-Israel, and sign a letter regarding Israel along with Reps. Omar, Tlaib, and Ocasio-Cortez, you’re fooling no one but yourself. It’s amazing to see congressmen telling the administration to ignore Acts of Congress. All the more so when those Acts prevent U.S. tax dollars from being spent to encourage terrorism.”

Now, as reported by The Jerusalem Post, Pompeo has powerfully responded himself to the House Democrats’ letter. Pompeo excoriated the Democrats’ letter as “foolish,” and he hit the anti-Israel presidency of Barack Obama in no uncertain terms: “The Obama-Kerry departure from America’s historic support of Israel has done nothing to make peace more attainable.”

“While I appreciate your interest in this important issue, I couldn’t disagree more with those two foolish positions,” Pompeo continued. “While you are free to fixate on settlements as a barrier to peace, you are simply wrong in referring to that view as being subject to bipartisan agreement.”

Pompeo then blasted “the erroneous positions of international law that have gained favor in the past decades”: (h/t MtTB)

Secretary of State Pompeo Responds to Congressional Critics on Legality of West Bank Settlements

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on Monday responded to a Congressional letter that criticized the administration's position on the legality of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

"The State Department's determination did not reverse any policy with regard to Israeli settlements. Rather, the State Department reversed a legal determination by Secretary Kerry...allowing UNSCR 2334, whose foundation was the purported illegality of the settlements...to pass the Security Council on December 23, 2016."
"Secretary Kerry's determination did not enjoy bipartisan consensus. Rather, it received bipartisan condemnation, including from leading Democrats in both chambers of Congress. Indeed, an overwhelming number of Senators and House Members, on both sides of the aisle, supported resolutions objecting to the passage of UNSCR 2334."
"While you are free to fixate on settlements as a barrier to peace, you are simply wrong in referring to that view as being subject to bipartisan agreement. No less a Democratic spokesman than the Senate Minority Leader publicly stated at his AIPAC address on March 5, 2018, that 'it's sure not the settlements that are the blockage to peace.'"
"You assert that we have 'blatantly disregarded' the Fourth Geneva Convention....I commend to you the writings of Eugene Rostow, who left his position as Dean of the Yale Law School to become Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the Johnson Administration....Rostow stated in 1983 that 'Israel has an unassailable legal right to establish settlements in the West Bank.'"
"U.S. policy with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict largely has been consistent for decades and remains so: we support and seek to facilitate direct negotiations between the parties towards the goal of a just and lasting peace agreement."
"Regrettably, as many experts concur, UNSCR 2334 and the related self-justifying remarks by Secretary Kerry have saddled the Trump Administration with a significant handicap in advancing the cause of peace by erroneously injecting into the conflict an incorrect and largely irrelevant legal component. This in turn has led to the hardening of positions, especially on the Palestinian side."

NJ elected official wonders if anti-Semitic shooting was justified over treatment of black Americans

A Jersey City Board of Education Trustee suggested that the shooting at a Jewish market that left six dead last week, including the shooters, was justified as a result of how Jewish people treat African Americans.

Both suspected shooters, David Anderson, 47, and Francine Graham, 50, were found dead after a shootout with police. Both of them publicly expressed interest in the Black Hebrew Israelites, but neither had formal connections, and the shooting is being investigated as a hate crime.

On Saturday, Lincoln High School Principal Chris Gadsden posted a column from InsiderNJ on Facebook. The column, titled "Faith and Hope to Fight Hate," focused on a recent event bringing together religious and civic leaders to address the shooting and the hate that precipitated it. While discussing the growing tension between the African American and Jewish communities, they also spoke about the encroachment of a new development making its way into the traditionally poorer neighborhoods.

Joan Terrell, who sits on the Jersey City Board of Education, commented on the post questioning, "Where was all this faith and hope when Black homeowners were threatened, intimidated, and harassed by I WANT TO BUY YOUR HOUSE brutes of the [J]ewish community? ... Who helped Black people living in rental properties owned by the [J]ewish people but were given 30 day eviction notices so that more [J]ewish people could move in?"

Her post continued to accuse Jewish residents of forcing African Americans out of their homes and referenced community programs that have been eliminated.

“Mr. Anderson and Ms. Graham went directly to the Kosher supermarket,” Terrell wrote. “I believe they knew they would come out in body bags. What is the message they were sending? Are we brave enough to explore the answer to their message? Are we brave enough to stop the assault on the black communities of America?”

She's a city official where Jews were just gunned down in cold blood because they're Jews, and she just said they probably deserved it, and by the way are they taking ppl's organs?

City officials instigating another pogrom, but you'll hear crickets over this.
— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) December 17, 2019

Ah. pic.twitter.com/PZPdA39wUp
— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) December 17, 2019

Today's BDS movement is a direct descendant of the Arab boycott of the 1950s and 60s against Israel.

Then, as now, the boycott isn't against Israel, but Jews. No boycott list today includes Israeli Arab companies but only Jewish owned businesses in Israel.

The Arab League in 1956 was a bit cruder. They had an explicit policy of not doing business with any companies with Jews in major roles.

This is from the same Congressional Record I quoted from yesterday.

The American Jewish Congress has in its possession correspondence from Arab firms located In Saudi Arabia, canceling contracts with American Jewish businesses because of a directive promulgated by the Saudi Arabian Chamber of Commerce, but unquestionably inspired by the Saudi Arabian Government, instructing Saudi Arabian firms to discontinue all relations with businesses abroad owned or controlled by Jews or that employ Jews. These letters state that any contract negotiated in violation of this directive will be subject to summary cancellation and that any merchandise imported into Saudi Arabla from firms employing Jews abroad will run the risk of confiscation. The Saudi Arabian Government evidently requires its domestic import companies to obtain affirmative and positive assurances that their business associates abroad are free of all Jewish connections,

The nature of the discrimination is clearly reflected in the following excerpts from letters in our files received by American firms owned by Jews from their Saudi Arabian customers

January 3. 1952:

“We very much regret to inform you that our Government has duly published a notice announcing that any importers of Saudi Arabia must not be permitted to import the goods, any kind of goods, from any Jewish firms of the world.

“Further, they have listed your name as being a Jewish firm, as these steps are taken suddenly against you, we are obliged to cable you to stop the shipments of our orders until we write you.

“However, we are obliged to ask you to let us have full particulars as to what faith your firm is belong, to Jewish or Christian? And until we have full particulars from you, we are obliged to stop our business with you.”

October 1, 1953:

“In connection with our request for not effecting the shipment of our order by any steamer which belongs to any Jewish steamship company. This is in compliance of our Government's regulation announced recently, further this ordinance warns that any shipment by such steamers will not be
allowed to enter Saudi Arabia.”

September 17, 1953:

“We have also to inform you that you are well aware we are quite prohibited to import any goods manufactured in any Jew factories, Now our Government has issued a new regulation warning all the importers that no goods may be brought by the steamers belonging to Jew steamship company. You are kindly requested to take this matter into consideration in order to avoid any sortof trouble arising by doing so.”

B. Boycotts by other Arab countries

Although the boycott carried out by Saudi Arabia has received the greatest attention in this country there are clear indications that other members of the Arab League have carried on an identical policy of barring Jews from international trade. The following excerpts from a letter to the chairman of the
Board of Directors of Verkoopkantoor Van der Heem N. V., The Hague, Holland, on November 13, 1955, indicates the firm intenttion of all members of the Arab League to make the boycott of Jews universal:

“As you are aware the Arab countries are in a state of war with Israel and for this reason we are making an economical siege around that Israel. This siege is administered by a special control and investigation office with members of all the Arab states.

“An officer in said office visited us today and requested that following information be supplied about your company:

Do you have any Jewish employees in your company. if yes how many and what are
the positions held by them.

Are there any Jews in your Board of Directors as members?

Is any of your managers or branch managers a Jew, if yea please give name of the department headed by such a man.

Is any of the persons authorized to sign on behalf of your company a Jew.

What ts the number of Jewish laborers in your factories and offices.

In a letter quoted below from the Assistant Secretary of State in 1953, the State Department acknowledged that there has been from time to time a blacklisting of American Jewish firms by the Lebanese Government. American newspapers report simlar experiences by American Jewish businesses throughout the world In dealing with member states of the Arab League (New York Herald Tribune, February 12, 1956). The boycott now suffered by American Jewish firms is a vital part of the International plan of the Arab League to deny Jewish businesses access to principal markets.

Nowadays, the Israel haters like to boycott "Zionist" businesses - to say "Jewish" is too crude. But there is a direct line from the Arab boycott to today's BDS - just because the messaging is more sophisticated doesn't mean the goals and bigotry aren't the same.

There is more from that same article that highlights some American history that has been all but forgotten. I hope to present that soon.

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.

Pallywood and the dishonesty of James Zogby

From Wikipedia:

James Joseph Zogby (born 1945) is the founder and president of the Arab American Institute (AAI), a Washington, D.C.–based organization that serves as a political and policy research arm of the Arab-American community. He is Managing Director of Zogby Research Services, LLC, specializing in research and communications and undertaking polling across the Arab world. In September 2013 President Obama appointed Zogby to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. Zogby is a lecturer and scholar on Middle East issues and a Visiting Professor of Social Research and Public Policy at New York University Abu Dhabi. From 2001 to 2017 he was a member of the Executive Committee of the Democratic National Committee.

A prominent Arab leader, Democrat and pollster - one would expect a minimum level of honesty from such a person, and a backlash from his own party when he crosses a line, right?

He tweeted:

His photos include the one on the lower left, which is twice Photoshopped - it would be impossible for a soldier to maintain his balance like that.

What about the other photos of soldiers seemingly pointing their guns at innocent Palestinians?

Besides the optical illusion of a two dimensional photo making it impossible to see whether the guns are actually pointed at someone, there is another issue: this is how soldiers carry guns.

See this photo of a US soldier in Afghanistan:

And others from Afghanistan:

Given the right caption, any of these innocent photos can be twisted to look like US troops are terrorizing Afghan civilians, with guns pointed in the direction of children.

Pallywood isn't always the staged and Photoshopped photos Often it is the framing/captionng of an innocent event to make it appear as if it is malicious.

Another example from Twitter yesterday:

Israeli occupation forces humiliated and abused Palestinian civilians as they searched them at the military checkpoints installed around the Ibrahimi Mosque in the West Bank city of #Hebron. pic.twitter.com/JPyTG4VMgc
— Palestine Live (@pallive_en) December 16, 2019

The video shows no such thing, but the people who follow the account are primed to believe the lie because of how it was presented.

It was pointed out to Zogby that at least one of his photos were Photoshopped. He doesn't care; he didn't take down the tweet nor did he acknowledge it. He knows he is being dishonest in both the text and the photos, but he doesn't care - he is not about truth but to push anti-Israel propaganda.

The real question is why the Democratic Party he is so heavily involved with tolerates someone who is so obviously dishonest.

(h/t @kweansmom)

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 latest Human Rights Watch report is again a piece of theater. It believes wholeheartedly what Palestinians accuse Israel of, it doubts everything Israel says, and it pretends to understand human rights laws that it has no idea of.

The first 12 pages or so is a discussion of human rights laws under occupation. The report concentrates on the Right of Peaceful Assembly, Right to Freedom of Association and Right to Freedom of Expression, saying that all West Bank Palestinians do not have these rights. However, the 95% of Palestinians who live under Palestinian Authority rule can and do create mass anti-Israel rallies, complete with people dressing as terrorists with guns and masks.

A centerpiece of HRW's legal argument is this:

Article 43 of the Hague Regulations of 1907, recognized by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg and the International Court of Justice as having the force of customary international law binding on all states, outlines the powers and responsibilities of an occupying power:

The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country.

This provision authorizes an occupying power to take restrictive measures that are militarily necessary to ensure its own safety, but also requires the occupier to restore and ensure public life for the benefit of the occupied population. Measures that are militarily necessary are those likely to “accomplish a legitimate purpose and are not otherwise prohibited by international humanitarian law.”

What HRW doesn't tell you is that the person who determines whether an action falls under the definition of "military necessity" is the field commander in charge, and he or she is given a great deal of latitude in that determination (obviously not to the point of violating any other humanitarian law rules.) It is not up to HRW or professors or other NGOs to look at a situation with the luxury of hindsight and determine whether something was a military necessity.

...In calling on occupiers to “ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety,” Article 43 requires an occupier to use all practical means at its disposal to minimize the impact of its actions on the local population. The logical corollary of this article is that the means available to an occupier increase with the duration of an occupation. A foreign army occupying a village for a month or a year may be limited in the sophistication of the security measures it adopts, for lack of time, resources, and familiarity with the location and population under occupation. A foreign army, though, occupying a territory for decades, has more time and opportunity to refine its responses to threats to the security of its forces in ways that minimize restrictions on rights and freedoms. The longer the occupation, the greater the ability and therefore the obligation to arrive at security measures that minimize impact on the local population.

This is HRW's major argument that Israel has not done all it can to provide for freedoms of the Palestinian population - because during a short occupation there may be very restrictive measures taken but over time it is the responsibility of the occupier to refine the methods to help the population have more public order and safety.

There is one major flaw in this argument: since 1987, every couple of years, a new wave of violence erupts that forces Israel to go back to a more restrictive rule. HRW simply doesn't admit the existence of the two intifadas,or the later car ramming and stabbing sprees, or the violent weekly riots, as a factor in what Israel is allowed to do to protect its soldiers and Israeli civilians.

Anyone who looks at the freedom of Palestinians under Israeli rule from 1967 to 1987 would see that they indeed gained more and more freedoms - until the first intifada.

This report does not even mention the word "intifada" once. It does not mention the word "riots." It doesn't mention "Molotov cocktails" or "firebombs." In other words, HRW strips Israeli security force actions and decisions of any context.

There is far more, of course.

HRW, when discussing the case of Nariman Tamimi, says

Officers interrogated Nariman three other times, each time returning to her "incitement." She said they also asked her about her Facebook posts, some dating as far back as seven years, of Palestinians who carried out attacks against Israelis or were killed by Israeli forces.

It puts "incitement" in scare quotes and trusts her to say what the IDF considered her incitement.

She didn't mention sharing this handy guide on how to stab someone effectively:

HRW may know about this (one of many offensive posts by Nariman) but they would never share it, because it undermines their lies.

Another innocent victim of Israeli capriciousness is "artist" Hafez Omar. HRW doesn't mention that his posters glorify violence as the only way to freedom:

This report was of course written by Omar Shakir, whose work permit was revoked by Israel. Ever since the, Shakir and HRW have embarked on a vindictive crusade against Israel - as always, at the expense of real human rights abuses happening within a couple of hundred miles of Israel's borders.

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 Jew. A poem.

This may be the best thing I ever tweeted. (I added a line.)

I am from an inferior race
who also controls the world
I am the evil brain behind
both Communism and Capitalism
I'm way too religious
and also a Godless atheist
I'm insular
yet I infiltrate
I kill and deceive
deities and prophets
And if you murder me
it is my fault
Because you can always find
a good reason

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.

12/16 Links Pt2: Lawsuit Exposes the Chain Linking U.S. “Charities,” BDS, and Terrorists in Gaza; Melanie Phillips: Don’t fall for bogus claims of 'Islamophobia'; NYT Misleads Over Antisemitism Definition

From Ian:

Melanie Phillips: Don’t fall for bogus claims of 'Islamophobia'

At last Sunday’s rally against antisemitism in Westminster, more than 3,000 people listened to a range of speakers denounce anti-Jewish bigotry.

Beyond that rally, however, reaction among the general public to the hatred in the Labour party directed at Israel and the Jewish people does not seem to reflect its eye-watering scale and viciousness.

Leaked evidence collected by the Jewish Labour Movement exposed a virtual tsunami of crazed venom, with statements that Jews were “subhuman” and should “be grateful we don’t make them eat bacon for breakfast every day”, that they were connected to Isis or 9/11, or they were traitors and “bent-nosed manipulative liars”.

Despite all this, there’s still a failure to grasp the full dimensions of this horror. For there are two issues over which widespread moral confusion is hampering proper acknowledgment of this onslaught against the Jews.

The first is support for the Palestinian cause and the related belief that, while antisemitism is a loathsome prejudice against Jews as people, anti-Zionism and Israel-bashing are legitimate attacks on a political project. This distinction is bogus.

Anti-Zionism is the modern mutation of antisemitism with which it shares the same, unique characteristics of deranged and obsessive falsehoods, demonic conspiracy theory and double standards. It is furthermore an attack on Judaism itself, in which the land of Israel is an inseparable element.

Toxic mutation of an ancient hatred: Left-wing Antisemitism

When the postmodern left emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, its worldview absorbed much of this Soviet propaganda, with a key tenet remaining a commitment to anti-Zionism — the view that the State of Israel is illegitimate and should not exist. Added to the anti-Zionist denial of Israel’s claim to an ancestral homeland was “a contradictory claim that the Jews sought to maintain a ‘racial state’ in Israel.”[15]

In historical terms, anti-Zionism has been quite distinct from antisemitism. Whereas the racist prejudice of antisemitism was largely a phenomenon of the political right, anti-Zionism was based on what Australian scholar Philip Mendes has described as “a relatively objective assessment of the prospects for success for some Jews in Israel/Palestine.”[16] In recent decades, however, as anti-Zionism has developed into a rejection of the legitimacy of the State of Israel, anti-Zionism and antisemitism have converged.

The postmodern left’s anti-Zionism was certainly influenced by Soviet hostility to Israel. However, it is a phenomenon which owes even more to the determination among the post-World War II generation to oppose racism and colonialism. Israel, according to the postmodern left, is an illegitimate remnant of western colonialism in the Middle East — a view increasingly endorsed by the United Nations as it added newly decolonised states to its membership.

Postmodern left anti-Zionists invariably insist their target is neither Jews nor individual Israeli citizens going about their ordinary lives. Rather, their target is the State of Israel itself, which they hold to be a political regime promulgating illegal, coercive, and dehumanizing treatment of Palestinians. It is a line of argument that attempts to defend the distinction between anti-Jewish remarks and criticism of Israeli government policy.

Commentary Magazine Podcast: Yes, It’s OK to Ask About Bernie and Anti-Semitism

A piece we published on Friday by our own Noah Rothman kicked up a social-media dust storm over the weekend—the view of Noah’s critics being that it is illegitimate to question associations between Bernie Sanders, his campaign, and anti-Semites. We disagree. At length. Give a listen. (h/t IsaacStorm)

A Lawsuit Exposes the Chain Linking U.S. “Charities,” BDS, and Terrorists in Gaza

The Jewish National Fund (JNF)—which owns much of the land in Israel—together with a few Israeli families who live near the Gaza Strip, has filed suit in an American court against organizations that, they allege, support arson attacks on southwestern Israel, often accomplished by attaching makeshift incendiary devices to kites and balloons. In doing so, writes Nadav Shragai, the plaintiffs have an opportunity to shed light on the how Palestinian terrorist groups raise funds in the United States:

If the details of the suit are found to have a legal basis, it will be possible to point to three links in the money chain, the first of which are the Palestinian National and Islamic Forces (PNIF). The group was established by the former PLO leader Yasir Arafat during the second intifada [to] coordinate among the various organizations fighting against Israel. . . . It turns out that the PNIF was never dismantled and in fact helped establish the Supreme National Authority of the Return Marches and Lifting the Siege, [which coordinates attacks from Gaza and attempts to breach the border fence]

A total of twelve religious and nationalist Palestinian factions belong to the PNIF, including Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, [and] the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. . . . All of them are recognized as terrorist groups by Israel, the U.S., and Europe.

The second link is the BDS National Committee (BNC), a leading player in the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement that was founded in Ramallah. BNC sees itself as an umbrella organization that heads the international movement to boycott Israel.

The third link is the specific group named in the lawsuit: the American charity Education for Just Peace in the Middle East U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights (USCPR). According to the lawsuit, at least as far back as 2017 the group has functioned as a pipeline to transfer donations to terrorist organizations, utilizing the BNC [for that purpose]. The funds USCPR transfers to the BNC are designated charitable donations, and are therefore tax-exempt. The lawsuit argues that starting in 2018, the USCPR has been involved in a conspiracy to support, promote, and encourage the marches of return, which are directed [and] led by a terrorist coalition. Therefore, the suit argues, the BNC receives tax-free donations and uses them to promote an agenda of hatred and the arson-balloon and kite attacks against Israel.