Friday, November 04, 2022



At Berkeley Law School, faculty and staff members are encouraged to include their preferred pronouns in email signatures. Students can indicate their preferred pronouns on their law school applications, as well as on their name tags during student orientation.

Clearly, the right to identify oneself as one wishes is important at the law school, and anyone who chooses to ignore those wishes and tell students and staff that they refuse to address them as they self-identify would be marginalized as a bigot, and probably censured.

There is one exception, though.

This fall there has been a controversy at Berkeley Law when nine student organizations will not host events or invite speakers who have expressed views in support of Zionism. Many Jews protested, saying that this effectively discriminated against them as Zionism and Judaism are tightly bound.

The lawyer defending the student organizations, Liz Jackson of Palestine Legal, who is herself an alumnus of the school, defended the discriminatory bylaws in a most curious way:

“Some students say that their Jewish identity is so deeply identified with Zionism that this effectively discriminates against them," Jackson said. "But that’s their subjective view and choice about how they understand their own Jewish identity.”

According to Palestine Legal's lawyer, Jews do not have the right to say that their Judaism includes love of Israel. Self-identification is not a right for Jews, rather, Jewishness is defined by others and Jews must adhere to the definition that anti-Zionists impose on them.

This doesn't sound very progressive. But this is the argument of the Berkeley Law student organizations to defend their blocking any speaker for whom Israel is a central part of their Judaism, which includes the vast majority of Jews.

Jackson herself says she is Jewish. According to her own standards, I can declare that this is only her subjective view and that she is in reality not Jewish. How do you think that argument would go over at Berkeley? Yet that is exactly what she is saying about 95% of all Jews. 

Jackson's hypocrisy doesn't end there. 

Not only does she deny the right of Jews to define Judaism, she denies the right of Zionists to define Zionism!
In an Oct. 3 statement released by ASUC Senator Shay Cohen addressed to LSJP and student groups that adopted the bylaw, student groups alleged that the bylaw was “a deliberate attempt to exclude Jewish students from the community,” and likened anti-Zionism to antisemitism.

“When we say ‘Zionism,’ we mean the Jewish right to self-determination in their ancestral homeland, which is Israel,” said Amir Grunhaus, campus senior and president of Tikvah, a Zionist student group that signed the statement. “This does not say anything about the self-determination of Palestinians.”

Jackson expressed disagreement with this definition of Zionism, alleging that it was “colonial ideology” and that it is “problematic” to believe that a religious group has a right to a state of their own as it “requires discrimination” against people outside of that group.
This is "1984"-level thought police stuff. This lawyer defines what her political opponents believe. 

Note also that Jackson here is defining Jews as a purely religious group, not as a people. According to her words, atheist Jews aren't Jews, either. 

Jewish and Zionist identity can only be defined by those who oppose Jewish and Zionist identity.

And this is still not the height of Liz Jackson's hypocrisy.

She wrote an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times against the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act where she falsely claimed that the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism, which is incorporated in the Act, makes criticism of Israel illegal on campus. She's lying - the IHRA definition explicitly says that criticism of Israel similar to criticism of any country is not antisemitic.

Jackson wrote:
The State Department standard is highly controversial because it conflates criticism of Israeli policies with anti-Jewish hatred, shutting down debate by suggesting that anyone who looks critically at Israeli policy is somehow beyond the pale. It has no place on college campuses in particular, where we need students to engage in a vigorous exchange of ideas.
Jackson claims she supports a vigorous exchange of ideas on campus. No Zionist I know of disagrees.  But at Berkeley, she has taken the exact opposite stand, and defends organizations making bylaws that ban not only speech that supports Zionism, but they ban Zionist speakers from speaking on any topic whatsoever!

To anti-Zionist hypocrites like Jackson and her organization Palestine Legal, these are the rules:

The right to self-identify is sacred - except for Jews. 
The right to define your own beliefs is sacred - except for Zionists.
The right to free speech is sacred - except for nearly all Jews. 
And calling out this obvious hypocrisy is anti-Palestinian racism. 

(h/t Andrew P)



Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 




On Wednesday, terrorist Fatima Bernawi died in Egypt.

She was a celebrity for Palestinians because she was one of the earliest terrorists. In October 1967 Berawi placed a bomb at the Zion Cinema in (west) Jerusalem. The bomb, thankfully, didn't explode. Israeli police arrested her and she claims, ludicrously, that she was arrested because of her skin color - not because she placed a bomb in a movie theatre.

She stayed in prison for ten years before being released in a prisoner swap. 

This is a Palestinian hero.

Mahmoud Abbas mourned what he called "the great national fighter Fatima Al-Bernawi, the first captive of the contemporary Palestinian revolution." He had awarded her the Military Star of Honor Medal in 2005.

She was one of the many Palestinians whose parents came from elsewhere. Her father was Nigerian (and was a terrorist during the 1936-9 revolt) and her mother was Jordanian. And she lived her last few years in Egypt.

But her attempt to murder Jews in a movie theater makes her forever a Palestinian heroine.




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Thursday, November 03, 2022

From Ian:

A New Israeli Film Purports to Expose the Story of a Massacre That Never Happened
Beginning this evening, the Manhattan Jewish Community Center is hosting its Other Israel film festival. Featured movies include Boycott, described as an “inspiring tale of everyday Americans” engaged in “legal battles that expose an attack on freedom of speech across 33 states in America”—namely, legislation that prevents states from doing business with entities that discriminate against and boycott Israel. Another film featured at the festival is about smugglers who help Palestinians evade Israeli soldiers, while a third film focuses on Mizra?im who were “denied their right to a better life in Israel” by the Israeli government.

At the festival’s opening night, there will be a screening of the documentary Tantura, directed by Alon Schwartz, which investigates allegations of a massacre perpetrated by the Haganah during the 1948 war. But like the “massacre” at Lydda, or the more famous one at Deir Yassin, it’s unlikely this atrocity ever took place. The distinguished historian Benny Morris sets forth the evidence:

In both [a recent article published in Haaretz] and the film, Schwarz maintains that Israeli forces, specifically the 33rd Battalion of the Alexandroni Brigade, perpetrated a large massacre against the inhabitants of Tantura immediately after they captured the seaside village on May 23, 1948. The film is based on the allegations made by Teddy Katz in his master’s thesis, submitted to the University of Haifa in 1998. . . . Katz is the film’s hero and chief narrator.

Schwarz maintains in the article that his film is based on Katz’s paper and on “documents, military aerial photographs, and other archival materials.” This is just another crude lie, which points precisely at the central historiographic problem with Katz’s thesis and Schwarz’s film: there is no written evidence from 1948—not in Israeli archives, not in United Nations’ archives, and not in the archives of the Red Cross or the Western powers—that describes or even mentions a big massacre at Tantura. Katz and Schwarz base the “big massacre” thesis entirely on interviews with Arabs and Jews who “remembered” or claimed that they remembered it 40 years after the event.


Particularly damning is the absence of reports on this supposed outrage from contemporaneous Palestinian sources. Radio Ramallah, for instance, reported on the Israeli victory at Tantura, but said nothing about a massacre.

It’s noteworthy that a memorandum of the Arab Higher Committee, titled “The Atrocities of the Jews,” which was sent to the UN in early July 1948, makes no mention of Tantura—another puzzling omission if a large-scale massacre had recently taken place there. It’s worth noting that Palestinian historiography in the decades after 1948 also did not mention a massacre at Tantura. The book deemed the Nakba bible, the six-volume al-Nakba published between1956 and 1960 by the chronicler Aref al-Aref, does not mention a massacre at Tantura.
Melanie Phillips: The Jihadi Onslaught Against Christians
Last Saturday, there was violence in the vicinity of Bethlehem. You won’t have read a word about this in the mainstream media. That’s because the perpetrators weren’t Israelis but Muslim Arabs, and the targets weren’t Palestinians but Christians.

This was but the latest in a serious of attacks on Christian Arabs in the Bethlehem area. You won’t have read about those in the mainstream media either — just as you will have read hardly anything there about the horrific attacks on Christians that continue to take place in Nigeria and other African countries.

This is what happened on Saturday, according to contemporaneous reports on social media. A Christmas bazaar opened in Beit Sahour, a town near Bethlehem. A young Muslim Arab went to the bazaar and started taking videos of Christian girls wearing western clothes, which to his eyes probably seemed immodest.

A Christian scout leader threw him out of the bazaar. A short time later, he returned with a gang of men. They started stoning the Holy Forefathers Greek Orthodox Church near the bazaar. They smashed up cars parked nearby belonging to Christians and struck the scout on the face. In the absence of the Palestinian police, the church rang its bells — a known danger alert for churches.

Videos of these events started circulating on social media. You can see one here, in a tweet which suggests the perpetrator had tried to enter the church.
2008: The Deception of Palestinian Nationalism
The evidence that simple autonomy in the West Bank and Gaza was never the PLO’s true goal is everywhere. In 1970, US Secretary of State William Rogers suggested that the West Bank and Gaza be given up by Israel in return for peace and recognition. This plan was accepted by Israel, Jordan, and Egypt. Only Yasser Arafat, leader of the PLO, rejected it, opting instead to attempt an overthrow of Jordan’s King Hussein.

The evidence runs deeper. Yassir Arafat, who was head of the PLO until 2004, was under the direct tutelage and control of the KGB. Ion Mihai Pacepa, KGB officer and onetime chief of Romanian Intelligence, was assigned to handling Arafat. Pacepa recorded several of his conversations with Arafat when they met in Romania at the palace of brutal dictators Nicolai and Elena Ceausescu. In these conversations, Arafat unequivocally states that his sole aim is to destroy Israel.

Pacepa and the KGB were delighted. They consulted General Giap, a close associate of Ho Chi Minh, who was involved with the North Vietnamese propaganda effort during the Vietnam War. Giap recommended to Arafat that he “stop talking about annihilating Israel and instead turn your [Arafat’s] terror war into a struggle for human rights.” It had worked in Vietnam, he claimed, because transforming the conflict from one of ideologies (Socialism vs. Capitalism) to one of an “indigenous” people’s struggle for liberty had turned the tide of popular support in the West against the war.

Similar advice was provided to Arafat by Muhammed Yazid, minister of information in two Algerian wartime governments. He wrote “wipe out the argument that Israel is a small state whose existence is threatened by the Arab States, or the reduction of the Palestinian problem to a question of refugees; instead present the Palestinian struggle as one for liberation like the others. Wipe out the impression that in the struggle between the Palestinians and Zionists, the Zionist is the underdog. Now it is the Arab who is oppressed and victimized in his existence because he is not only facing the Zionists but also world imperialism.”

Yasser Arafat heeded this advice, and with the help of bi-weekly plane-loads of Soviet supplies brought in through Damascus as well as the Soviet propaganda machine, he began to portray the Palestinian Arabs as a supposedly indigenous population whose human rights were being tarnished by Israel.

The fact is that after the War of 1967, Israel inherited Arab refugees living in the West Bank and Gaza that were forced to live there in the period of Egyptian and Jordanian control from 1948 to 1967. Israel immediately offered to return the lands it won in 1967 (West Bank, Gaza, Sinai, and the Golan Heights) in return for a peace treaty. This offer was rejected by the Arab countries in the Khartoum Conference (Aug. 29- Sep. 1, 1967). In Arafat’s authorized biography, Arafat: Terrorist or Peace Maker, Arafat claims this moment as one of his greatest diplomatic victories.

It is telling that Zahir Muhse’in, member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) Executive Committee, said the following in a 1977 interview with the Amsterdam-based newspaper Trouw. “The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism.”

Palestinian nationalism is therefore a historical fabrication born out of a communist thirst for expansion and an Arab resentment of the existence of Israel. The “need” and “desire” for Palestinian is a veiled expression of the “need” and “desire” to end Israel’s existence.


There are lots of proofs that the Palestinians don't really want their own state, and that the entire point of Palestinian nationalism is just to destroy Jewish nationalism. 

Examples include how they have rejected every peace plan that leaves Israel as a viable state, their insistence on the "right to return" where their own people would live in their enemy's land rather than their own, and the contradiction between telling the world they want a two state solution while none of their own maps show Israel. Not to mention how Palestinian Arabs showed no interest in their own state in the West Bank when Jordan controlled it:  when the Jews don't control it, they no longer covet it.

Here's another proof.

This week was the Arab Summit in Algeria, and the Crown Prince of Jordan gave a speech. He said, "As for Jerusalem, it is the center of our unity and our common defense of the identity of the entire nation, and Jordan, under the Hashemite custodianship of Islamic and Christian holy sites in it, will continue, in cooperation with you and our brothers in the Palestinian National Authority, its historic role in protecting and caring for holy sites."

I have never seen the Palestinians say a single word against Jordan taking the role of custodian for the holy sites in what they consider their capital.

What kind of nation voluntarily cedes control of part of its capital city to an entirely different country? No self-respecting national movement would ever do that! 

Even though Jordan insists that its agreement with Israel leaves it with custodianship over the holy places, the text doesn't say that - just that Israel will respect the Jordanian wishes but not that Jordan has any decision-making ability over any part of Jerusalem. Israel has not ceded a square centimeter of Jerusalem to Jordan, despite Jordan's claims.

But the Palestinians have said directly that they intend for Jordan to control the holy sites in any fantasy peace deal that gives the Old City to the Palestinians. 

The Palestinians don't want sovereignty. They only want to deny Jewish sovereignty. And I challenge you to find a single decision the Palestinian leadership has ever made that contradicts this assertion. 




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Our weekly column from the humor site PreOccupied Territory.

Check out their Facebook page.


crepuscular rays in forestHeaven, November 3 - The creator ex nihilo of all existence, with complete control and absolute knowledge of every last detail of that creation, expressed appreciation today for the humor of your feeble attempts at disproving His immanent reality, supernal sources disclosed.

"Oh My Me, that's funny," the Almighty was heard to utter. "That human, and many others, believe that the limited, inadequate capacity of human language and cognition has any bearing on My nature." The LORD made the statement in response to a transcript of your contending that the paradoxical inquiry, "Can God make a stone so heavy that not even He can move it?" undermines the coherence of God as commonly understood as a tenable proposition.

"If God can make a stone that He can't lift then there's something God can't do, which means He's not omnipotent," you declared, with laughable confidence. "If He can make the stone but then lift it, then He can't make a stone that He can't lift, which means there's something God can't do, and He's not omnipotent. Checkmate, believers."

The Being that created the universe with the spoken word made heard what other divine beings heard as a chuckle. "I say God 'chuckled' because that's a word approximating the idea," cautioned the Archangel Gabriel. "Words, of course, as human constructs, cannot convey the fullness of God's actions or communication, as even the word 'God' is just a placeholder for His true essence that cannot be captured in the narrow capacity of language, and the pronoun 'He' is a pale reflection of what it represents in reference to God. My point is, the One who generated the very fabric of reality inherently possesses the power to create whatever He wishes and mold that creation to fit His will - and that omnipotence perforce includes control over Himself, which He can choose to restrict."

"In other words," continued Gabriel, "God can set rules that He chooses to follow, by which He will not do certain things. If appropriate, that may include not lifting a rock He has created. The rules are crucial for order, which He would disrupt by exercising non-selective omnipotence, and He therefore controls His omnipotence for the purpose of achieving the purpose of creation that He has ordained - partly to empower humanity to make choices that matter." You appear not to understand that, the archangel added, which, if he may remark, is hilarious in a pitiful sort of way, considering how smart and sophisticated you think your flimsy argument is.



Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

From Ian:

With overwhelming victory, Netanyahu set to form strong, stable, legitimate, right-wing gov’t
Apparently in Israel, the fifth time is the charm. After repeated attempts by the opposition, by defectors from his own right-wing bloc, by the prosecution and the Supreme Court to prevent embattled former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from ruling, the electorate finally ended Israel’s protracted political deadlock by voting overwhelmingly in favor of Netanyahu and his natural—and loyal—right-wing allies.

With 87.6 percent of the paper ballots counted, Netanyahu’s bloc is likely to surge to as many as 65 seats in the 120-member Knesset. The number represents a stable parliamentary majority. By contrast, Israel’s left-wing collapsed to barely 45 seats—a massive 20-seat gap between the right-wing and left-wing blocs. Parties comprising the outgoing coalition secured only 50 Knesset mandates this time around, including an Arab party affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Even if the distribution of mandates shifts slightly as the final votes are counted, the results are clear: Netanyahu is returning to power for a third stretch as head of government, after a year in the opposition.

The vote was a national referendum on the fitness of Netanyahu—Israel’s longest-serving prime minister—as the man best suited for the top job. It was also a referendum on the tremendous damage caused cycle after election cycle by opposing parliamentarians who conspired to block the people’s choice from serving as prime minister.

In a major surprise, turnout was the highest in years. Many had said that Israelis were growing tired of going to the polls each year and might boycott the voting booths. On the contrary, Israelis embraced their hyper-democracy and voted overwhelmingly to return stability to the electoral system. And the voters proved once again that Israel is a traditional, center-right country.

Despite all the efforts to oust him, it is now clear that Netanyahu has not lost any support across five consecutive elections. And now, the right-wing government he is poised to assemble represents the most stable alignment he has ever secured. There is virtually zero chance that Netanyahu will attempt to move towards a so-called unity alignment with parties that have tried to prevent him from serving as premier. Doing so would bring a Trojan horse and the opposition directly into his cabinet. Stability depends on forming an alliance with parties that actually support Netanyahu’s candidacy.
Continuity expected on Bennett-Lapid policies on Lebanon, Turkey - analysis
The next government is likely to continue some of its predecessors’ key regional policies if Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu forms a coalition, as expected.

Netanyahu expressed sharp opposition to the Lebanon maritime demarcation agreement shortly before it was set to be signed, calling it “terms of surrender.”

However, when the deal was finalized last week, Netanyahu said he would “behave as [he] did with the Oslo Accords.” When Netanyahu became prime minister in 1996, he fulfilled the previous government’s commitment that Israel would mostly withdraw from Hebron, following negotiations in which he demanded the Palestinians pledge to stop terrorism.

Netanyahu’s attitude towards the Oslo Accords as prime minister can be summed up in a statement he made at the time: “If they give, they will get; if they don’t give, they will not get.” Netanyahu repeated this call for reciprocity several times in his autobiography published last month, and as such, is likely to be his approach to the Lebanon agreement, as well.

US President Joe Biden provided Prime Minister Yair Lapid with a letter of guarantees over the weekend that would likely limit Netanyahu’s ability to change the deal. The letter backs up the Lebanon agreement and states that the US is committed to supporting the IDF and strengthening its ability to defend Israel, including against threats to its ships and energy assets.

Lebanon’s caretaker Prime Minister Najib Mikati told Reuters on Wednesday that the US guarantees protect the maritime boundary deal.
Melanie Phillips: Israel joins the West’s culture wars
With the result of its election this week, Israel has joined other Western countries in a notable current trend: A revolt by the public against the political establishment.

The Religious Zionist Party has now become the third-largest party in the Knesset. This is likely to mean cabinet posts for the rabble-rouser Itamar Ben-Gvir and the ultra-conservative Bezalel Smotrich in a new government led by the Likud Party’s Benjamin Netanyahu.

While their likely inclusion is due to Israel’s baroque political structure—some 90% of voters didn’t vote for them—the increase in support they received is significant.

Just as happened in Hungary, Italy, the U.S. and Sweden, the once-fringe Religious Zionist Party has come to power because a significant proportion of the public has become profoundly disillusioned with a political establishment that it felt was ignoring and betraying its interests and values.

Before the election, a number of mainstream conservative-minded Israeli voters said they would be voting for Ben-Gvir. So too did a surprising number of the secular young in Tel Aviv. For the latter, Ben-Gvir’s authenticity and directness made him an unlikely political rock star. In addition, among some conservatives, there was a weariness with Netanyahu.

Others who had previously voted for the Yamina Party’s Naftali Bennett felt a deep sense of betrayal when he tore up his previous promises and principles and formed a governing coalition with the left-of-center Yair Lapid that depended upon the Islamist Ra’am Party.

As this coalition staggered along, there was further disillusionment. Bennett and Lapid seemed to be groveling to the Biden administration, only for Israel to get kicked in the teeth in response.


By Daled Amos

I can still remember when it was frowned upon for Jews to publicly criticize Israel.

Clearly, we have long passed that point.

To paraphrase Leon Wieseltier in his 2003 critique of Tony Judt, there are Jews who

have crossed the line from the criticism of Israel's policy to the criticism of Israel's existence

There are Jews today who separate themselves from the vast majority of Jews who, according to polls, consider Israel and Zionism as important to their Jewish identity. Instead, those Jews echo Paul O’Brien, the US director of Amnesty International, who lectured a Jewish group back in March that he rejected that poll indicating a Jewish cultural, historical bond with Israel:

“I actually don’t believe that to be true,” O’Brien said regarding those figures. “I believe my gut tells me that what Jewish people in this country want is to know that there’s a sanctuary that is a safe and sustainable place that the Jews, the Jewish people can call home.”

Rather than a Jewish state, American Jews want “a safe Jewish space,” O’Brien continued. “I think they can be convinced over time that the key to sustainability is to adhere to what I see as core Jewish values, which are to be principled and fair and just in creating that space.” [emphasis added; h/t Elder of Ziyon]

Sanctuary?
Sustainability?
Was O'Brien talking about the survival of the Jewish people or maintaining a forest of trees?

Yet this is what a vocal minority of Jews today advocate--that Jews should be distancing themselves from Israel. If anything, we have already reached the next level, where anti-Israel groups are now advocating distancing themselves from the Jews who openly support, or even show, a connection or bond with Israel.

These young anti-Zionist Jews are more than just vocal. They claim to speak for a growing number of young Jews today in rejecting Israel altogether. Yet oddly enough, these self-proclaimed progressive young Jews do not defend Jews and Jewish rights. Instead, they defend anti-Zionism against accusations of antisemitism. An article in Tablet Magazine notes:

Thus, the ironically named “Jewish Voice for Peace” has partnered with an array of anti-Semites posturing as mere anti-Zionists, from Miko Peled, who dubbed Jews “sleazy thieves,” to Alison Weir of “If Americans Knew,” who complained about there being too many Jews on the Supreme Court, championed the medieval blood libel, and repeatedly partnered with white supremacists and Holocaust deniers like Southern Poverty Law Center-designated Clayton Douglas. (JVP briefly distanced itself from Weir, only to reinvite her to events soon after.)

Such is the company they keep.

More importantly, these Jews who make a point of openly condemning Israel have a historical pedigree. Just as anti-Zionist attacks on Israel follow in the footsteps of many centuries of antisemitic attacks on Jews, so too do these Jews leading the attack on Israel reflect the Jews who led attacks on Jewish communities.

Doron Ben-Atar contributed a chapter to the book Deciphering The New Antisemitism, where he writes:

In each generation, some Jews opt out of their communities for full-fledged participation in surrounding cultures. These converts sometimes turn on their coreligionists with great passion. The apostate becomes a crucial informer—the intimate insider who has seen the light and takes on the mission of exposing the alleged vileness of Jews to the unsuspecting world. Sometimes apostates officially sever their ties to Jews and Judaism, and at other times they take on the mantle of the “good” Jew or “right kind” of Jew—the “credit to the race.” Their anti-Jewish campaigns and denunciations give credibility, authenticity, and legitimacy to anti-Judaism. [emphasis added; p. 112]  

For example:

The first known blood libel—the 1144 killing of William of Norwich--did not get off the ground until 30 years later, when a minister in 1173 wrote a book accusing the Jewish community of having crucified the boy. For proof, the minister relied on Theobald, a converted Jew. Theobald claimed the Jews performed such ritual murders on a regular, yearly basis.

o  When Louis IX of France held a trial in the 13th century to establish the blasphemy of the Talmud, he was helped by Nicholas Donin, a former yeshiva student. Thanks to his help, the court ordered the burning and banning of the Talmud.

o  Pablo Christiani was successful on multiple levels. He persuaded King James I of Aragon to force Jews to attend his proselytizing sermons. In addition, he convinced Pope Clement IV to destroy any surviving volumes of the Talmud in Europe and he was able to get King Louis IX to require Jews to wear identifying badges in public. [p. 112-113]

These are some of the more well-known examples. There are other, lesser-known, former Jews who contributed to expulsions, riots, forced conversions, and the destruction of Jewish learning. 

Later, with the advent of the Enlightenment, the tactics changed as the Jewish critics tried to convince Jews to abandon Judaism and embrace assimilation instead of holding on to their backward traditions.

That attempt to sever the bonds of Jews with Judaism in order to dilute Jewish identity if not eradicate it entirely is being repurposed today by young Jewish progressives who want to sever the bonds of Jews with Israel

Cynthia Ozick finds a comparison between today's progressive Jewish critics with their earlier forbears:

The Nicholas Donins and Pablo Christianis of ages past ran to abandon their Jewish ties even as they subverted them. The Nicholas Donins and Pablo Christianis of our own time run to embrace their Jewish ties even as they besmirch them. So it is as self-declared Jews, as loyal and honorable Jews, as Jews in the line of the prophets, as Jews who speak out for the sake of the integrity of Jews and Judaism, that we nowadays hear arguments against the survival, or the necessity, or the legitimacy, of the State of Israel.

This is not to say that criticism of Israel is off-limits, a claim that critics are fond of making. As Ben-Atar writes:

Anti-Zionists kosherize antisemitism only when they endorse the destruction of Israel, when they employ old antisemitic tropes to describe Israel’s relationship with the world, and when they conflate Zionism and Nazism. [p. 115-116]

Another tactic of these "anti-Zionist kosherizers," is one that Jewish Voice For Peace uses, not unlike what Paul O'Brien referred to:  

They invent an aestheticized Judaism—a psychological and intellectual state of mind—that is divorced from the actual Jewish collective and from the experience of Jews as individuals and as a people. [p. 125]

It is tempting to try to pinpoint the motivation for the Jewish critics, whether it be out of self-hatred, currying favor among other progressives or even gaining power. But more to the point is the question as to whether they see the results of their actions.

Those "Nicholas Donins and Pablo Christianis of ages past" certainly did and clearly did not care. But what about those of today? Do they see the results of what they are doing? Do they even care?

Edward Alexander writes:

The BDSers may be obtuse, craven, morally bankrupt; but they would also have to be deaf, dumb, and blind not to recognize the link between their efforts and the murderous intentions of those who regret the Holocaust only because—for a time—it gave antisemitism a bad name.

Those attacks on Israel, where the world's largest concentration of Jews lives, is by their very nature antisemitic. Those attacks are not mere criticisms. They are “an anti-Semitic campaign to transform the pariah people into the pariah state.” 

Proof, once again, that Jews are perfectly capable of being their own worst enemies.





Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 


This morning, three Israeli policemen were injured during a stabbing attack in Jerusalem as they confronted an Arab man acting suspiciously. The terrorist,  Amer Hussam Badr (Halabiya), was shot and killed.

Badr was a civil engineering student at Birzeit University. Students there held a large demonstration for his "martyrdom."



The university itself issued a statement - a statement of support for terrorism.

The family of Birzeit University, management, staff and students, especially the College of Engineering and Technology, mourns with great pride its martyr Amer Hussam Badr, a student in the Department of Civil Engineering, who was martyred today from his injury by the occupation bullets in the occupied city of Jerusalem.

(h/t Adam Albiya)
 

They are proud that one of their students went to Jerusalem with a knife with the intention of killing Jews. 

Birzeit University  has large Hamas and Fatah factions who often square off against each other. it has sponsored "art exhibitions" that include explicit pro-terror messages. 


Now we see that Birzeit doesn't just tolerate student terror support, but celebrates terrorist attacks themselves. 

Despite this, or perhaps because of it, Birzeit has partnership agreements with dozens of other schools in Europe. 




The progressive universities of Europe don't seem to be bothered by working with a Palestinian university that celebrates and encourages terror.






Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 



Arab media on Wednesday morning has many stories about a warning issued by the "Lion's Den" terror group.

The Lions' Den group said on Tuesday that Israel  "will stand in shock and awe before the splendor of the Lions' Den's fighters, the severity of their strikes and their surprises."

The statement added, "As the resistance surprised you when you assassinated martyr (Raed) Al-Karmi, with hundreds of deaths, you will be surprised by Jenin, Al-Khalil, Nablus and Ramallah."

It concluded saying that "those who think that our fire has subsided, [let them be aware that] we are a boiling volcano."
This message did not exactly strike fear in Israelis. I could not find a single Hebrew or English language media outlet with this story, with the exception of Lebanese Hezbollah mouthpiece Al Mayadeen.

The intended audience for the message wasn't the Israelis, but the Palestinians. And the reason for the message was because the major leaders of the Lion's Den have been turning themselves in to the Palestinian Authority rather than expose themselves to being killed, as Israel took out their founder and leader Wadee al-Houh and killed or arrested a number of other senior leaders. 

While the leaders are cowering under PA protection, they want to give Palestinians a message that they are still strong - because if they are perceived as weak, that would be the end of them. In an honor.shame society, the worst thing possible is to be shamed, so the message they want to give is of unrelenting strength and "surprises." 

Ironically, calling themselves a "volcano" is the biggest proof that they have been severely damaged by the IDF raids. While some criticized the IDF and the government for going after the Lion's Den in Nablus, some saying that it will encourage a cycle of violence,  this statement shows that it was exactly the right thing to do.




Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

Wednesday, November 02, 2022

From Ian:

The Stories She Never Told
My mother loved to talk politics, real estate, and cooking. She’d happily offer intelligent insights on nearly any subject except one: her own life. With stops in prewar Hungary, Auschwitz, the Sorbonne, Mexico, and finally Manhattan, my mother’s life was extraordinary, but she kept it to herself. I hated that, but I knew why. So tender-hearted that news of terrorist attacks or natural disasters brought her to tears, she needed to distance herself from the pain of her own past. Still, as her child, I needed to understand her and the world that created her.

As a teenager and young adult, I plied her with questions, but I was only partly successful. I uncovered the scaffolding of her past but not its interiority. My mother is gone now, but my curiosity remains. I still search for her by immersing myself in stories of prewar Hungarian Jewry. Surprisingly, a new book about a Sephardic Holocaust survivor has opened a window into my mother’s inner life.

One Hundred Saturdays: Stella Levi and the Search for a Lost World, a Natan Award winner, is a Tuesdays with Morrie-style recollection of journalist Michael Frank’s conversations with nonagenarian Stella Levi, who grew up on the island of Rhodes. My mother was born thousands of miles and a universe away in the Romanian city of Satu Mare, the small Romanian city better known by its Yiddish name Satmar—the birthplace of the Satmar Hasidic sect—yet their lives seem to mirror each other.

They were born within two years of each other in the mid-1920s; both grew up in religiously observant but non-Hasidic families (prewar Satmar was home to many non-Hasidic Jews), and both belonged to the last generation of Jews to feel deeply rooted in their European birthplaces. My mother’s forebears had lived in or around Satmar for more than two centuries. Levi’s family had been part of the Juderia, Rhodes’ Jewish district, since the Spanish Inquisition. Both grew up in the embrace of aunts, uncles, and cousins in a world that moved to the eternal rhythms of the Jewish calendar.

Living within a 5-mile radius in Manhattan, both Levi and my mother viewed themselves as consummately modern women, yet both were intensely nostalgic for their childhood homes. Levi spoke of “a place where old women sat outside and told stories … took dishes to be baked in the communal oven … and where a granddaughter learned to prepare her grandmother’s sweet and savory dishes.” Unable to access the right words, my mother expressed her longing to recreate the flavors of her childhood and by carrying a crumpled photograph of her doomed aunts and cousins inside of her wallet.
Daniel Greenfield: The Holocaust Is Not Your Metaphor
"A production of Romeo and Juliet for non-binary performers"

This is what happens when the Holocaust becomes universalized, a free-floating metaphor and finally woke kitsch.

Yes, that’s the problem there.

This production, which has now been canceled, comes on the heels of things like the various Anne Frank revisions, including the Latino/ICE one. The underlying problem though is the use of the Holocaust and Hitler as a metaphor for everything bad.

The Holocaust is not a lens. It’s certainly not a lens for whatever woke nonsense is trying to appropriate Jewish history to make claims about the “rise of fascism” today.

There, is to a much lesser degree, similar objections to Netfix’s Dahmer movie which distorted and rewrote the history of the murders to score political points.

Treating real events, especially the murder of people, as a metaphor reduces the dead to the means of a political end while robbing them of their voice, their history and their identity.

The Holocaust is not slavery, slavery is not the Holocaust, whatever some sexual minority is upset by is not either one, and real events are not interchangeable. Neither are real people.
The Balfour bogeyman
In the eyes of the Palestinian Authority, one historical act is attributed with all future Palestinian suffering. That act is the Balfour Declaration, issued today, Nov. 2, in 1917. The declaration was the first contemporary, internationally recognized expression of the right of the Jewish people to establish a national homeland in the geographical area known as “Palestine”.

“His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

As exposed by Palestinian Media Watch, the PA Ministry of Information called the Balfour declaration: “The greatest crime in the history of mankind,” and the official PA daily called it “The crime of the century.”

PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas’ Advisor on Religious Affairs and Islamic Relations, Mahmoud Al-Habbash, who also serves as the PA’s Supreme Shari’ah Judge recently claimed that the Balfour declaration violated international law:
“Israel’s very existence contradicts international law. On what right do you bring people who have no connection to this land and plant them here and tell them: This is your national home? Who gave Britain a right to give a national home? Was Palestine the land of [former British Foreign Secretary Arthur] Balfour’s father?”

[Facebook page of the Fatah Commission of Information and Culture, Oct. 10, 2022]


So how then, can one answer the PA’s claim?

While the Balfour Declaration was an important statement of policy on the part of the UK government, it certainly did not have the ability to bring about the creation of the Jewish state without wide international consensus.

Historically, the declaration was issued as part of a new regional order that was born out of World War I and the demise of the Ottoman Empire, which, inter alia, had controlled most of the Middle East for centuries. As part of the new order, new borders were drawn and countries were, for the first time, carved out.

In the Ottoman Empire, “Palestine” as the separate national country and identity, as the PA claims, never existed. Rather, the region was merely just another region of the empire with no specific definition.


Abbas’ advisor: Israel’s existence contradicts international law
Author James Baldwin (Allan warren, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons)

In 1967, the New York Times published an essay by famed American author James Baldwin. At 3820 words, Negroes Are Anti-Semitic Because They're Anti-White is perhaps the lengthiest anti-Jewish screed ever published by a major, mainstream American newspaper.


The Baldwin essay is notable for the fact that it could have been written today. Except for the use of the word “Negro” nothing much has changed between then and our Ye-infused present. All the usual tropes are there: the Jews are rich, they’re white, they control the world. They use their past suffering to exploit the black man. The Jew is a slumlord, or a butcher who demands exorbitant fees for bad meat. The victims are always black:

When we were growing up in Harlem our demoralizing series of landlords were Jewish, and we hated them. We hated them because they were terrible landlords, and did not take care of the building. A coat of paint, a broken window, a stopped sink, a stopped toilet, a sagging floor, a broken ceiling, a dangerous stairwell, the question of garbage disposal, the question of heat and cold, of roaches and rats--all questions of life and death for the poor, and especially for those with children--we had to cope with all of these as best we could. Our parents were lashed to futureless jobs, in order to pay the outrageous rent. We knew that the landlord treated us this way only because we were colored, and he knew that we could not move out.

The grocer was a Jew, and being in debt to him was very much like being in debt to the company store. The butcher was a Jew and, yes, we certainly paid more for bad cuts of meat than other New York citizens, and we very often carried insults home, along with the meat. We bought our clothes from a Jew and, sometimes, our secondhand shoes, and the pawnbroker was a Jew--perhaps we hated him most of all. The merchants along 125th Street were Jewish--at least many of them were; I don't know if Grant's or Woolworth's are Jewish names--and I well remember that it was only after the Harlem riot of 1935 that Negroes were allowed to earn a little money in some of the stores where they spent so much.

Not all of these white people were cruel--on the contrary, I remember some who were certainly as thoughtful as the bleak circumstances allowed--but all of them were exploiting us, and that was why we hated them.

Compare: 

Jews are "White"

Baldwin repeatedly refers to Jews as “white,” painting them the same as, and concurrently worse than, other whites. He doesn’t like it when Jews compare black and Jewish suffering. He likes it less when told he can rise above it. He can’t, because he’s not white and rich like a Jew:

What the American Negro interprets the Jew as saying is that one must take the historical, the impersonal point of view concerning one's life and concerning the lives of one's kinsmen and children. "We suffered, too," one is told, "but we came through, and so will you. In time."

In whose time? One has only one life. One may become reconciled to the ruin of one's children's lives is not reconciliation. It is the sickness unto death. And one knows that such counselors are not present on these shores by following this advice. They arrived here out of the same effort the American Negro is making: they wanted to live, and not tomorrow, but today. Now, since the Jew is living here, like all the other white men living here, he wants the Negro to wait. And the Jew sometimes--often--does this in the name of his Jewishness, which is a terrible mistake. He has absolutely no relevance in this context as a Jew. His only relevance is that he is white and values his color and uses it.

Jews Profit from being White and Christian

Jews, say Baldwin, claim to have suffered from the same oppression and slaughter as blacks. But that claim only enrages blacks because clearly Jews have, in reality, profited from being both white and Christian (!):

He is singled out by Negroes not because he acts differently from other white men, but because he doesn't. His major distinction is given him by that history of Christendom, which has so successfully victimized both Negroes and Jews. And he is playing in Harlem the role assigned him by Christians long ago: he is doing their dirty work. . .
 . . . In the American context, the most ironical thing about Negro anti-Semitism is that the Negro is really condemning the Jew for having become an American white man--for having become, in effect, a Christian. The Jew profits from his status in America, and he must expect Negroes to distrust him for it. The Jew does not realize that the credential he offers, the fact that he has been despised and slaughtered, does not increase the Negro's understanding. It increases the Negro's rage.

Black Jew-Hate is "Mutual"

Baldwin justifies black antisemitism by claiming that Jews hate the blacks just as much as the blacks hate the Jews. The difference is, says Baldwin, that the Jews use the Holocaust and their support for the Civil Rights Movement to let them off the hook for their hatred of the “Negro.”:

Of course, it is true, and I am not so naïve as not to know it, that many Jews despise Negroes, even as their Aryan brothers do. (There are also Jews who despise Jews, even as their Aryan brothers do.) It is true that many Jews use, shamelessly, the slaughter of the 6,000,000 by the Third Reich as proof that they cannot be bigots--or in the hope of not being held responsible for their bigotry. It is galling to be told by a Jew whom you know to be exploiting you that he cannot possibly be doing what you know he is doing because he is a Jew. It is bitter to watch the Jewish storekeeper locking up his store for the night, and going home. Going, with your money in his pocket, to a clean neighborhood, miles from you, which you will not be allowed to enter. Nor can it help the relationship between most Negroes and most Jews when part of this money is donated to civil rights. In the light of what is now known as the white backlash, this money can be looked on as conscience money merely, as money given to keep the Negro happy in his place, and out of white neighborhoods.

Controlling for Anti-Whiteness

JessicaT. Simes, an assistant professor of sociology at Boston University, decided to test the Baldwin hypothesis from a scientific standpoint. After controlling for anti-whiteness, would there still be evidence of black antisemitism? If Baldwin were correct, that evidence would not be there.

Simes, however, found only “partial support” for Baldwin’s theory: Blacks don’t want to live in half-Jewish neighborhoods, because Jews are white. But blacks don’t want their close relatives to marry Jews because they’re Jews (see table).

"Race remains a statistically significant relationship with opposition to living in a neighborhood that is half Jewish when controlling for anti-White attitudes. However, race is statistically unrelated to a close relative marrying a Jewish person when controlling for anti-White attitudes."

Jewish Immorality

On the 55th anniversary of the publication of the NY Times essay, Terrence L. Johnson and Jacques Berlinerblau took the opportunity to expand on the Baldwin anti-white theory of black antisemitism. In Blacks and Jews: Fifty-Five Years After James Baldwin’s “Negroes Are Anti-Semitic Because They’re Anti-White”, the authors justifies black antisemitism as a mutual hatred between parties—one advantaged, the other not: 

Baldwin surmised that by being white, Jewish-Americans—even the many Jewish-Americans committed to social justice—were ensnared within a brutal system of what we now call “racial capitalism.” The economic asymmetries that the system engendered would, in Baldwin’s augury, doom the civil rights coalition that these minority groups had heroically forged. Too, these structural inequalities would corrode any authentic empathy Jews and Blacks may have felt for one another.

Johnson and Berlinerblau go on to chastise the Jews for failing to learn from that 1967 Baldwin piece. Their criticisms include the same tired tropes: Jews are white and rich which makes them just as guilty of black oppression as any other white person, but more so, because of the money. Also, they need to atone for their immorality:

Jewish readers in 1967 might have learned so much more from the essay than they actually did. Blacks, after all, certainly had a rich perspective on the inhumanity of white Christians. If Blacks perceived Jews—Jews!—as indistinguishable from the latter, then what might this say about the moral standing of the Jewish-American community? Did the perception not recommend introspection, a course correction?

Black Perceptions of Jewish Wealth

Eunice G. Pollack, past professor of history and Jewish studies at the University of North Texas analyzed the growth and spread of black antisemitism in the United States. One factor in black antisemitism is the difference in black and Jewish economic status as perceived by blacks:

From the mid-1960s, barely a generation after the Holocaust—when corporate America had begun to hire Jews, universities had set aside their Jewish quotas, and covenants barring the sale of houses to Jews were disappearing—Black militants, often Black nationalists, began to mount a full-throated assault on Jews and the Jewish state. From these years until the present, polls regularly revealed not only significantly greater percentages of American Blacks than Whites endorsed antisemitic tropes, but that the animus was “strongest among younger, better-educated . . . blacks” (Schneider, 1984). A study conducted in 1970 ranked 73% of Blacks in their twenties, as opposed to 35% who were fifty and older, as high on its index of antisemitism. Unlike during the Civil Rights Movement, by 1978 a survey of “black leaders” found that 81% agreed that “Jews chose money over people” and in a 1975 poll, about two-thirds were “indifferent to whether Israel existed as a state” (Friedman, 1995). Overall assessments of the incidence of antisemitism among Blacks and Whites revealed stark differences: in 1981, 42% of Blacks, as opposed to 20% of Whites, agreed that “Jews have too much power in the United States” (Schneider, 1984). About a quarter century later, in 2005, the divide persisted: 36% of African Americans held “strong antisemitic beliefs”—four times the percentage of Whites (Anderson, 2005). The racial gulf was evident even within political categories: in 2020, 42% of “black liberals” versus 15% of “white liberals” endorsed antisemitic “stereotypes” (Sales, 2021).

Malcolm X on the Holocaust

Professor Pollack identifies Malcolm X as the “founding father of contemporary Black antisemitism.” It is likely that Baldwin patterned his understanding of the Holocaust on the theories of Malcolm X: 

[Malcolm X] took the lead in recrafting Blacks’ perception of the Holocaust and of Jews as victims. The narrative had to focus only on the suffering of Blacks. “Why,” he instructed, “only 6 million Jews were killed by Hitler.” “Don’t let no Jew get up in your face and make you cry for him.” “One hundred million of us were kidnapped and brought to this country—100 million. Now everybody’s getting wet-eyed over a handful of Jews . . . What about our hundred million?” Besides, he explained, Jews “brought it on themselves” (Pollack, 2011).

In fact, the number of enslaved who departed from Africa over the course of the Atlantic slave trade numbered 10 million—4% of whom were brought to “the region that became the United States”—that is, about 400,000. And unlike the fate of the Jews, the enslaved population of the United States “increased rapidly by natural means” so that by 1850 it included “over 30 percent of the African New World diaspora” (Davis, 2006). Yet Malcolm X’s narrative became the gospel truth.

BLM and Antisemitism 

Today, says Pollack, the Black Lives Matter movement continues to spread antisemitic poison. The BLM website links to the Movement for Black Lives (M4BL) platform which states that “the US . . . is complicit in the genocide taking place against the Palestinian people.”

The M4BL website calls Israel “an apartheid state with over 50 laws on the books that sanction discrimination against the Palestinian people” and condemns “the US-funded apartheid wall.” In what Pollack describes as a “variant of the blood libel,” the same platform charged that Israeli soldiers, “regularly arrest and detain Palestinians as young as 4 years old.”

There’s also a call to activists to “build invest/divestment campaigns that ends [sic] US Aid to Israel’s military industrial complex” along with a helpful link to the BDS movement website. Pollack cites Alan Dershowitz as saying, “the platform is the closest thing to a formal declaration of principles by BLM” (2016).

Black-on-Jewish Hate Crimes

That black antisemitism leads to black on Jewish hate crimes, there is no doubt. While the actual numbers of black on Jewish hate crimes is difficult to gauge, a New York Post article from 2019 suggests that the vast majority of antisemitic hate crimes in New York are perpetrated by blacks:

As the investigative reporter ­Armin Rosen pointed out in Tablet, “many of the [anti-Jewish] attacks are being carried out by people of color with no ties to the politics of white supremacy.” As he noted, even in cases where no one is caught, video footage overwhelmingly shows minority attackers. Blacks comprised seven of the nine anti-Jewish hate-crime perpetrators arrested during the third quarter.

Comparing Black and Jewish Suffering

From Baldwin's perspective, the main reason for all this black anti-Jewish hatred is the way the Jews have always lorded it over them, all that Jewish suffering, as if Jewish and black suffering could ever be construed to be the same thing:

One does not wish [to be told] by an American Jew that his suffering is as great as the American Negro's suffering. It isn't, and one knows that it isn't from the very tone in which he assures you that it is.

No Right to Speak of a Common Experience

Why does Baldwin feel that American Jews have no right to speak of a common experience in relation to the black people? Well, according to him, Jews are white and they have money. Therefore they, unlike black people, are able to purchase safety and a future:

[The American Jew] has managed to purchase a relative safety for his children, and a relative future for them. This is more than your father's endeavor was able to do for you, and more than your endeavor has been able to do for your children. There are days when it can be exceedingly trying to deal with certain white musical or theatrical celebrities who may or may not be Jewish--what, in show business, is a name?--but whose preposterous incomes cause one to think bitterly of the fates of such people as Beside Smith or King Oliver or Ethel Waters. Furthermore, the Jew can be proud of his suffering, or at least not ashamed of it. His history and his suffering do not begin in America, where black men have been taught to be ashamed of everything, especially their suffering.

The Warsaw Ghetto vs. Watts and Harlem 

Also, says Baldwin, when the Jews rise up against oppression, they’re heroes. When blacks do the same, suggests Baldwin, comparing the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising to the Watts and Harlem riots, they’re hooligans:

The Jew's suffering is recognized as part of the moral history of the world and the Jew is recognized as a contributor so the world's history: this is not true for the blacks. Jewish history, whether or not one can say it is honored, is certainly known: the black history has been blasted, maligned and despised. The Jew is a white man, and when white men rise up against oppression, they are heroes: when black men rise, they have reverted to their native savagery. The uprising in the Warsaw ghetto was not described as a riot, nor were the participants maligned as hoodlums: the boys and girls in Watts and Harlem are thoroughly aware of this, and it certainly contributes to their attitude toward the Jews. 

But, of course, my comparison of Watts and Harlem with the Warsaw ghetto will be immediately dismissed as outrageous. There are many reasons for this, and one of them is that while America loves white heroes, armed to the teeth, it cannot abide bad niggers. 

Memo to the Jews: No One Hates You 

To Baldwin, it was important to note that anyway, Jewish oppression and slaughter are so OVER. And (contrary to established fact), no one hates them anymore:

For it is not here, and not now, that the Jew is being slaughtered, and he is never despised, here, as the Negro is, because he is an American. The Jewish travail occurred across the sea and America rescued him from the house of bondage. But America is the house of bondage for the Negro, and no country can rescue him. What happens to the Negro here happens to him because he is an American.

The Irony of Baldwin's Denial

There is irony in Baldwin’s dismissal of thousands of years of Jewish history; the expulsions, the wandering, the pogroms, and the yearning for a return to the ancient Jewish homeland. He doesn’t seem to want to see the parallels between the Jewish and the black experience and he maligns the Jew who does:

When an African is mistreated here, for example, he has recourse to his embassy. The American Negro who is, let us say, falsely arrested, will find it nearly impossible to bring his case to court. And this means that because he is a native of this country--"one of your niggers"--he has, effectively, no recourse and no place to go, either within the country or without. He is a pariah in his own country and a stranger in the world. This is what it means to have one's history and one's ties to one's ancestral homeland totally destroyed.

This is not what happened to the Jew and, therefore, he has allies in the world. That is one of the reasons no one has ever seriously suggested that the Jew be nonviolent. There was no need for him to be nonviolent. On the contrary, the Jewish battle for Israel was saluted as the most tremendous heroism. How can the Negro fail to suspect that the Jew is really saying that the Negro deserves his situation because he has not been heroic enough? It is doubtful that the Jews could have won their battle had the Western powers been opposed to them. But such allies as the Negro may have are themselves struggling for their freedom against tenacious and tremendous Western opposition.

Blaming the Victim 

In the end, as will eventually Johnson and Berlinerblau (and Ye and everyone else), Baldwin blames the victim, pinning black antisemitism on the Jews for not having learned their lesson--why the very course of history would have been very different if it weren't for those blasted Jews:

The ultimate hope for a genuine black-white dialogue in this country lies in the recognition that the driven European serf merely created another serf here, and created him on the basis of color. No one can deny that that Jew was a party to this, but it is senseless to assert that this was because of his Jewishness. One can be disappointed in the Jew if one is romantic enough--for not having learned from history; but if people did learn from history, history would be very different.


Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon!

Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. 

Read all about it here!

 

 

AddToAny

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



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.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive