Though obfuscated by the noise of the Black Lives Matter movement, King's lifelong dream—that his children "one day [will] live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character"—has become his successors' nightmare.
Yes, the sad fact is that BLM members and supporters now scoff at such a notion, even while paying lip service to King as a paragon. Indeed, if they weren't in the process of renouncing his philosophy, Professor Klein would be hailed for his moral stance, not persecuted and placed on leave.
Nor is the aspiration of an America that puts character over color the only aspect of King's ideology that the current climate has eradicated. His views on Israel, too, are ignored or denied by BLM anti-Zionists and their Jewish fellow travelers.
In a letter to Jewish Labor Committee national chairman Adolph Held on Sept. 29, 1967, less than four months after the Six-Day War, King denounced an anti-Israel resolution introduced at the Chicago Conference of New Politics.
"If I had been at the conference during the discussion of the resolution," he wrote, "I would have made it crystal clear that I could not have supported any resolution calling for black separatism or calling for a condemnation of Israel and an unqualified endorsement of the policy of the Arab powers."
He went on to say, "Israel's right to exist as a state of security is incontestable," adding, "It is not only that anti-Semitism is immoral—though that alone is enough. It is used to divide Negro and Jew, who effectively collaborated in the struggle for justice. It injures Negroes because it upholds the doctrine of racism which they have the greatest stake in destroying."
How King would have reacted to the way in which black and Jewish radicals are distorting the spirit of the joint effort that he had championed is anyone's guess. Though their endeavor does involve "struggle," it bears no resemblance to "justice," certainly not where color-blindness and Israel are concerned.
Three years after its establishment in 2013, BLM and an alliance of more than 60 affiliated groups issued a policy platform labeling Israel an "apartheid state" that perpetrates "genocide" against Palestinians, and therefore should be subjected to a complete academic, cultural, and economic boycott.
Handler’s ability to survive this incident with her career intact shows that myths about Hollywood being controlled by the Jews are nonsense. It’s also likely that most Jews in the entertainment industry are either so cowed by the Black Lives Matter movement that they wouldn’t dare to act against her or actually agree that anti-Semitism shouldn’t disqualify Farrakhan from being considered a respected voice.But the pass for anti-Semitism doesn’t just exist in the arts.
In early 2019, newly elected Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) made a splash by engaging in anti-Semitic incitement against Jews and Israel with accusations about AIPAC buying congressional support for Israel with “the Benjamins,” coupled with charges that supporters of the Jewish state were guilty of dual loyalty.
While many on both sides of the aisle condemned her remarks, when push came to shove, congressional Democrats refused to censor her. While at the same time Republicans were punishing Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) for remarks that seemed an endorsement of white nationalism, Omar was rewarded with a seat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, where she could pursue her vendetta against Israel and support for the anti-Semitic BDS movement.
More than that, she got a pass from the same cultural forces that are canceling dissenters from the BLM mantra by being treated as an honored celebrity. Nor has that changed, since during the past two weeks she has made the rounds of the Sunday-morning talk shows, where hosts like CNN’s Jake Tapper fawn on her.
The practice of shaming, shunning and silencing those with unpopular or even offensive views is antithetical to democracy and the free exchange of ideas. That is especially true when it involves actions or statements that are not actually racist.
At the same time, it says something truly ominous about our society and culture that questioning the BLM movement—even while avowing that, of course, black lives matter—can destroy a career, while endorsing anti-Semites and even engaging in Jew-hatred is not considered a big deal. We already know that the consequences of giving anti-Semites a pass can lead to horror. Apparently, those who pose as the supposedly enlightened guardians of our culture have either forgotten that or no longer care about it.
As questions about racism surround us about film and TV projects — and the presence of hate speech on mass-media outlets — the issue recently hit very close to home for me in the form of antisemitism.
I was searching for stand-up comedy options on TV via Tubi — a service offering movies, TV shows, and other content — when I noticed a listing for a program featuring Owen Benjamin, a notoriously antisemitic comedian whose videos have been banned by websites such as YouTube for their hateful content.
Among the videos he has created in the past are ones making light of the Holocaust, and others purporting to imitate stereotypically Jewish manners of speech.
Why is Tubi showcasing this personality?
This is important to ask, given the wave of movements to ban films, statues, and other works glorifying slavery and those who have benefited from it — along with individuals involved in the oppression of populations. My feeling is that these mandates, if conducted in a just way and by the proper authorities in a safe and expeditious fashion, are absolutely justified.
But such directives should be extended to works celebrating antisemitic individuals too — and there’s a surplus of movies, paintings, etc. that warrant further scrutiny.
Take Banksy’s “anti-Zionist” (read: antisemitic) graffiti or Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. Maybe one even could look at David Lean’s Oliver Twist, which features a performance by Alec Guinness as Fagin that was widely criticized by Jewish groups at the time of its release because of elements such as a highly exaggerated prosthetic nose affixed to the actor. Or Alexander Payne’s Downsizing, which posited a future in which Israelis were miniaturizing Palestinians to render them helpless.
How will the debate rage around this, and where do we draw the line?
Yes, as through this world I've wandered I've seen lots of funny men; Some will rob you with a six-gun, And some with a fountain pen. – Woody Guthrie
On 23 December 2016, lame-duck President Barack Obama struck back at Israel for her insouciant refusal to acquiesce to the empowerment of her deadly enemy, Iran; and at the same time at least partly kept his promises to pro-Palestinian activists, who had been disappointed by what they saw as his insufficient firmness toward Israel. On that day, the US abstained on a vote and allowed the UN Security Council to pass resolution 2334, which declared all “settlements” outside of the pre-1967 lines – including eastern Jerusalem – “illegal under international law,” and “call[ed] upon all States … to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967,” a provision which has been used to justify discriminatory labeling and boycotts of Jewish products from the territories. The resolution asserted that Israel was in violation of the 4th Geneva Convention and demanded that she “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities…” This was the first anti-settlement Security Council resolution that the US had not vetoed since the Carter Administration. It directly contradicts the position of the Israeli government, which views the territories as disputed, not occupied, and the Jewish communities there as entirely legal (see here and here). While creating dangerous precedents (e.g., for the prosecution of Israeli officials in the International Criminal Court and for the justification of BDS activity), the resolution was passed under Chapter VI of the UN Charter and not Chapter VII, which would justify the application of economic sanctions or even military action against Israel. Although the resolution was introduced by Malaysia, New Zealand, Senegal and Venezuela (it was originally proposed by Egypt, but Israel persuaded the Egyptians to withdraw it), a spokesman for PM Netanyahu said that Israel received “ironclad information” via Arab countries that “this was a deliberate push by the United States and in fact they helped create the resolution in the first place.” Netanyahu said that he had asked Russian President Putin to veto resolution 2334, but Putin (although Russia apparently did try to delay the vote) would not do so. Recently, PM Netanyahu told the Israel Hayom newspaper that Obama had planned to go even further:
He and his staff began working on another UNSC resolution, which would have forced Israel to agree to a Palestinian state based on the 1948 borders. Israel's UN ambassador at the time, Danny Danon, sounded the alarm.
At the time, the US administration denied the Israeli claim that another resolution, in addition to UNSCR 2334, was going to be brought before the UN Security Council.
Did Bibi exaggerate? Hardly. A clue to the details of this second resolution was provided by a contemporaneous article by Nathan Thrall, who described, on the basis of interviews with “top US officials” what such a resolution might look like:
…to set down the guidelines or “parameters” of a peace agreement—on the four core issues of borders, security, refugees, and Jerusalem—in a US-supported UN Security Council resolution. Once passed, with US support, these Security Council-endorsed parameters would become international law, binding, in theory, on all future presidents and peace brokers.
Top US officials see a parameters resolution as Obama’s only chance at a lasting, positive legacy, one that history might even one day show to have been more important to peace than the achievements of his predecessors.
As we know, Obama’s position on borders was that permanent ones had to be “based on” the 1949 armistice lines, with only small swaps to accommodate some settlement blocs, requiring that the Palestinians be compensated for the swaps with land from the pre-1967 state of Israel. In contrast to the Israeli view that Israel held title to the territories (although she would consider ceding some of the area in return for a peace agreement), Obama saw all of the land across the Green Line as “occupied Palestinian territories.” Any agreement that would result in Israel losing control of the Jordan Valley and the high ground of Judea and Samaria would render the country indefensible. Israel cannot afford to allow those borders to be imposed under any circumstances. Obama’s view was at odds with the 1949 armistice agreement as well as UNSC 242, the grandmother of all UNSC resolutions concerning the Israeli-Arab conflict, and the Oslo Accords. The armistice agreements clearly stated that the cease-fire lines simply represented the areas under control of the sides at the time of the cessation of hostilities, and that they had no political significance. UNSC 242 called for “secure and recognized boundaries” that would be arrived at by negotiation between the parties (at that time Israel and the Arab nations). Oslo replaced the Arab nations with the Palestinian Authority, but also made the question of borders a final status issue to be settled by negotiation. Obama wished to upend all that and reward the Palestinians with the whole enchilada prior to negotiation. Whether such a resolution would indeed have “become [binding] international law” is not at all clear, but there is no doubt that it would be used as justification for continued pressure on Israel. If it had passed, it would have been used as an argument against the Trump plan, which is in essence a 2-state solution that is not based on the 1949 lines. According to Netanyahu, when he heard about Obama’s intention, he called “his friend” Vladimir Putin, and convinced him that it was a bad idea. And Putin agreed to veto it if it came up. The Obama administration realized that this would be an embarrassment which would hurt the Democrats domestically without gaining anything, and so decided not to push it. If Netanyahu’s story is true – and the Thrall article, which obviously represents Obama Administration thinking suggests strongly that it is – then what lessons can be drawn from it? The main one is that Israel should beware of Obama and his gang, who have not gone away and will be very influential again if the Democrats win the coming election. We should think about this very carefully when considering when to apply Israeli law to the strategic Jordan Valley. Another is that if indeed Putin intervened, it is evidence that Israel cannot afford to become a ward (or a satellite!) of one of the great powers. It must maintain friendly connections with all sides. A small country in the Middle East won’t survive otherwise. And one more: Woody Guthrie was right. Not every enemy comes at you with a gun.
Rabbi Yeruchem Eilfort, of Chabad at La Costa, in Carlsbad,
California, came to my attention at about the turn of this century. I traded
trees with a distant cousin, and there, smack dab in the middle of a lot of
generic, not particularly Jewish-sounding names was “Yeruchem” married to “Nechama”
and the two had a large number of offspring, all the children having Hebrew or
Yiddish names.
This was interesting, because until
now, my two siblings and I had been the only orthodox people in the family. I had to know more about
this new third cousin, so I asked for contact information and sent off an
email. Thus began a two-decade long relationship with the Eilfort family, who
visit us whenever they make the trip to Israel.
Nechama and Yeruchem on their most recent visit to Jerusalem in January, 2020.
Now you could have knocked me over with a feather when I learned that Yeruchem
was a Chabad rabbi. Chabad would seem to be the last place a descendant of the
Kopelman clan would find a home. This family’s history is steeped in the
Lithuanian yeshiva tradition, sort of the anti-Chabad. Our families, however, like
so many other Jewish American families, had become more secular after many years
in the West. And when Yeruchem and my siblings and I found our separate ways back to the
traditions, he found his way back, like so many others before him, through
Chabad.
Yeruchem and Nechama were my
cousins on paper, but in time came to feel like true family. We have shared
values. And we kind of just hit it off.
The seed for the following
interview was planted in the wake of Poway and the murder of Lori Kaye, HY”D.
Naturally, when I heard the news of Poway, I worried about the Eilforts and wondered
how close they were to Poway. Now it seemed, we’d both been hit a little too
close to home: the Eilforts in Carlsbad, so close to Poway, and me with the
Tree of Life massacre where my former up-the-street neighbor, Mrs. Mallinger, HY”D,
had been killed, so close to my childhood home. I decided to speak to Yeruchem
to hear what he had to say about antisemitism and what steps he’d taken to
secure his community:
Varda Epstein: Can you talk a bit about how you came to Chabad? About
your wife and family?
Rabbi Yeruchem Eilfort: I came to
Chabad through Camp Gan Israel, the worldwide Chabad camp system. It showed me
that everything I had previously learned about Judaism wasn’t actually true and
that Yiddishkeit was not something reserved for history books, weekends in the
synagogue, or afternoons in Hebrew School. Instead the Chabad camp experience showed
me that Judaism was about life and how we live it.
My wife comes from a long line
of Chabad Chasidim. Her grandmother, a’h, was a Yerushalmi [Native Jerusalemite
- V.E.] and came from a line of Yerushalmim dating way back. Her grandfather
came from Russia and studied in the Lubavitch Yeshiva in Lubavitch before going
to Chevron [Hebron – V.E.] and learning at the Lubavitch Yeshiva there before
the 1929 massacres.
Regarding our family, we have
eight children, five of whom are married, and we have, Baruch Hashem, twelve
grandchildren, Baruch Hashem! Of the five married couples four of them are on Shlichut,
Baruch Hashem.
The Eilfort family
Varda Epstein: When did you receive your Shlichut in Carlsbad?
Can you explain how that works?
Rabbi Yeruchem Eilfort: After
we got married in 1988 we were offered a position in Irvine, which we took
after a few months of living in Brooklyn. The Rebbe, ztz’l, gave us his
blessings to go on Shlichut. A year later we came to Carlsbad in the
summer of 1990. We came to this area for the opportunity to start a new
community.
Upon our arrival in San Diego,
my wife and I immediately started building our community. We went to the local
public library and used the phone book to call Jewish sounding names. We had a
meeting in a family’s living room and engaged the attendees in conversation to
determine how we could be of service to them.
We started by offering High
Holiday services in a local hotel. Then we started having Hebrew school in a
family’s living room. Then we held Shabbat services in various people’s homes
on a monthly basis. By the following summer we moved permanently to the area
and held services in our home every Shabbat.
Quickly we outgrew our house
and needed to rent a space that would become our Chabad House. After 20 years
we were finally able to purchase our property and then we built our building,
which is approximately 12,000 square feet located on two stories.
Chabad at La Costa in the early days.
Chabad at La Costa today.
Varda Epstein: Can you tell us a bit about what it’s like to be a
Chabad rabbi? What are your duties? Your wife Nechama’s duties? What is a
typical day in the life of Rabbi and Rebbetzin Eilfort? How many people do you
serve?
Rabbi Yeruchem Eilfort: Being a
Chabad Rabbi entails wearing many hats. It is a different system where
everything is the responsibility of the Rabbi. I am responsible to raise the
money and pay the bills in addition to giving classes, conducting davening/services, counseling,
fulfilling pastoral-type duties, and making sure the building is in good order.
There are fixed classes that I give every day, but other than that my schedule
is extremely flexible. I spend a lot of time writing – it is one of my
passions, and Baruch Hashem, I am able to spend time learning every day. I also
try not to neglect myself so my wife and I walk daily.
On a typical day I get up
around 5am, I read the news, walk, learn, teach, daven, learn some more, and then by 10am begin my more mundane
duties. Usually, if I don’t have an evening class, I am pretty wiped out by
10-11pm. We oversee three communities touching about 500 Jewish families
regularly, but there are many more who are at least peripherally engaged. We
also are involved with numerous non-Jewish families who are genuinely
interested in the Torah and Judaism.
Varda Epstein: How has all that changed with coronavirus? After all,
Chabad is known for outreach, for being hands-on and very social. What is the
impact of the global pandemic on Chabad and on you and Nechama and your
congregation in particular?
Rabbi Yeruchem Eilfort: The
coronavirus has forced us into finding new ways to touch and inspire people. It
is not all bad (actually, I am a big believer in ‘Gam zu l’tovah!’
[This is also for the good – V.E.]. We have taken our classes online and
created the Chabad
Virtual Academy.
We have, in fact, tripled the
number of classes that we offer. It has been extraordinarily difficult to
fulfill many of the duties clergy typically offer. We have had to ‘think
outside of the box’ a great deal. For instance, we now deliver weekly “Challah
and Chicken Soup (penicillin for the Jewish soul)” on Erev Shabbat [Literally “Sabbath Eve,” here means Friday afternoon – V.E.], which people love. Many people, who are out of work, volunteer to make
the deliveries plus our three Rabbi/Rebbetzin teams do many deliveries.
Challoh rolls
Chicken soup
Shabbos food awaiting delivery
"We do 25 soups and 32 bags of challahs (2 smallish rolls in each) on average. Sometimes a few more," says Rebbetzin Nechama Eilfort. "My daughter and daughter in-law (Muka Rodal, Chabad of Carlsbad N, and Chaya Eilfort, Chabad of Encinitas) designed the labels. "The people who receive these packages range from some dealing with chemo to others who miss shul so much that this gives a Shabbos feeling to the people we want to connect with. There are about 12 families who get a delivery every week."
We do house visits where we
stand by the sidewalk and the people we visit stand by their doorways and we
schmooze. We make a point of continually calling people so that our connection
remains strong.
Pesach was ‘different’ as we
were not able to offer Community Sedarim for the first time in 30 years.
So instead we developed a ‘Seder to Go’ program where we delivered all of the seder
ingredients and a how-to guide to hundreds of local families. We did the same
for Shavuot, though we did offer services to a minimal number of people -
scrupulously keeping the governmental guidelines, like having the minyan [quorum]
outside in our breezeway and making sure the chairs were distanced and everyone
wore masks that we provided.
This is a challenging time, no doubt, as many people have lost their jobs and are scared. We made a giant banner that we posted in front of our building, “This Too Shall Pass!” And it will.
A sign, "This too shall pass" was put up outside the shul to give people hope during the coronavirus epidemic.
Varda Epstein: How far away is your congregation from Poway? How did
the news of what happened there come to you and your congregation? What did
that feel like? What was/is the effect on your congregation? Have you
rebounded?
Rabbi Yeruchem Eilfort: We are
located about 30 miles away from Poway. The shooting happened on Acharon
shel Pesach [last day of Passover –
V.E.]. We were just starting Yizkor [memorial service – V.E.]
when a Carlsbad police car pulled into our lot.
My wife, who was outside, went
over to ask what was going on. Details were very murky at first but as time
went on we found out what had happened. It felt like I had been punched in the
gut.
That night, motzee Yom Tov [with the conclusion of the holiday – V.E.],
my wife and I went to the hospital to visit Rabbi and Rebbetzin Goldstein. We
brought several pizzas with us, as it was Rabbi Goldstein’s custom to make
pizzas at the end of Pesach for his family. She was shaky (and who can blame
her?). He was steady, though it is impossible to understand how. We were in a
state of shock. We knew the victims and we knew the community well. And, when
it hits that close to you, you cannot help but think, “There but for the grace
of Hashem . . .”
We immediately went into full
action mode to reassure our congregants while trying to be supportive of the
Poway community. I was honored with going to the White House as part of an
entourage of rabbis. Since that time we have had to hire an armed guard to
stand in front of our building on Shabbat and during larger events. We also
formed a security committee and had them professionally trained.
Contingent of Chabad rabbis at the White House. Rabbi Yeruchem Eilfort is third from left.
Yeruchem gets this close to President Trump
We have always been very
sensitive to the need to be able to protect ourselves. We have watched and
admired how our brothers and sisters in Eretz HaKodesh [the Holy Land –
V.E.] have dealt with implacable hatred. It has now come to our shores.
Honestly speaking, this trend
started several years ago. The fact is that we are more prepared now and
stronger than ever before. Our community has been extremely resilient. I
encourage our community to be trained so that they can protect themselves and
thank G-d that I live in a country where that is still (largely) legal.
Varda Epstein: What should we, as Jews, take away from the global
pandemic? What should we be doing in response to this plague, as Jews?
Rabbi Yeruchem Eilfort: How
many pages may I use to answer? Seriously, our job as Jews has always been the
same, the only difference has been the strategies we need to employ to fulfill
our mission. Our mission is, as the Midrash states, to make this world into a
dwelling place for the Almighty. This means to reveal the fact that G-d is the
Commander-in-Chief, and that the Torah is His manual and our Constitution.
The pandemic has forced us to
expand our minds and use ever-more creative means in bringing the Torah to the
Jewish people and the world. This offers us the opportunity to really stretch
our minds and consciousness in finding ways to be ‘there’ for the Jewish
people.
I think that people’s minds are
opening up to new possibilities because all of their old assumptions and their
comfort zones are being challenged. The shell of the seed has to rot before the
true growth potential found within can grow. I cannot help but think these are
the birth pangs of Moshiach’s [Chabad-speak
for “Mashiach,” the Messiah – V.E.] speedy arrival!
Selfie of Nechama Eilfort at the yearly Kinus Hashluchos, the International Conference of Chabad-Lubavitch Women Emissaries. I asked Nechama to describe this event. She wrote: "Three thousand women descend on Crown Heights, both shluchos and baale batim for the lay leader program. There are 11 concurrent workshops all day, on Thursday, Friday, and Sunday, with farbrengens on Friday night and Shabbos. (This year I arrived a day early for a Kallah Teacher Training course that I am taking. We had Halacha and medical professionals 8am - 8pm on Wednesday as well.) The workshops focus on family, mental health, Halacha, hashkafa, and learning. There's separate programming for the Shluchos and lay leaders. There are also sheitel macher booths, vendors, and this year, a carrot juice bar and a bakery (think cheesecake!) that set up the entire weekend to feed us baked goods that they sell par-baked and can ship anywhere."
Varda Epstein: Why has antisemitism proliferated in recent years? Do
you think coronavirus has helped or hurt this situation?
Rabbi Yeruchem Eilfort: I think
antisemitism has proliferated in recent times due to numerous considerations,
not least of which is the internet. The readily available antisemitism of the
fringe groups (on the left and right) can enter every household. Of course the
potential goodness brought about through technology is also proliferating. The
greater the potential good something brings, the greater the potential evil
that same thing can bring.
This means that we must double
and redouble our efforts to make people understand how beautiful and beneficial
Judaism really is. We must make people into “Judeophiles,” lovers of Judaism.
I believe that coronavirus has
exacerbated the antisemitism. Whenever there is increased pressure, people who
have a predisposition to the fringe are more likely to actually move into that
fringe. When people suffer they look for reasons and often scapegoats.
Unfortunately some feel the
need to find others who they can blame for their misfortune. The Jews are an
easy target in that we stand out, we are relatively few in number, and we are
disproportionately successful. That is why we have to be exceedingly careful
lest we cause a chilul Hashem [Desecration
of God’s name – V.E.].
The interior of Chabad at La Costa, in Carlsbad, California
Aaron HaKodesh (Holy Ark) at Chabad at La Costa
Varda Epstein: Why does antisemitism exist?
Rabbi Yeruchem Eilfort: The
Torah says that Esav hates Yaakov, but does not tell us why. I imagine that
there it is a combination of factors behind antisemitism. Factors like
jealousy, fear of the unknown, and ingrained behaviors all play a part.
Sometimes, when one has an active conscience that constantly ‘nudges’ him/her
to do more, he/she can come to hate that conscience.
I think that in some way
antisemitism helps us remember that our mission is not yet complete and helps
prevent us from becoming comfortable in this dark galut [exile – V.E.].
The welcoming exterior of Chabad at La Costa, at night.
Varda Epstein: Can you talk a bit about the origins of the push for
bail reform in New York? Do you think the new legislation has made things
worse?
Rabbi Yeruchem Eilfort: I am
not an expert on this subject and do not know too much about it. The Torah commands
us to be empathetic and sympathetic; it demands ‘colorblind’ justice. However,
there seems to be a strong push in this country to try to explain and justify
unlawful behavior. When duly constituted laws are denigrated, a whole slew of
negative repercussions follow.
The current riots are a perfect
example of this. People are reacting emotionally instead of objectively to what
happened to George Floyd. It appears that he was tragically murdered by a
policeman who had him already subdued. The policeman should face the full
consequences of his actions, and I believe he will.
But as awful as police
brutality is, it is not widespread and when it does occur, other policemen
should not be indicted for the sin of the one or the few. Likewise it does not
justify the wanton destruction and lawlessness that we are seeing. I am all for
giving a person a second chance, but not at the expense of the safety of
law-abiding citizens.
Varda Epstein: It’s easy for Jews, as victims, to point fingers and say
what others should do about antisemitism. Is there something Jews can do about
it on a personal level, other than taking security measures?
Rabbi Yeruchem Eilfort: I would
recommend the advice offered by the Rebbe [the late Grand Rabbi of Chabad,
Menachem Schneerson, ztz’l – V.E.] as to how to counter antisemitism. We must
all become a dugmah chaya, a living example of how a Jew is to live. By
so doing we make people pro-Jewish, for they will clearly see the blessings we
bring to the world when we fulfill the divine commandments!
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.
Lies and more lies
These groups are now all sharing the same material. I have seen some people share Yachad or Na’amod posts who really should know better. Much of what is being said in this content is just lies based on illogical nonsense.
The starting point of the logical fallacy is the absolutism of the ‘negotiated two state solution’. In this paradigm, Israel cannot make unilateral moves. I hate to point out that I cannot remember these people complaining when Israel unilaterally left Sth Lebanon or Gaza. Making this an absolute simply puts Israeli peace prospects in the hands of Hamas. What if there is no partner? Are those pushing the absolutism of the negotiated settlement condemning Israelis to a perpetual conflict where they can be held hostage by whichever radical Islamic faction is holding up negotiations at the time. Sadly, unilateralism may be the only way to break the impasse, and absolutisms are a really stupid way to approach any difficult problem.
Then there are the comments in the articles and videos about ‘annexation’ being a ‘fatal blow to Israeli democracy’. Except they have no evidence that it would be. These people twist Netanyahu’s words spoken about citizenship even though they should know other statements have contradicted these declarations. They are selecting which elements to believe to suit what it is they want to say. That’s propaganda.
The articles all act as if we face doomsday. An ‘end of Israel’s democracy’ and a ‘fatal blow to British Zionism’. Unsubstantiated, illogical, non-factual poppycock.
Ugly subtext
The subtext to these Diaspora discussions is truly shameful. Israel is a highly functioning democracy. Every dinner table in Israel is a political arena. Almost every Israeli citizen can reel off the political positions of a myriad of parties across the spectrum and name the key figures in each. Israeli diplomacy is probably more convoluted and complex than that of almost any other nation. Front line Israeli politicians have spent decades trying to build ties or sustain them in hostile circumstances. Netanyahu has spent the last decade massaging new relationships into life with the gulf states.
The critical Diaspora narrative is basically suggesting Israel does not know what it is doing. It labels Israelis as incompetent voters. The state as irrational and led by extremists. This is a precise copy of the anti-Israel narrative. The fact that this government contains LESS right-wing forces than it has done for some time is ignored. We have liberal Jews sitting in their comfortable London homes trying to save Israel from the Israelis. Talk about supremacist thought. Are we really to believe that only those such as Hannah Weisfeld can save Israel from itself?
As always I suggest that if you want to engage in Israeli politics and make a difference – make Aliyah. In the meantime I suggest everyone waits to see what exactly, if anything is on the table. And for now everyone should stop wandering around the dark room looking for their black cat. Especially as it may not even be there.
Having served as the lead American negotiator on Middle East peace and a participant or mediator in Oslo talks and other Israeli-Palestinian discussions from 1993 to 2001, I know the inside history and content of the accords intimately. In response to an invitation by the International Criminal Court (ICC) Pre-Trial Chamber, I submitted an amicus curiae brief explaining that the ICC Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) has misrepresented the terms and meaning of these agreements in a number of ways.
The OTP asserts that Oslo's "object and purpose" was "to give effect to the Palestinians' right to self-determination." But that is inaccurate; the accords had several equally important goals, including Israeli security, peaceful coexistence, education for peace, and the development of effective Palestinian governance. Self-determination could not be fully advanced beyond Oslo's interim self-governance arrangements unless these other goals were fulfilled.
The agreements explicitly made any Israeli transfers of additional territory and authority contingent on Palestinian progress toward ensuring security, combating terrorism, and preventing incitement. These and numerous other obligations were never sufficiently fulfilled.
When the OTP mentions a key provision regarding Oslo's legal significance - that neither side would be "deemed, by virtue of having entered into [the accords], to have renounced or waived any of its existing rights, claims, or positions" - the Prosecutor strikingly interprets this as applying only to Palestinian positions and not to Israel's longstanding claims. Moreover, the OTP does not mention the role that Palestinian terrorism and rejection have played in preventing the emergence of a state.
Any analysis that gives weight to only one side's wrongdoing comes across as politically motivated rather than legally credible. Making political arguments is not the OTP's role. Doing so discredits the ICC, undermines its effectiveness, and threatens to undo the principle that international law is driven by legal standards and canons rather than political ideology and preferences.
The Prosecutor's Response seems to create new international law where non-binding resolutions can change legally binding agreements in order to prosecute Israeli leaders and Israeli Jews for war crimes....
The limitations of the Palestinian Authority's jurisdiction in the Oslo Accords do not permit transferring jurisdiction to the ICC. Those limitations cannot be changed or disregarded.
There is no crime and no case for the Prosecutor to investigate those who returned to their ancestral land, who are the indigenous people. Judea and Samaria are not occupied territories.
"Palestine", according to the International Court of Justice (ICL), is not a state.
There is no occupation by Israel of the territory of another state. There was no "Palestinian" state before 1967. Israel liberated Judea Samaria from Jordan after a war of aggression, in which Jordan attacked Israel in 1967 – for the second time (the first time being in 1948). Jordan finally abandoned all claims to the territory in 1988.
The Jews were expelled or killed during Jordan's 1948 aggression. Their houses were taken by Arabs...."Palestine" is the Jewish Home as codified in international law. It is not a terra nullius ["nobody's land"]. It belongs to the Jewish people. The "Arabs" of Judea and Samaria are the settlers, colonizers, who invaded the land.
The Jews hold the right to that land from the Bible, the Qur'an, and from several international instruments: the Balfour Declaration (1917), the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), the British Mandate (1922), the San Remo Resolution (1920), and the Treaty of Sèvres (1920) created International law, recognized and re-established the historical indigenous rights of the Jews to their Land.... Moreover, the Jewish people is entitled to its land under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples....
Contrary to the Jewish people being the indigenous people, the "Palestinian people" has been invented to oppose the Jewish people.
The ICC cannot be a forum for the diversion of international law and for a travesty of justice.... The Response of the Prosecutor follows a political agenda and is based on law created by the Prosecutor to enable the prosecution of Israeli Jews/leaders for crimes they never committed. Ms. Fatou Bensouda's impartiality can reasonably be doubted and she should be disqualified pursuant to article 42-7 of the Rome Statute and Rule 34 (d) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
Text of Abbas speech submitted by PA to ICC was incomplete; it was missing the section in which he admitted to committing crimes against humanity
The latest submission by the Palestinian Authority to the International Criminal Court (ICC) is a prime example of how the PA tailors and changes the content of the speeches of its leaders, and its positions in general, depending on the identity and perceived naïveté of the target audience.
In this instance, while speaking in Arabic to the Palestinian audience PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, in his May 19, 2020 speech, declared that as of that day, the PA no longer sees itself obligated by the accords and agreements signed with Israel. In contrast, in the PA submission to the ICC, Abbas’ declaration suddenly became conditional on a future event.
These contradictory claims were, however, merely the tip of the iceberg, with the PA’s submission.
While the PA claims to have attached to its submission a translation of Abbas’ speech, Palestinian Media Watch has found that the document attached is not a transcription of the speech. Rather it is a falsified version, intentionally edited by the PA to mislead the court. The falsified document also conveniently omits Abbas’ confession to committing crimes.
The PA double-speak and submission of a falsified document to the ICC, should result in the court rejecting all the different arguments put forward by the PA, simply because it is impossible to rely on any of their statements and ascertain their true position on any given subject.
But there are reports that the discussion between the king and Congress is likely to cover a topic even more controversial than that.
At issue is the extradition of Hamas terrorist Ahlam Tamimi, who masterminded the 2001 Sbarro massacre in Israel, which killed 7 children from the ages of 2 to 16 years old. As part of a deal for the release of hostage Gilad Shalit, Hamas demanded that Tamimi be included among the over 1,000 terrorists freed.
Israel acquiesced to the ransom demand.
Tamimi ended up in Jordan, where she was not only welcomed with open arms -- she became a celebrity and had her own TV show for a number of years.
But 2 of the people Tamimi killed were American citizens, and in 2013 she was indicted in the US on the charge of conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction against American nationals. Despite the fact that there is an extradition treaty between the US and Jordan, and that in 1995 it was used to extradite Jordanian national Eyad Ismoil to the US for his part in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center -- Jordan has refused to extradite, and has questioned the validity of the treaty itself.
Today may be the day that King Abdullah can no longer avoid facing the issue of extradition.
And there are indications that the US may be backing up their request with a threat.
Henry Wooster is Trump's nominee to be the next US ambassador to Jordan. While being questioned by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during confirmation hearings, Wooster responded to a question by Senator Ted Cruz on what leverage is available for getting Jordan to extradite Tamimi:
The United States has multiple options and different types of leverage to secure Ahlam Aref Ahmad Al-Tamimi’s extradition. We will continue to engage Jordanian officials at all levels not only on this issue, but also on the extradition treaty more broadly. U.S. generosity to Jordan in Foreign Military Financing as well as economic support and other assistance is carefully calibrated to protect and advance the range of U.S. interests in Jordan and in the region...If confirmed, I would explore all options to bring Ahlam Aref Ahmad Al-Tamimi to justice, secure her extradition, and address the broader issues associated with the extradition treaty.”
Henry Wooster. (Public Domain)
Wooster’s responses to the questions were obtained by The Associated Press.
The AP's Matt Lee notes that Wooster's comments are in contrast to US policy up to this point, which has been to try to address these issues with Jordan quietly, behind the scenes, and avoid making this disagreement public.
It is because Wooster spoke so openly about this, that there are expectations that King Abdullah will be asked directly about Tamimi today.
In his opening statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee before taking questions, there is no reference to the US taking a strong stand against Jordan on the extradition issue. Wooster toes the public line, quoting Secretary of State Pompeo that “Jordan is one of the United States’ enduring strategic partners,” and emphasizing the US priority to ensure Jordan's security and stability. Wooster goes so far as to say that Jordan has been "an invaluable ally in our joint work to counter terrorism, support international peacekeeping, and provide humanitarian assistance throughout the region."
Keep in mind that Wooster's opening statement was made on May 13 -- over a month ago. The questions posed to Wooster and his responses should have all taken place last month. And while his opening statement appears on the websites of the US embassy in Jordan, Roya News in Jordan and Jordan Daily -- none of them have the followup questions or answers, though Roya News quotes from the AP article, without any official government response.
So why are Wooster's responses appearing now, a month later?
The timing implies there may have been a leak to the Associated Press, at a time when Wooster's answers will have the most impact.
The original poster got some very positive Zionist responses to the question, which she clearly didn’t want to see:
The responses that she “liked” were a bit more hateful:
This isn’t “anti-Zionism.” This is a hate cult – but a cult that has literally hundreds of millions of members. A cult where members congratulate themselves on how creative and extreme they can be in their hate. A mass psychotic phenomenon.
Anyone who wonders how Nazi Germany could have possibly had popular support for the Final Solution needs only to read this thread to understand that Third Reich-level hate has never gone away. The people “joking” about mutilating Jews today are the ones who would happily do it if it was legal.
Of course, there was no criticism from the leftist “anti-Zionist” crowd. They might object to how bad this makes their side look - but they are on the same side.
The word “annexation” is being batted around – incorrectly – a lot lately, but people don’t like to speak about Jordan’s illegal annexation of the West bank in 1950.\
Jordan eagerly took over the West Bank in 1948 and it fully intended to make it all part of Jordan; in fact King Abdullah I made no secret since 1920 that he wanted to be the ruler of Greater Syria, which would include today’s Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel with Judea and Samaria.
Everyone knew that Abdullah wanted to expand the borders of Transjordan, and this was a major reason why the Arab League opposed his annexation of the West Bank.
When Abdullah made the annexation official, the entire world saw it as an annexation, and nearly everyone considered it illegal (Great Britain being the most notable exception, and the US was not opposed to it.)
Q: As a frequent visitor and friend of Jordan I'd like to ask whether an effort was made between 1949 and 1967 when Jordan officially annexed the West Bank and Eastern Jerusalem for the creation of a Palestinian state which you describe as a goal of Jordan’s policy. If so, please help us understand the history and what happened; if not, why not?
This is a reasonable question – if Jordan wanted a Palestinian state so much, why didn’t it facilitate the creation of one when it controlled the West Bank?
Kawar’s bizarre answer was that Jordan never considered the annexation to be an annexation!
A: The word “annexation” is is not the word that we use. What happened is that many of the notables in Palestine at the time requested from our family and from His Majesty to come and go into what was, what is, the West Bank and to sort of help maintain this area of the West Bank and East Jerusalem until the clarity comes to a Palestinian state. It was never meant to be for Jordan to be there; it was always kept in mind and up to today for the West Bank and East Jerusalem. This is also the case for the patronage that we have over East Jerusalem.
This is of course not even close to true. Jordan had no intention to keep the West Bank in limbo. Here is a 1964 stamp that shows that Jordan considered not only the West Bank but also Israel as part of Jordan itself!
As a result of the war, many Palestinian Arabs from the Jordanian-controlled areas found that union with Jordan was of vital importance to the preservation of Arab control over the “West Bank” territories which had not fallen to the Israelis. Consequently, in December 1948, a group of Palestinian leaders and notables from the West Bank convened a historic conference in Jericho, where they called for King Abdullah to take immediate steps to unite the two banks of the Jordan into a single state under his leadership.
On April 11, 1950, elections were held for a new Jordanian parliament in which the Palestinian Arabs of the West Bank were equally represented. Thirteen days later, Parliament unanimously approved a motion to unite the two banks of the Jordan River, constitutionally expanding the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in order to safeguard what was left of the Arab territory of Palestine from further Zionist expansion.
They aren’t claiming that they are safeguarding the territory for a future Palestinian state as Kawar now says, only that they wanted to safeguard it from Israel to keep it in Arab hands. (Which makes their decision to attack Israel in 1967 that much more ironic.)
The remaining question is – did the Palestinians really prefer to become part of Jordan rather than have their own state? The December 1948 conference seems to have been attended by most of the major leaders in the West Bank including the mayors of Hebron, Bethlehem, and Ramallah and military governors of all districts. Any opposition to annexation from the West Bank was muted. (The mufti of Jerusalem was against this, but he was in Gaza.)
The Palestinians weren't interested in a state - only in weakening and ultimately ending Israel. Which is just as true today.
The Foreign Relations of the United States document from the State Department in 1948 summarized the Jericho conference, and quoted the very first resolution as saying that the “Palestine Arabs” desired that Jordan annex the West Bank, using that word.
Of course, the 1964 PLO Charter explicitly excluded the West Bank (and Gaza) as parts of the allegedly desired Palestinian state, only claiming the areas that the Jews controlled - and proving that statehood was never the goal. Their rejection of every peace plan that would result in a state shows that nothing has changed.
George Eliot was at the peak of her renown in 1874 when John Blackwood, her publisher, learned that she was at work on “Daniel Deronda, ” a new novel. As a literary man, he was in thrall to her genius. As a businessman with an instinct for the market, he valued her passionately dedicated readership. But an early look at portions of her manuscript astonished and appalled him: Too much of it was steeped in sympathetic evocations of Jews, Judaism and what was beginning to be known as Zionism.
All this off-putting alien erudition struck him as certain to be more than merely unpopular. It was personally tasteless, it went against the grain of English sensibility, it was an offense to the reigning political temperament. It was, in our notorious idiom, politically incorrect. Blackwood was unquestionably a member of England’s gentlemanly intellectual elite. In recoiling from Eliot’s theme, he showed himself to be that historically commonplace figure: an intellectual anti-Semite.
Anti-Semitism is generally thought of as brutish, the mentality of mobs, the work of the ignorant, the poorly schooled, the gutter roughnecks, the torch carriers. But these are only the servants, not the savants, of anti-Semitism. Mobs execute, intellectuals promulgate. Thugs have furies, intellectuals have causes.
The Inquisition was the brainchild not of illiterates, but of the most lettered and lofty prelates. Goebbels had a degree in philology. Hitler fancied himself a painter and doubtless knew something of Dürer and da Vinci. Pogroms aroused the murderous rampage of peasants, but they were instigated by the cream of Russian officialdom. The hounding and ultimate expulsion of Jewish students from German universities was abetted by the violence of their Aryan classmates, but it was the rectors who decreed that only full-blooded Germans could occupy the front seats. Martin Heidegger, the celebrated philosopher of being and non-being, was quick to join the Nazi Party, and as himself a rector promptly oversaw the summary ejection of Jewish colleagues.
Stupid mobs are spurred by clever goaders: The book burners were inspired by the temperamentally bookish—who else could know which books to burn? Even invidious folk myths have intellectual roots, as when early biblical linguists mistranslated as horns the rays of light emanating from Moses’ brow.
Around 1990, James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, traveled to Jordan to raise interest in his plan to undermine the Jewish community in America by organizing the Left here against Israel’s “oppression” of Palestinians.
Zogby saw the power of framing Israelis as “white oppressors” of innocent, indigenous, darker-skinned Palestinians. And he saw the possibilities of mobilizing left-leaning ethnic, racial, and religious groups against “Israeli oppression.”
The prescient Zogby understood how the Jewish left could easily become the willing lynchpin of his strategy.
Zogby’s initiatives, which were likely funded with petro-dollars, promoted Jews as privileged “whites.”
Today, 30 years later, one sees the power of this concept: Jews in the United States, like those in Israel, are now viewed by a generation of progressives as “oppressors.” Indeed, radicals today are erroneously connecting American police officers being trained by Israeli police to American officers’ treatment of black Americans — as Jewish leaders sit paralyzed and bewildered.
Watch Zogby pitch his plan to a skeptical Jordanian TV interviewer, who doubts him: “But please, Mr. Zobgy! How can you possibly defeat the Jews in America? They control the media, the cultural institutions, the academy, and the politicians?” Zogby tells him exactly how it will be done. He understood that demonization along racial lines would provide cover for anti-Semitism, while it would morally confuse progressive Jews.
Daniel Pipes put it this way: “Who, a hundred years ago, would have believed that the Jews would make the best soldiers and the Arabs the best publicists?”
And in The World Turned Upside Down (2010), I wrote about the “totalitarianism of virtue” which in certain respects had put modernity itself into reverse.
None of this analysis has made any difference. The barbarians are inside the gates and have been camped there for years.
Enough.
The philosopher Sir Roger Scruton, himself a direct victim of this cultural auto-da-fé, said shortly before he died that, while university science departments should remain, the humanities departments should be shut down as the source of this civilisational rot.
In Tablet, Liel Liebowitz sharpens the point. He asks what could have motivated the two lawyers who were arrested last month for throwing a Molotov cocktail at a police car in Brooklyn during the protests in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death. After all, they were “poster children for all that is right in America” who “worked hard, overcame adversity, and reaped the kinds of rewards that most of us can only dream of”. So why, then, did they “harbor such hate for the very same system that elevated them so quickly and so high?”
He gives a one-word answer. College.
“At Princeton and NYU, at Harvard and Columbia and Brown, no subject is worth studying unless it somehow leads to the inevitable conclusion that the land of the free is nothing more than a cruel colonialist cabal of exploiters and profiteers, happily raping the people and the land. Steep in such fetid ideological waters for four or six or eight years, and you, too, may eye a cop car and immediately reach for a bottle of Bud Light and a gasoline-soaked rag.
“Here, then, is a modest proposal: Stop hiring college grads”.
There’s now a direct correlation between those with higher education and ideas that are amoral, illiberal and socially destructive. Whether by defunding humanities departments or hiring for preference those who have not had their minds twisted by a university education, the west must now put cultural distance between itself and the source of this contagion.
A German medieval church has reinstated an antisemitic sculpture depicting a Jewish male in an obscene pose with a pig after a local authority ruled that the object had protected status.
The church, in the town of Calbe, 45 miles northwest of Leipzig, is one of 30 religious buildings in Germany to have a Judensau – ‘Jew-sow’ – sculpture which dates back to the Middle Ages, when antisemitism was rife in the country.
After the carving was taken down to be restored, the parish decided in March that it was too offensive to return to the buttress and should be hung elsewhere.
But this move has been shelved after the listed buildings authority in the Salzland district decided the sculpture was part of the history of St Stephen’s church history.
In a compromise, the sculpture was restored to its perch, but will remain covered up until the authority decides what to do with it.
Alfred Reichenberger of the Saxony Anhalt office for monument protection said: “Of course everyone involved is entirely clear that this is an abusive caricature that needs to be dealt with critically.
“There just seems to be disagreement about how to do that.”
Here is the Kalbe Judensau, showing the Jew and the pig in a sexual act.
For hundreds of years, this – and dozens more – of these obscene sculptures have been publicly visible in Europe.
This one, in Bad Wimpfen Ritterstiftskirche St. Peter, has spikes on it – to protect it from being defecated on by birds. Because, after all, that would be terrible.
Here’s the thing: None of the people who swear up and down that they are disgusted by antisemitism and racism and bigotry are taking hammers and ladders to smash these statues to bits.
They are taking down and defacing statues of people who might have owned slaves or represented a political ideology that people oppose, but these statues and sculptures are specifically meant to send a message that Jews are subhuman, disgusting people. The other statues are not inherently offensive, but they remind people of offensive things; these sculptures were created for only one purpose – to offend Jews and to tell Christians how terrible Jews are.
Where are the social justice warriors who are so offended by Winston Churchill? Where are the people with ropes and sledgehammers and ladders who are so eager to take down other statues but who have no problem living with pure antisemitic images in their midst?
The answer is that even the people who claim to be disgusted by antisemitism, aren’t. Jews are expected to be too civilized to take a sledgehammer to these statues and people who claim to love Jews don’t love Jews that much.
That is the lesson that Jews can take from this. It is easy to say one is offended by antisemitism, but there are very few that are willing to act on it.
This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.
The Pope's Genocide Cowardice
-
Pope Francis recently implied that Israel was committing “genocide” in its
campaign against Hamas. While the pope was eager to apply the term to
Muslims...
A Friend Indeed
-
[image: Dry Bones cartoon, Trump, MAGA, President, Jerusalem, Embassy,
America, Huckabee,]
Welcome Ambassador Huckabee!
* * * And *IT'S TIME FOR YOU TO MAK...
An open letter to the police and CPS
-
To the police and CPS. With reference to complaints made by Gabriel
Kanter-Webber about Rupert Nathan. I understand that the matter has now
been referred...
7 Biggest Dungeons In Elder Scrolls Games
-
Please verify your email address. Labyrinthian in Skyrim is a maze of
Nordic ruins with fiends to battle and treasures to find. Sundercliff Watch
in Oblivi...
Gaza: A Brief Modern History Outline
-
Pre-1917 - Gaza part of the Ottoman Empire
1917 - Gaza conquered by British Army and subsequently becomes part of
Mandate Palestine
1948 - Gaza conquere...
One Choice: Fight to Win
-
Yesterday Israel preempted a potentially disastrous attack by Hezbollah on
the center of the country. Thirty minutes before launch time, our aircraft
destr...
Yom Hashoah 5784 – 2024
-
Israel’s Yom Hashoah began at sundown this evening with the annual ceremony
at Yad Vashem with torches lit in memory of the 6 million Jewish victims of
the...
Closing Jews Down Under Website
-
With a heavyish heart I am closing down the website after ten years.
It is and it isn’t an easy decision after 10 years of constant work. The
past...
‘Test & Trace’ is a mirage
-
Lockdown II thoughts: Day 1 Opposition politicians have been banging on
about the need for a ‘working’ Test & Trace system even more loudly than
the govern...
Wednesday, June 17, 2020
