Anyone who keeps abreast of the growing academic field of Mizrahi/Sephardic studies (Mizrahi: oriental, from the Middle East; Sephardic: originating in pre-Inquisition Spain) cannot help noticing that the vast majority of papers focus on the purported “discrimination” or “racism” of the Ashkenazi establishment.
Typical is this paper by one Sarah Louden, “Israeli Nationalism: the Constructs of Zionism and its Effect on Inter-Jewish Racism, Politics, and Radical Discourse.” It has 455 views, more than any other paper in its genre. It pulls no punches in attacking the “racism” of Zionism. Its sources are almost entirely Mizrahi anti-Zionists like Ella Shohat.
Shohat, a professor at New York University, made her name by applying Edward Said’s theory of “Orientalism” to Israel, claiming that both Mizrahi Jews and the Arabs are victims of the West (Ashkenazim).
Mizrahi Jews and Arabs are assumed to have more in common with each other that Jews from the East have with Jews from the West. The former, Shohat and her ilk contend, were “torn away” from their comfortable “Arab” environment by Zionism and colonialism and turned into involuntary enemies.
These academics widely assume that Mizrahi Jews in Israel support the Likud and right-wing parties to “get their own back” against the Labour-dominated Ashkenazi establishment.
But Louden and those like her hardly ever mention the elephant in the room: The subliminal memory of Arab and Muslim persecution suffered by parents and grandparents driven from the Arab world.
Is is not plausible that Mizrahi Jews view the rocket attacks and bombings afflicting Israel as just the latest chapter in a long history of Arab and Muslim anti-Semitism? That they vote Likud because they believe that only the right can deliver the necessary tough response?
The Palestinian Authority in the past two years has lodged dozens of complaints with the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague over the Jewish state’s behavior, most recently calling the court’s attention to the approval of 650 new housing units for a village north of Jerusalem. In these instances, Israel has responded with what it terms “informal cooperation,” in which its lawyers meet with court officials to try to convince them that the charges are bogus. Avi Bell argues that this is the wrong approach, and that Jerusalem should instead imitate the U.S., which has successfully stymied equally bogus attempts to prosecute it:
The American strategy [involves] a complete refusal to cooperate with the ICC, anchored in U.S. legislation; a campaign to delegitimize the ICC . . . as an undemocratic, unaccountable, illegitimate institution that endangers the sovereignty of the United States and the constitutional rights of its citizens; and concrete threats against the ICC, beginning with diplomatic and economic sanctions . . . and ending in a threat to liberate Americans with force should they be arrested at the request of the ICC.
The ICC prosecutor, [meanwhile], who has already surrendered to Palestinian demands and opened a preliminary investigation against Israeli “criminals,” can be expected to request permission from the ICC judges to open a full investigation. . . . Israeli lawyers tasked by the government with dealing with the ICC challenge are convinced that legal responses that failed everywhere else in the world will suddenly come to their country’s aid.
Iraq has submitted a list of voluntary pledges in its bid for re-election to a seat on the UN Human Rights Council for 2020-2022. Following are five of Iraq’s most absurd claims, contrasted with the reality.
Iraq’s UN Pledge #1: “Iraq strives to ensure harmony among cultures, religions and civilizations through respect, tolerance and solidarity to eliminate hate speech and disrespect to any kind of cultural differences.”
Reality: When Miss Iraq Sarah Idan took the floor at the UN Human Rights Council to support peace with Israel, the Iraqi Parliament’s Security and Defense Committee reportedly called for her Iraqi citizenship to be revoked, labeling her advocacy a “crime.”
Iraq’s UN Pledge #2: “Iraq emphasizes the role of Civil Society Organizations and other stakeholders as main partners towards developing the work of the Human Rights Council and permit those partners to address the Council on human rights issues.”
Reality: According to a December 2018 report by Minority Rights Group International and the Ceasefire Centre for Civilian Rights, “the outbreak of large-scale popular protests in Basra and other Iraqi cities has led to a wave of violent repression of civilian activists.”
Iraq’s UN Pledge #3: “Iraq reiterates its belief in the universality of Human Rights and the unwavering commitment to its principles, in terms of upholding the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights, in accordance with the mandate of the Human Rights Council.”
Reality: According to Freedom House‘s 2019 listing of Freedom in the World, Iraq is ranked as “Not Free”, with a score of 32/100.
A guest post by Victor Muslin. This is part 2 - EoZ
It is common wisdom that approximately 10% of students on a typical campus are committed supporters of Israel and 20% of students are committed anti-Zionists whose minds cannot be changed by facts or arguments. Therefore, pro-Israel students have been advised to concentrate on winning over the remaining 70% of the undecided. The problem with this strategy is that it assumes that the "undecided" are unbiased and would be potentially interested in joining either side if it were not for their ignorance. However, there are other, more significant reasons why these students have not taken sides. Many are apathetic and not interested in Israeli-Palestinian issues; their minds cannot be changed by any tactic that requires an investment of effort to learn the truth. The rest feel that joining the pro-Israel side would be uncool and would damage their social standing. This is where the perverse notion of intersectionality—pervasive on campus but largely ignored by liberal professional advice-givers—plays a huge role. The threat of this pernicious ideology that aligns every group against Jews cannot be overstated. To be a part of social justice circles students must demonstrate that they are anti-Israel.
Intersectionality is a key reason why pro-Israel Jews have lost ground on campus and in society at large. By using intersectionality, Islamists have hijacked the good intentions of otherwise decent people and have made antisemitism palatable. By linking together unrelated—often contradictory—grievances, Islamists have weaponized intersectionality and have infiltrated every social justice movement, assigning every possible nasty quality to Israel supporters—and Jews in general—in order to exclude them from participation in social justice causes. By positioning anti-Zionism as a purely political issue Islamists inoculated themselves against legitimate charges of antisemitism or racism.
By combining intersectionality with what they falsely claim to be a "political disagreement", Islamists defanged traditional tactics that relied on shaming and social pressure. Together with the identitarian progressives, Islamists undermined and inverted Western social norms that open liberal societies traditionally used to restrain the virus of hate. Thus, once the scarlet letter had been blotted out, it became impossible to generate bad publicity to inflict reputational damage on universities promoting or tolerating Zionophobia. As long as the universities could plausibly claim to be on the forefront of other social justice causes—such as diversity and inclusion—and as long as their faculty and students were careful to lambast "Zionists" rather than "Jews," they were insulated from ignominy and were free to spread the new antisemitism. The antisemitic absolution has been purchased with intersectional indulgence that allowed to slander, demonize, delegitimize, and apply a double standard to the only Jewish state in the world and the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. The problem with academia goes deeper than Zionophobia, but antipathy to Jews and Israel—"the Jew among nations"—is usually the first manifestation.
Despite a mountain of advice, Zionophobia on campuses has been getting worse and more virulent. One would think that this calls for some introspection and that the professional advice-givers would step back and evaluate why the trend continues in the wrong direction. Perhaps, instead of the same old "more education", "more engagement", "more listening", "more nuance", "more positivity", "more Israel-is-cool" advice, it would pay to first determine why the advice given so far has not produced the expected results? Sadly, this is either not happening or, if it is, no new strategies based on data-driven assessments and results-oriented success metrics have been implemented.
Bizarrely, some professional advice-givers disregard overwhelming evidence and believe that the situation on campus has actually improved. A year ago another member of Columbia University's chapter of Alums for Campus Fairness (ACF) and I met with the National Campus Outreach Director of a major Jewish organization to discuss potential synergies. During the unproductive and frustrating conversation, we were repeatedly advised to let the "professionals" handle the situation on our campus because, having attended numerous conferences, they were better equipped for it. We were told that the role of alumni should be limited to supporting functions, specifically, to exhibiting their materials and promoting this particular organization on Columbia's prestigious campus. After an hour of getting nowhere, we asked in exasperation whether the National Campus Outreach Director thought that the situation on campus improved over the last one, three, or five years due to the strategies she was advocating. To our amazement the Director indeed believed that the situation on campus had improved because she and her colleagues had done an effective job. At this point we politely said "thank you" and walked out. This is what is called "drinking too much of one's own Kool-Aid."
Pro-Israel students are constantly bombarded by negative messages
about Israel. Here are the posters from the Israeli Apartheid Week at Columbia
University (for more information on these items click here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9).
Besides a delusional lack of self-assessment, pro-Israel advocacy on campus suffers from stale, ineffective strategies and defensive, measured tactics that make the pro-Israel advocates—both students and adults—appear tentative. These approaches are no match for the brazen commitment of the obnoxious anti-Israel brigade.
In part 3 we will give some different advice that does actually work. For more information about Zionophobia in academia and specifically at Columbia University and Barnard College, please visit https://www.cu-monitor.com/
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.
Could an Old Israeli Plan for Peace be America’s New One. Is America about to adopt the Israeli prime minister’s 20-year-old plan for a durable settlement between Israel and the Palestinians?
Of late, a new “villain” was introduced into political discussions about the future of the Middle East. There are those who said that the responsibility for a thousand years of Middle Eastern obstinacy, radicalism, and fundamentalism has now been compressed into one person—namely, me. My critics contended that if only I had been less “obstructionist” in my policies, the convoluted and tortured conflicts of the Middle East would immediately and permanently have settled themselves.
While it is flattering for any person to be told that he wields so much power and influence, I am afraid that I must forgo the compliment. This is not false modesty. The problem of achieving a durable peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors is complicated enough. Yet it pales in comparison with the problem of achieving an overall peace in the region. Even after the attainment of peace treaties between Israel and its neighbors, any broader peace in the region will remain threatened by the destabilizing effects of Islamic fundamentalism and Iran and Iraq’s fervent ambition to arm themselves with ballistic missiles and atomic weapons. Let me first say categorically: It is possible for Israel to achieve peace with its Arab neighbors. But if this peace is to endure, it must be built on foundations of security, justice, and above all, truth. Truth has been the first casualty of the Arab campaign against Israel, and a peace built upon half-truths and distortions is one that will eventually be eroded and whittled away by the harsh political winds that blow in the Middle East. A real peace must take into account the true nature of this region, with its endemic antipathies, and offer realistic remedies to the fundamental problem between the Arab world and the Jewish state.
Fundamentally, the problem is not a matter of shifting this or that border by so many kilometers, but reaffirming the fact and right of Israel’s existence. The territorial issue is the linchpin of the negotiations that Israel must conduct with the Palestinian Authority, Syria, and Lebanon. Yet a territorial peace is hampered by the continuing concern that once territories are handed over to the Arab side, they will be used for future assaults to destroy the Jewish state. Many in the Arab world have still not had an irreversible change of heart when it comes to Israel’s existence, and if Israel becomes sufficiently weak the conditioned reflex of seeking our destruction would resurface. Ironically, the ceding of strategic territory to the Arabs might trigger this destructive process by convincing the Arab world that Israel has become vulnerable enough to attack.
That Israel’s existence was a bigger issue than the location of its borders was brought home to me in the first peace negotiations that I attended as a delegate to the Madrid Peace Conference in October 1991. In Madrid, the head of the Palestinian delegation delivered a flowery speech calling for the cession of major Israeli population centers to a new Palestinian state and the swamping of the rest of Israel with Arab refugees, while the Syrian foreign minister questioned whether the Jews, not being a nation, had a right to a state of their own in the first place. (And this at a peace conference!) Grievances over disputed lands and disputed waters, on which the conference sponsors hoped the participants would eventually focus their attention, receded into insignificance in the face of such a primal hostility toward Israel’s existence. This part of the conference served to underscore the words of Syria’s defense minister, Mustafa Tlas, who with customary bluntness had summed up the issue one year earlier: “The conflict between the Arab nation and Zionism is over existence, not borders.”
Israelis value security above all else, located as they are in a region filled with people, organizations, and governments that at best do not want them there and in many cases are actively trying to kill them.
In the quarter-century since the Oslo Accords, Israelis and Palestinians have failed to make peace. The responsibility for that failure belongs to the Palestinians.
The Palestinian entity in control of Gaza, the Islamic fundamentalist Hamas, says explicitly that it will never accept Jewish sovereignty and devotes its resources to terrorism against Israel.
Its putatively moderate counterpart in the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority headed by Mahmoud Abbas, has refused all offers to settle the conflict, which have included substantial territorial concessions.
The PA has never put forward a counteroffer of its own. It has done nothing to build the institutions of statehood other than deploying multiple police forces that repress political opposition. It has generated vile anti-Jewish propaganda that harks back to Europe in the 1930s and has sponsored the murder of Jews by publicly praising and paying the murderers. The Palestinians have thus clearly demonstrated that they are not "a partner for peace."
Assuring the Palestinians that they will pay no price - indeed that they will continue to receive generous Western political and financial support - for their unyielding and indeed violent refusal to accept the legitimacy and permanence of a Jewish state in the Middle East has helped to perpetuate the conflict.
Israel has given to the US much to offset the foreign aid that has allowed Israel to maintain its security edge. And, of course, we appreciate that help and assistance. But, what about the future? I think over the next few years Israel will do its best not to be put in the situation that it was in during the last war in Gaza. Where a president Obama could hold Israel hostage by not allowing them to resupply smart weapons from storage facilities right here in Israel.
The agreement was that in payment for the US storing the tools of war in Israel, Israel would be able to re-arm without asking permission. Going back on that agreement was a surprise for Israel, and taught us a lesson. The lesson is, don't put your best pardner into the position where he can deny you the weapons you need to survive. Recently I read that in preparations for the next war Israel has been manufacturing, and storing bombs, missiles, ammunition, and more so that we don't put ourselves at risk. It is reported that we have 10 times the stored weapons that we had during the 2006 war in Lebanon. In the future, Israel will be less and less dependent upon the largess of the US and foreign aid. I think that we will, however, go into joint venture deals where weapons systems will be developed jointly. The US may supply the bulk of the financing, while Israel supplies the brain power, and real time testing under combat situations.
All of the above says loudly that Israel will be more like a co-equal with the US rather than a small nation dependent on the largess of a larger big brother. Never again will we be put in the position where a mission to destroy a target has to be canceled because we felt compelled to tell the US our plans. And, the US called the target to warn him. This was done by Obama, the leader of our so called greatest allie. We know that Obama isn't unique, there will be another one sometime in the future. For that reason we are more self-reliant than ever and will continue to be so.
The weekend that could have turned out differently if it hadn’t been for one bold move: pic.twitter.com/iYrgwjuv6V
It all started with this comment by Jake Tapper, making a comparison between the rhetoric that led to the El Paso massacre and Palestinian incitement to terrorism.
"You hear conservatives all the time — rightly so, in my opinion — talk about the tone set by people in the Arab world. Palestinian leaders talking about, and the way they talk about Israelis, justifying, in the same way you're doing, no direct link necessarily between what the leader says and the violence against some poor Israeli girl in a pizzeria — but the idea that you’re validating this hatred. You can’t compare the ideology of Hamas with anything else but at the same time, either tone matters or it doesn’t."
People seemed surprised by Tapper's comparison.
On the one hand, how often do you see the media actually call out Palestinian incitement of hatred against Israelis? Not only that, but Tapper also mentioned in passing the Sbarro Massacre, in which 15 civilians were murdered including 7 children and a pregnant woman, and 130 were wounded on August 9, 2001. The mastermind behind the attack, Ahlam Tamimi, is still given refuge by the Jordanian government, despite US demands that she be turned over to the US per the extradition treaty between the 2 countries.
On the other hand, there were those who are unused to seeing such a blunt reference to Palestinian terrorism, and were maybe more accustomed to newspaper headlines that tended to blame Palestinian attacks on the weapons used rather than on the people who wielded them.
Along came Tapper and violated the narrative.
Rashida Tlaib went after Tapper, claiming that Tapper was “comparing Palestinian human rights activists to terrorist white nationalists.”
We’re teaming up with Jewish Voice For Peace to let CNN President Jeff Zucker know that this kind of casual anti-Arab and Islamophobic bigotry—particularly in the aftermath of an explicitly anti-immigrant mass shooting—is unconscionable.
By inserting Palestinians and Arabs in a conversation about white supremacist violence, Tapper pushed the Islamophobic “terrorist” narrative about Muslims and Arabs that’s been mainstreamed over the past few decades.
Tapper is Islamophobic for criticizing Palestinian terrorists?
It is not appropriate to label all, or even the majority of those, who question Islam and Muslims as Islamophobes. Equally, it is not Islamophobic to denounce crimes committed by individual Muslims or those claiming Islam as a motivation for their actions.
"A critical study of Islam or Muslims is not Islamophobic," former CAIR Research Director Mohamed Nimer wrote in 2007. "Likewise, a disapproving analysis of American history and government is not anti-American... One can disagree with Islam or with what some Muslims do without having to be hateful." [emphasis added]
Even if Tlaib and Sarsour do consider the arbitrary killing of unarmed Israeli men, women and children to be in defense of Palestinian human rights, those who disagree with that stand can point to CAIR in support of their right to disagree.
True, CAIR itself refuses to come out and clearly condemn Hamas terrorism, but that is a point for another time.
There is a second issue here -- one of a double standard.
We have seen people claim that Jews deflect criticism of Israel by saying that such criticism is in fact antisemitism. For some reason, those claiming Jews do this tend to forget to give actual examples. But let's assume for the sake of argument that they are right, that sometimes defenders of Israel label criticism of Israel as antisemitic purely in order to rebuff the argument and avoid having to address it.
Isn't this what we see happening when critics of actions by Muslims or Muslim countries are accused of being Islamophobic?
Take Jake Tapper as an example.
He is a journalist discussing current events with his guests and addressing the power of inciteful rhetoric. In particular, he compares the way Arab leaders "talk about Israelis" with the kind of heated rhetoric found among White Supremacists.
Does he have to do a comparison of the cartoons of both sides on his show to prove his point?
Are Tlaib and Sarsour so heavily invested in their defense of Palestinian Arabs that they cannot come out and condemn the Palestinian Authority and Hamas the same way Israelis condemn hateful statements and actions by their fellow Israelis?
Instead, Tlaib and Sarsour are upset that Palestinian terrorists get called out and their reaction is to claim "Islamophobia" -- and call for Tapper being fired.
Anything to avoid addressing the issue of how Palestinian leaders incite hatred of Israel, and the consequences.
Tapper's reference to the death of Malki Roth in the terrorist attack on the Sbarro pizzeria also points up an aspect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that Sarsour once highlighted -- but now ignores.
Closer to home, Sarsour has worked with an interfaith group called The Dialogue Project, through which she has come to understand those who have suffered on the other side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"Her name was Robin, and her son died in one of the suicide bombings in a café,” says Sarsour. “And I never got to meet a person like that, and obviously I'm a mother so just hearing and seeing the emotions of someone who lost their child, obviously I wouldn't want that to happen to anyone, so it made me go home and kind of more look at this not from a political place, but look at — there's human beings being affected by this, too, and I never had that opportunity to really look at that."
These days, Sarsour is all about that political place.
These days, Linda Sarsour could easily show the kind of compassion that she briefly demonstrated back in 2011. She has made a conscious decision not to. Apparently, that does not fit the persona Sarsour feels the need to project.
So be it.
That may have something to do with a grudge Sarsour holds against Israel. From that same 2011 article:
She's been plagued by a 2004 article that's been circulating around the internet, an article Sarsour says is untrue.
It claims that at the time, she had family members in Israeli jails with ties to Hamas.
"I can't deny that people related to me have been in Israeli prison,” says Sarsour. “Does that mean that any of them were charged with crimes or they are terrorists or potential suicide bombers? Absolutely not. This is just the reality of Palestinians living under military occupation."
Sarsour is not the first to want you to believe that Israel puts Arabs in prison for no reason. And it does suggest an additional motivation to her animus to Israel.
Jake Tapper's comment provided the opportunity to speak out honestly about Palestinian terrorism and where it is taking Palestinian Arabs.
Tlaib and Sarsour rushed to make sure that such honesty and introspection was nipped in the bud.
A week after Tapper's comment, the Palestinian Authority was called upon to account for hate speech and antisemitism in its official statements and in its textbooks during their very first review by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in Geneva on Tuesday.
Could this be the first hints of Palestinian accountability?
Faster, please.
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.
Israel is again being vilified, this time for revealing last week that it has been working to find ways for Gazans to voluntarily move to Europe.
Israel is actively promoting the emigration of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip, and is working to find other countries who may be willing to absorb them, a senior Israeli official said Monday.
Israel is ready to carry the costs of helping Gazans emigrate, and would even be willing to consider allowing them to use an Israeli air field close to Gaza to allow them to leave for their new host countries, the official said, apparently referring to air force bases deep inside Israel.
The senior official, in Ukraine as part of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s delegation to Kiev, spoke on condition of anonymity.
It was not very wise to publicize this plan, given that Israel found no country in Europe willing to take Gazans voluntarily.
People like Haaretz' Amira Hass are clucking about how terrible Israel is for considering such a thing.
While no one doubts it is in Israel's interest to encourage Palestinian migration, these critics who claim to care so much about Palestinians are ignoring the fact that many Palestinians desperately want to leave Gaza and the West Bank - and some are willing to risk their lives to do so.
A month ago, two boats capsized off of Libya's coast, filled with 300 would-be refugees to Europe - including many Palestinians.
Nearly 1400 Palestinians managed to reach Greece in ramshackle boats so far this year alone.
If the "pro-Palestinian" side actually cared about Palestinians, wouldn't they want a safe means that Palestinians could leave if they choose?
"Voluntary transfer" is phrased as if it is a means of ethnic cleansing, but it is voluntary. No one is forced to leave. Going through Israel, subsidized, to go to Europe - even though the plan has not worked out - is far more humane than forcing thousands of Palestinians to resort to going on rickety and dangerous boats. Even if Israel has ulterior motives, the plan is still more humane than any alternative.
For members of the supposedly progressive crowd, Israel's support for a plan that can save Palestinian lives is enough reason to oppose it. Think about that.
These critics don't actually care about Palestinians but only want more excuses to use them to attack Israel.
We have lots of ideas, but we need more resources to be even more effective. Please donate today to help get the message out and to help defend Israel.
For the first time in history - the International Astronomical Union will allow Palestine to name a planet and a star outside the solar system!
We announce the launch of the Palestinian National Campaign to name a planet and a star outside the solar system for the first time in history, after the agreement of the International Astronomical Union to allow Palestine to name the planet and the star. All Palestinians can participate in this national campaign to choose the name for the star and the planet to represent our civilization, culture, history, hope and love for our homeland Palestine high in the sky.
They set up a site where Palestinians can nominate names. Here are the rules:
1. There must be a link between the names proposed for the planet and the star (for example the names of characters from the same story) 2. Not offensive, and not very similar to an existing name of an astronomical object 3. In addition, it is not permissible to suggest: - Names of a commercial nature - Names of individuals or places known primarily for political, military or religious activities - Names of living individuals - Names of individuals who died less than 100 years ago The process must respect intellectual property: it should be possible to prove that existing names, when submitted, are free for public use (for example, are not subject to copyright as with names that have been created in fiction such as books, games and movies, etc.
The rules that the planet and star cannot be named after anyone who died less than 100 years ago and that they cannot be religious or political figures reduces the number of possibilities of non-fictional characters to very nearly zero.
The only exception I can find of a prominent person before the 20th century who supposedly self-identified as Palestinian is the 10th century geographer Al-Maqdisi or Muqaddasi (named after Jerusalem in Arabic which was in turn named after the Jewish Temple.) His father was a prominent architect so that is the only pair in human history I can think of that might qualify. There were a number of academics from Gaza and Ashkelon in the fifth century but I do not believe they identified as "Palestinian."
Even this initiative has a political component, of course. The Palestinian Astronomical Society's spokesperson Daoud al-Tarwa couldn't resist mentioning that the planet and star will be seen "in the sky high away from the barriers of the occupation," showing that in reality Palestinian self-identification today is virtually impossible without mentioning Israel.
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.
Like the boy in the tale of the emperor’s new clothes, President Trump has once again spoken a taboo truth: Some American Jews seem to be more loyal to an increasingly anti-Jewish and far-left Democratic Party than they are to the Jewish people. That’s not necessarily an immoral position for most American Jews to take: As individuals, they have no concrete duty of loyalty to the Jewish people, and it is their absolute right to seek stronger allegiances through political, rather than through religious or ethnic affinity. But American Jewish leaders, picked and paid as such by the Jewish community, are in a different position. Those Jewish leaders whose fiduciary duty of loyalty is to the Jewish missions of their organizations, but whose primary loyalty is to the Tlaibanized progressive movement and the party that champions it, are betraying that duty in some truly indecent ways.
Consider Reconstructionist Rabbi Toba Spitzer. As president of the Massachusetts Board of Rabbis (MBR), and as the long-time rabbi of the cultish Congregation Dorshei Tzedek, Spitzer has aggressively promoted extreme left-wing causes. Many are direct threats to the Jewish community: embracing anti-Semitic Islamist extremists like Linda Sarsour, hostility toward the U.S. government, hostility toward the Israeli government, support for the anti-Semitic Occupy Wall Street movement, support for the anti-Semitic Black Lives Matter movement, and open border refugee policies are some examples. Yet Rabbi Spitzer and the MBR insist that these causes are Jewish religious imperatives, even as they proclaim Jew-haters like the Hamas front group, CAIR, and the terror-affiliated Islamic Society of Boston to be their friends and allies. At the same time, Spitzer and the MBR demonize in vicious terms those fellow Jews who don’t agree with their political viewpoints.
Last year, Spitzer wrote that, when it comes to Israel, American Jews should ask themselves: “Do we believe that the physical continuity of the Jewish people supersedes other Jewish values?” In other words: Should the Israelis choose to die en masse instead of committing what Rabbi Spitzer feels is the unforgivable sin of perpetuating the fight with the Palestinians? Implicitly answering in the affirmative, Spitzer challenged the “existential narrative” of Israel, arguing that Jewish sovereignty -- and the Jewish lives protected by its existence -- should not supersede the Jewish values of “lovingkindness” (chesed) and “mercy” (rachamim) toward “supporters of Hamas” -- her words, not mine.
Rabbi Spitzer’s question, and the argument implicit in it, comes from ignorance. According to the Jewish canon, which deals with the laws of armed conflict at length, war against the likes of Hamas is literally a mitzvah. Beyond Judaism, the principle of individual and collective self-defense of life and property is a universal human value enshrined in the law of nations and in free sovereign legal systems like those of the United States. It is an inhuman demand, most often made by totalitarians, that a class of people die or submit to being robbed without putting up a fight -- for the good of another class or people. (h/t MtTB)
We American Jews are not disloyal when we turn our backs on Israel and insult its friends and treat them as though they are enemies–and when we treat its enemies as though they are our friends, Peter Beinart.
At best, we are blind fools who do not see how a mere twist of fate has kept us from speaking Hebrew as a first language as we ride on a bus headed toward Mount Scopus that will be blown up or ensanguined by a knife-bearing terrorist.
At worst, we are far lower than merely disloyal. We are acting as active collaborators with those who wish our destruction. Such people do not bother sorting out which Jew is full of deep feeling for Palestinian rights and which Jew is a settler seeking to annex the entire West Bank. What they see is a Jew, and the Jew should be dead, and that Jew could be you or your mother or your baby.
Clearly, Trump shouldn’t have wandered into this minefield. But spare me the outrage about Trump saying no Jew should vote Democrat. This isn’t about Jews. Trump thinks no person in America should vote Democrat. This is just part of his own evolution as a partisan since he was a Democrat until about five minutes ago. Now, he’s a Republican, so he thinks everybody else should be, too, especially because he’s sure he so wonderful. Why is this surprising? Every liberal thinks everybody should vote liberal. Every conservative thinks everybody should vote conservative. Every Jew thinks every other Jew should vote the way he does. You think you’re right and the other side is wrong. You can work to understand the opinions of others and respect them, but you still think they’re wrong. If you didn’t, you would vote the other way.
Donald Trump says things no president has ever said before, and many of his rhetorical innovations have not been good for our political life or our country. But in this respect, he’s just like everybody else these days. (h/t IsaacStorm)
Hosted by Abe Greenwald, Christine Rosen, John Podhoretz, Noah Rothman
What was Trump doing talking about Jews and loyalty? Why does everyone have a cow every five minutes about what Trump says when he’s been doing the same thing for four years now? Whom does this help? Whom does it hurt? The whole podcast gang is back to offer maybe a little insight.
Many Americans now know that Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar—two members of “the squad” of far-left congresswomen so much in the news—were recently barred from traveling to Israel to agitate for the anti-Israel boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement. Fewer know all four members of “the squad,” including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rep. Pramila Jayapal, have co-sponsored a bill that accuses the Jewish state of torturing children. Fewer still know the claims made in the bill originate mostly from a group that could be described as the propaganda arm of a terrorist organization.
The so-called “Promoting Human Rights for Palestinian Children Living Under Israeli Military Occupation Act“ was re-introduced in the House by Rep. Betty McCollum, whose congressional district neighbors Omar’s in Minnesota. Until recently, McCollum was considered a supporter of Israel, but a critic of its government.
In February, however, she condemned “[t]he right-wing, extremist government of Benjamin Netanyahu and its apartheid-like policies,” adding “there are now members of Congress who are not willing to ignore the Israeli government’s destructive actions because they are afraid of losing an election.”
McCollum’s invective prompted Mark Mellman of the Democratic Majority for Israel to respond that Netanyahu “came to office in a fair and democratic election in which every Arab citizen of Israel had the same right to vote as any Jewish citizen.” Mellman added that “by suggesting that Jews have disproportionate influence on U.S. elections, the Congresswoman exploits an anti-Semitic trope widely used by far right forces from Czarism to fascism.”
McCollum’s bill, while not directly exploiting the anti-Semitic trope of blood libel, trades on the accusation that Israel treats non-Jewish children cruelly and inhumanely. The bill claims Palestinian children detained by Israeli defense forces suffer torture and physical violence, are deprived of lawyers and parents, not informed of their legal rights, and so on. (h/t MtTB)
Something
both fascinating, enraging and terribly sad happened this past week.
Like
the honest storybook child who pointed out that the “Emperor has no clothes,”
President Trump said two words no one wanted to hear, pointing out a situation
many recognize but most are afraid to mention.
Disloyal
Jews.
With
a piercing, instinctive understanding, Trump put a spotlight on an identity
crisis in the Jewish community.
“Who am I being disloyal to?!”
An
indignant American Jewish Democrat asked me, who he is being disloyal to. He
was angry and he really didn’t understand – and that is what makes this issue
so very sad…
Context
President
Trump’s quote about “disloyal Jews” was part of a statement regarding Israel
barring Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib from touring the country, due to their
active involvement in the BDS movement.
The
media coverage, whether through sloppy reporting or deliberate spin, sparked
rage and gave birth to numerous accusations against the President including:
·“He is invoking a classic
antisemitic trope about dual loyalty” – the idea that Jews can’t be
loyal to the land of their birth.
This idea is historically ridiculous considering that Jewish leadership always
instructed Jews to be loyal to the laws of the land and not stand out too much
because being too different from the neighbors put Jewish lives in danger.
·“This is just proof of how
hateful and divisive he is”
·“He told Netanyahu to bar
Congresswomen Tlaib and Omar from Israel to gain political points and Netanyahu
did his bidding” – a comment that completely disregards Israel as a
sovereign nation that makes its own decisions and actually has a law barring
BDS supporters from entering the country
·He hates Tlaib and Omar
because they are successful Muslim women
·“If he means we should be
loyal to him or to the Republican Party he’s just insane and should be
impeached”
“Ilhan
Omar said the United States should rethink its policy of aid towards Israel
after she and Congresswoman Tlaib were denied entry… Should there be any change
in US aid to Israel?”
His
answer was unequivocal.
“No.
And you should see the terrible things that Tlaib has said about Israel. And
AOC +3… Omar is a disaster for Jewish people. I can’t imagine, if she has any
Jewish people in her district that they could possibly vote for her.”
He
proceeded to call out Rashida Tlaib’s tearful anti-Israel press conference, recalling
her behavior at his campaign rallies before she became a Congresswoman:
“I
saw a woman who was violent and vicious and out of control and all of a sudden
I see this person who is crying because she can’t see her grandmother. She
could see her grandmother. They gave her permission to see her grandmother but
she grandstanded and she didn’t want to do it. That’s a decision of Israel…
They [Israel] could let them [Tlaib and Omar] in if they want but I don’t think
they want to. If you read the things they’ve said about Israel and if you look
at their itinerary before they found out [that they would not be allowed to
enter Israel], you take a look at their itinerary, it was all going to be a
propaganda tour against Israel. So I don’t blame Israel for doing what they
did. I had nothing to do with it but I don’t blame them for doing what they
did. I think it would have been very bad to let them in. Including the four.
I’m talking about all four but these two, Omar and Tlaib. I think it would be a
very bad thing for Israel but Israel has to do what they have to do but I would
not cut off aid to Israel. I can’t believe we are even having this
conversation. Five years ago, the concept of even talking about this — even
three years ago — of cutting off aid to Israel because of two people that hate
Israel and hate Jewish people — I can’t believe we’re even having this
conversation! Where has the Democratic Party gone? Where have they gone where
they’re defending these two people over the State of Israel? And I think any
Jewish people that vote for a Democrat — it shows either a total lack of
knowledge or great disloyalty.”
Antisemitic
trope and disingenuous rage
Anyone
who can understand English cannot possibly listen to what Trump said and
believe there is a modicum of Jew-hate behind his words. In fact, all the
accusations against him simply evaporate when you pay attention to what he
said:
·He was speaking about AOC
+3, not just Tlaib and Omar.
·He had nothing to do with
barring the Congresswomen from Israel but he does understand and support
Israel’s decision.
·Tlaib was given special humanitarian
permission to visit her grandmother – on the condition she didn’t turn her
visit into a BDS propaganda display. She refused, choosing hate over her
grandmother.
·Trump expressed deep
dismay at the change in the Democratic Party -
Israel was always a by-partisan consensus and now they choose to support haters
like Omar and Tlaib rather than doing what the Party always did – stand for
Israel. He wasn’t attacking the Democratic Party as a representative of the
Republicans. He was asking as an American, how the values of the Party became
so perverted.
And
antisemitism? I am old enough to remember Presidents Obama, Bush and Clinton.
None of them ever showed so much genuine concern for the well-being of the
Jewish People.
The
indignation and rage over Trump’s remarks are disingenuous and, well… enraging.
Identity politics
In
a world of identity politics and intersectionality it is a tragedy that there
are Jews who do not comprehend the basic truth behind what President Trump
said.
The
Jewish People are family. In a family, no matter how much you disagree, you are
supposed to protect your relatives from attack by outsiders. Just think of the
brother who bullies his sister but beats the snot out of anyone who treats her
poorly. That is what family is supposed to do.
Donald
Trump instinctively understands what so many American and even Israeli Jews
have forgotten about their own identity. Watching the way he lives his life and
who he trusts, it is obvious that Trump sees value and strength in blood ties
(wives can be replaced, children cannot). It is his children who he trusts and
counts on the most. That’s why it is easy for him to recognize that the Jewish
People are one family and no matter how much we love the lands we were born in
or have other issues of interest, family comes first – or at least it should.
One
doesn’t get to choose your relatives. We don’t always like our family members.
We Jews have family who bring us pride (like Gal Gadot) and we have the
problematic ones (like crazy Uncle Bernie). But it’s not supposed to matter -
no matter how far apart we live or how different our ideas are, when facing an
external threat, family is supposed to defend its members (we can go back to
fighting after the threat is dealt with).
That’s
what Trump was talking about.
Family
that doesn’t come to the defense of other family members, particularly when
their lives are threatened, are disloyal:
Jews
who heard Israel say the Iran deal puts our lives in danger and supported it
anyway.
Jews
who saw how Obama treated Israel and voted for him the second time too.
Jews
who choose socialism over Judaism. Who choose local politics over the politics
of survival of our people and the safety of our ancestral homeland.
Jews
who say that the hatred is directed at Israel, caused by Israel and not at
Jews.
Just
like German Jews said: “We’re not Jews, we are Germans of the Mosaic faith (the
faith of Moses).” Sadly it was their neighbors who taught them otherwise. Jews
are Jews first, no matter how they self-identify.
Jews
who blame terror attacks against Israelis on “the occupation” and Netanyahu
rather than the terrorists and the leaders that poisoned the minds of young
people, raising a generation to believe that murdering Jews is an honorable act
– those Jews aren’t just disloyal to family. They are disloyal to the Jewish
ideals of morality, justice and common human decency.
Donald
Trump was talking about Jews who rush to stand in solidarity with Ilhan Omar
and their “Muslim sisters” and don’t cry for Rina Shnerb.
Jews
who choose those who hate and wish to destroy their family because it is the
current fad in the Democratic Party. In my opinion that’s also disloyalty to
America because America was founded on morality and acceptance of all people.
Allowing a political party that represents half of the country to be led by
people who incite hate, lie and front for actual terrorists is a betrayal of
the entire American people, not just the Jews. Israel was always a bi-partisan
issue. The security of Israel is in the best interest of the United States. Undermining
this is bad for everyone.
THAT
is what Trump was talking about when he said: “I can’t believe we are
even having this conversation.”
Trump
was gracious enough to give those Jews an excuse – possibly they are terribly
ignorant about politics and don’t understand what is going on. That’s a much
nicer possibility than willfully endangering and consciously betraying your own
family.
I
am less gracious.
Israel
is wary of calling out disloyal Jews. Our numbers are so small, the idea that a
large fraction of our people might break away from us is frightening.
Considering the reality, I believe that it is worse to pretend the problem
doesn’t exist and let the damage continue to be done from within by Jews who
have turned against our family, who undermine our safety, delegitimize our
history and side with those attempting to eliminate our future.
This
isn’t a matter of the Republican Party vs the Democratic Party. This is a
matter of policies that have a direct and immediate effect on my family.
The
years of Clinton-Obama foreign policy caused so much damage to Israel and the
entire Middle East that it is mind-boggling. The amount of bloodshed that
occurred is so shocking that the world, particularly Americans seem to have
promptly forgotten all about it.
Endangering
the State of Israel, empowering Iran, denying our right to self-defense and
supporting the denial of our connection to our ancestral homeland and holy
places via the UN are just the beginning. The rest of the Middle East suffered
too, much more than Israel has. These are just a few examples:
·In Egypt - ousting Mubarak,
supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, looking the other way when Christians were
slaughtered and delegitimizing Sisi
·In Iran – Remaining silent
when the government shot young people in the streets during the Green
Revolution, the Iran deal, enabling arms acquisition amnd shipment to
Hezbollah, threatening Israel’s borders.
·In Iraq – leaving a vacuum
which enabled the rise of ISIS and subsequent slaughter of thousands, genocide
of Yazidis, sex slavery, torture organ theft and more
·The war in Yemen
·Destabilizing Libya,
Benghazi… does anyone remember Benghazi and the time American soldiers were
given the order to stand down when Americans were under attack?!
Anyone
who wonders why most Israelis hated Obama and love Trump should reread the list
above. Israelis are not crazy or stupid, we are judging by results.
I
didn’t expect Trump to be a good President. He has surprised me beyond my
wildest dreams. His actions have undone a lot of the damage done by the
previous administration. He has fulfilled the broken promises of multiple
American administrations. Over and over he has spoken out against Jew hate – in
America and abroad.
To
him I say, thank you Mr. President.
To
everyone else I say, if you support a policy or a politician that puts my life
and that of my family in danger, I have a problem with you. If you are Jewish
and you do that, you deserve the title of “disloyal Jew.”
You
are being disloyal to ME. My family. My friends. My neighbors.
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.
In any type of conflict, an ideal strategy is one that
places your opponent in a lose-lose situation.
In military combat, this might involve trapping your enemy
so that his army has only two choices: advance and be decimated, or retreat and
get cut down while racing away in disordered flight. In the first Gulf War, General Norman
Schwarzkopf successfully shattered the Iraqi army not just through superior
firepower, but through maneuvers that left his opponent no choice that did not
involve annihilation.
Tactics that place your foe in a lose-lose situation are
also common in other sorts of combat, such as the propaganda warfare carried
out daily against Israel. For example, a
rhetorical maneuver proponents of BDS like to use is the claim that the fight
against them demonstrate their own success, leading to questions like “Why
would Israel’s supporters put so much effort into fighting BDS is it wasn’t
effective?”
The brilliance of this maneuver is that it places Israel’s
friends in a lose-lose situation: either fight against BDS and be used as
evidence of enemy strength, or ignore it – which effectively hands the field
over to that enemy to do as they like.
The recent flare-up over two BDS-supporting Congresswomen
visiting Israel put the Jewish state into a similar lose-lose situation: either
bar the pair and have condemnations rain down or say “Yes” to the visit and
allow your foes to travel the region ginning up hatred. While many pro-Israel activists helped blunt
the effectiveness of this propaganda attack (by, for example, exposing the
anti-Semitic nature of the organization that was sponsoring their Israel trip),
that represented after-the-fact repair work in a situation where the enemy had
already set the terms of engagement.
Unfortunately, I can’t think of many situations when Israel
and her friends were able to perform this same trick. Perhaps this is because our opponents can
count on a pliant media to parrot their messages while treating anything our
side says with skepticism. Or maybe we lack
the cynicism reflected in the other side’s willingness to use the suffering of
others (including one Congresswoman’s own grandmother) to further their
cause.
Israel’s limited options also reflects the power dynamic of
the war against the Jews. While huge
investment has been made in portraying Israel as powerful (and privileged), that
has been done to mask the fact that the world’s sole Jewish state has had to do
battle with 20+ Arab states allied with several dozen more Muslim ones who
control not just half the world’s oil reserves, but also major international
organizations like the UN. Given this, the majority of Israel’s energies must
be invested in manning the siege walls, a
defensive strategy that limits offensive choices that could pin down our foes
in a lose-lose situation.
And then there is the reality that while Israel’s enemies
are at war with the Jewish state, the reverse is not true. As mentioned previously,
the dream come true for nearly every Israeli (and every Israeli supporter) is
to see the nation living at peace with her neighbors. This is a worthy goal, but does not lend
itself to the sorts of propaganda tactics used by enemies who want to see
Israel become an object of hatred and ultimately destroyed.
That said, it is possible to isolate and brand an enemy
(such as the BDS “movement”) that doesn’t necessarily require us to ferment
hatred against those we ultimately want to live in peace with. The fact that most people on our side refer
to BDS as anti-Semitic has already gone a long way to freeze that project and
define it in our own terms. We might
also be able to do a little Jiu jitsu at their expense, insisting that the very
existence of their program demonstrates that Israel must be fabulously
successful and beloved (otherwise, why run boycotts and divestment campaigns against
it?).
The only trick with any techniques to place our opponents in
a lose-lose situation in a propaganda war of their own making is to repeat our
talking points incessantly, never replying to the other side’s charges and
ignoring anything the other side tries to say in their own defense. This is
obviously not the stuff of dialog, but dialog only takes place between people
playing the same game and if the BDSers want to continue their propaganda
warfare incessantly, our response should be an even more incessant
counterattack.
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.
This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For over 19 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 ethnic cleansing no-one tells you about
-
More young Jews seem to be challenging the false narrative that Jews are
white colonial settlers from Europe. This video not only makes the point
that most...
The Jewish Cordoba
-
I have blogged multiple times here on what I see as a parallel between the
conflict between Catholics and Moslems over the Cordoba Cathedral and that
of ...
Hamas in America
-
[image: Dry Bones cartoon, Biden, Pro-Palestinian demonstrations, Hamas,
Bibi, Jewish, Israel, Oct 7, Jews, Israel, Rafah, Gaza,]
We should have seen it c...
Jonathan Sacks – Faith After the Holocaust
-
Jonathan Sacks – Faith After the Holocaust IsraelSeen.com
Jonathan Sacks – Faith After the Holocaust Faith After the Holocaust Rabbi
Sacks responds to the ...
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...
The Palestinian “Two-State” Plan: Duping the West
-
One of the great unsolved mysteries of the 21st century is why, given what
a catastrophe it proved to be, anyone, much less a whole phalanx of
politicians,...
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...
Tuesday, August 27, 2019
