Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Wednesday, August 04, 2021

How the West was Lost (Vic Rosenthal)

(Judean Rose is taking off for several weeks.)

Weekly column by Vic Rosenthal

Today the world we live in is dominated by a Western alliance that includes the US and much of Europe, along with some smaller players. This alliance is threatened by two major forces: radical Islam, whose most dangerous expression is the revolutionary Iranian regime; and the People’s Republic of China (PRC), still smarting from its oppression by the West prior to its emergence as a great power. I’ll discuss Iran first.

Last week, Iranian drones attacked a ship near the coast of Oman, killing the captain and a crew member. Apparently the motivation was a tenuous Israeli connection. More recently, a ship in the same region was hijacked, and several others were disabled, apparently by a cyberattack. Although Iran denies being connected with any of these incidents, most observers believe that the Iranian regime was responsible for them.

The Iranian regime finances and arms terrorist groups throughout the region, including in Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. Lebanon, which survived a brutal civil war, an attempt by the PLO to set up a “Palestinian state” within her borders, an Israeli intervention to throw out the PLO, and the systematic murders of members of its government by Syrian agents, has finally been brought to her knees by her exploitation by the Iranian-controlled Hezbollah. The Covid epidemic, and a massive explosion of a cache of Hezbollah’s explosives at the port that leveled a third of her capital city didn’t help.

Israel, which fought a vicious little war with Hezbollah in 2006, now lives in the shadow of 130,000 rockets located in South Lebanon. These rockets, which include ones with precision guidance systems that can strike within a few meters of targets anywhere in Israel, are deeply embedded in the civilian population, including private homes. Israeli defense officials have said that if Hezbollah activates its rockets, the IDF will be forced to employ massive firepower that will essentially destroy the country. The possibility of war breaking out due to escalation between Hezbollah and Israel is a constant threat.

Westerners who visit relatives in Iran or go there for business, educational, or other reasons are often arrested on trumped-up charges and held hostage, either for ransom or political advantage. Sometimes they are tortured. Conditions in prisons for Iranian political dissidents are atrocious, with torture and rape common. Hundreds of Iranians are executed every year, some for serious crimes like murder or rape, but also for “being gay, committing adultery, sex outside marriage and drinking alcohol.” Political opponents of the regime are sometimes charged with spying and executed as well.

Iranian women protesting Islamic dress codes that are forced on them are beaten, arrested, jailed, and tortured. Masih Alinejad, an Iranian feminist now living in exile in the US, was the target of a plot to kidnap her and bring her back to Iran. The plan was foiled by the FBI. Kidnapping and murdering dissidents abroad has been standard procedure for the regime since it came to power in 1979.

The new Iranian president, Ebrahim Raisi, has been nicknamed “the butcher of Tehran,” because of his responsibility for the execution of thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of people during a reign of terror in 1988. Raisi is considered one of the top candidates to succeed Ali Khamenei as Supreme Leader.

Last, but not least, is the regime’s plan to develop nuclear weapons, which is advancing rapidly. Whether such weapons would be directly used – something which is difficult to judge, due to the religious aspects of Iranian ideology – or whether they would be employed as an “umbrella” to shield its more conventional military aggression, it’s likely that the imminent attainment of nuclear capability would greatly change the balance of power in our region, and make war likely. The regime has consistently and explicitly threatened to “wipe Israel off the map,” and Israel takes these threats seriously.

The Iranian regime, while it is economically and militarily weak, has developed means of leveraging asymmetric warfare, which along with its aggressive and even messianic ideology makes it a serious threat – not just to the region, but to the Western alliance and its leader, the US, which it calls “the great Satan.” The threat is immediate in the short term, due to its nuclear program. It is a highly repressive society, and although there is a strong domestic opposition, attempts to overthrow the regime will be (and have been) met with great brutality.

As an Israeli, naturally I am concerned about the local and immediate threat of Iran. But the PRC is a far greater threat to the Western alliance. China is already a nuclear power, and has recently been reported building up its stock of weapons. China’s military and economic power is thousands of times greater than that of Iran, and is every bit as brutal in its repression of internal dissent.

Although China does not publicly announce that the US is Satan, it is quietly moving its pieces – military and economic – on the world’s chessboard to increase its power and influence. It operates an unprecedented system of industrial espionage that has already neutralized the technological superiority of the US. It is building infrastructure throughout the world under its “Belt and Road Initiative” that will not only provide its industries access to markets, but the large debts incurred by the recipients will provide China political leverage over them.

Chinese technology that is used in the most critical communications infrastructure may contain “backdoors” that allow access to traffic on the networks. Everything from mobile phones to PCs to military communications systems have been suspected to be compromised.

The US and other developed countries are experiencing a long-term transition of their economies away from agriculture and manufacturing and toward service-based economies. Manufacturing has moved to China and to other countries, most of which are, or soon will be, in the Chinese sphere of influence. At the time of the outbreak of the Covid-19 epidemic, the US suffered a severe shortage of personal protective equipment and medical devices such as masks and so forth. It was simply not produced in the USA.

China does not (as far as I know) export violent terrorism as does Iran. But it has been engaging in territorial expansionism in all directions. Chinese pressure on Hong Kong and Taiwan make headlines, while China quietly “nibbles away” at Japanese islands, territories under Indian control, bits of Nepal and Bhutan, and so on. In the South China Sea, China has built artificial islands which have greatly extended its territorial waters and provided locations for military installations, including missile silos.

I have not discussed the possible exploitation of the Covid-19 epidemic. Certainly the misinformation and disinformation that was provided by China at the time of its outbreak exacerbated the harm to Western societies. There is even a credible argument that once the disease had become established in Wuhan, authorities there – under the direction of the national government – deliberately allowed the residents of the city to travel worldwide during the Chinese New Year period, knowing that this would spread the disease.

The Chinese strategy is safer and surer, if somewhat slower than the Iranian one. But the West has done little to protect itself, either against the immediate danger of nuclear weapons in the hands of a proven rogue aggressor state, or the long-term combined economic, military, and possibly biological domination of a rising totalitarian superstate. Western nations should be confiscating the Iranian regime’s nuclear toys, reestablishing self-sufficient economies, protecting their technological intellectual property, and strengthening their military forces. They are not doing any of these things.

Instead, the most advanced states of the West are self-destructing over issues of race and gender identity.

In 1921, prominent lawyer and former ambassador to the Ottoman Empire Henry Morgenthau Sr., wrote an article describing why Zionism is foolishness and a Jewish state is simply impossible.

Here are some excerpts, reported in the Bnai Brith Messenger, August 5, 1921.

Zionism is the most stupendous fallacy in Jewish history , writes Mr . Morgenthau . I assert that it is wrong In principle and impossible of realization ; that it Is unsound in its economics , fantastical in its politics , and sterile in its spiritual ideals . Where is it not pathetically visionary , it is a cruel playing with the hopes ol a people blindly seeking their way out of age-long miseries . These are bold and sweeping assertions , but I shall undertake to make them good . The very fervor of my feeling for the oppressed of every race and every land , especially for the Jews those of my own blood and faith , to whom I am bound by every tender tie , impels me to fight with all the greater force against this scheme , which my intelligence tells me can only lead them deeper into the mire ol the past , while it professes to be leading them to the heights .

...The notion that Great Britain would for one instant allow any form of government In Palestine , under any name whatever , that was not , in fact , an apparange of the British Crown , and subservient to the paramount interests of British world policy, is too fantastical for serious refutation .

... I speak as a Jew . I speak with fullest sympathy for the Jew everywhere . I have seen him in his poverty —despised , hated , spat upon , beaten and murdered . My blood boils with his at the thought of the indignities and outrages to which he is subjected . I , too , would find for him , for me , the way out of this morass of poverty , hatred , political inequality and social discrimination . But , is Zionism that way ? I assert emphatically that It is not . I deny it , not merely from an intellectual recoil from the fallacy of its reasoning , but from my very experience of life ; as a seeker after religious truth , as a practical businessman , as an active participant in politics , as one who has had experience in international affairs , and as a Jew who has at heart the best interests of his co-religionists .

The truth is that Palestine cannot support a large population in prosperity . It has a lean and niggardly soil. . It is a land of rocky hills , upon which for many centuries a hardy people have survived only with difficulty by cultivating a few patches of soil here and there with the olive , the fig , citrus fruits and the grape , or have barely sustained their flocks upon the sparse native vegetation . The streams are few and small , entirely insufficient for the great irrigation systems that would be necessary for the general cultivation of the land . The underground sources of water can only be developed at a prodigious capital expense . This is the condition of Palestine ; not only must agriculture be pursued under the greatest possible handicaps of soil and water , but it is subject to the direct competition of far more favored lands in the very agricultural products for which it is distinctive . A great industrial Palestine is equally unthinkable . It lacks the raw materials of coal and iron ; it lacks the skill in technical processes and the experience in the arts ; and , above all , it is not in the path of modern trade currents . What hope is there for Palestine , as an industrial nation , in competition with America , Great Britain and Germany , with their prodigious resources , their highly organized factories , their great mass production , and their superb means of transportation ? The notion is preposterous .

Is Zionism a political fantasy ? I assert most emphatically that it is . The present British mandate over Palestine is a recognition , by the great powers of the world , of the supreme political interest of Great Britain in that region .,,, British statesmen can hold but on opinion concerning either Egypt or Palestine , and this opinion is that no matter what else may befall , British influence must be omnipotent on both sides of the Suez Canal . Neither can the British Government afford to irritate India by placing the Mohammedan shrines in Palestine under the control of a Jewish State.

Remember that Palestine Is as much the Holy Land of the Mohammedans as it Is the Holy Land ot the Jew or the Holy Land of the Christian. His shrines cluster there as thickly . They are to him as sacredly endeared . In 1914 I visited the famous caves of Machpelah , twenty miles from Jerusalem , and I shall never forget the mutterings of discontent that murmured in my ears , nor the threatening looks that confronted my eyes , from the lips and faces of the devout Mohammedans whom I there encountered . For these authentic tombs of Abraham , Isaac and Jacob are as sacred to them , because they are saints of Islam , as they are to the most orthodox of my fellow-Jews , whose direct ancestors they are , not only In the spiritual , but in the actual physical sense . To these Mohammedans my presence at the tombs of my ancestors was as much a profanation of a Mohammedan holy place as If I had laid sacrilegious hands upon the sacred relics In the mosque at Mecca . To Imagine that the British Government will sanction a scheme for a political control of Palestine , which would place in the hands of the Jews the physical guardianship of these shrines of Islam , is to imagine something very foreign to the practical political sense of the most politically practical race on earth . They know too well how deeply they would offend their myriad Mohammedan subjects to the earth.

My answer to the spiritual pretensions of Zionism Is the positive answer that the solution has already been discovered—the way out has been found . The courageous Jew , the Intellectually honest Jew , the forward looking Jew , the Jew who has been willing to fight for his rights on the spot where they were infringed , has won his battle and has found all the glorious freedom which Zionism so unpractically describes .

It is interesting in retrospect that while Morgenthau spends a lot of further space describing how successful Jews have been in the West, he still has a diaspora mentality that indicates that Jews are only successful because the gentiles allow it. It certainly doesn't occur to him that Jews can fight for their rights in Palestine - because the Muslims will never allow it. To him, it is perfectly natural that Muslims should bar Jews from their holiest spots.He says (in a section I didn't excerpt) that Zionism would prompt antisemitism in the same Western nations that he claims Jews have achieved equal rights - but if Jews truly had equal rights, they wouldn't be worried about being attacked by the majority gentiles.

Morgenthau (and other anti-Zionist Jews of the era) were really concerned about the possibility that a Jewish state would threaten their own financial and political gains by turning Americans against Jews. But they created more seemingly scientific arguments to buttress their opinions, about how the land of Israel could not support more than a million people, how agriculture and industry is impossible.

When you read an expert opinion, it is very often as based on incorrect assumptions and wishful thinking as that of Henry Morgenthau.

Of course, this is also a reminder of Ben Gurion's quote: "In Israel, in order to be a realist you must believe in miracles."

08/04 Links Pt1: Poll: With only 40% support, Israelis still think 2 states best option; Saudi FM praises Abraham Accords, puts Palestinian statehood first; Resolving the Khan al-Ahmar Issue

From Ian:

With only 40% support, Israelis still think 2 states best option - poll

Only 40% of Israelis support a two-state resolution to the conflict with the Palestinians, even though it remains the most popular choice, according to a poll conducted by the Israel Democracy Institute.

Past IDI polls on this question have shown that Israeli support for two states has fluctuated widely over the past 28 years since the signing of the 1993 Oslo I Accord in Washington.

Past polls on this topic by IDI show that support for a two-state resolution peaked at 70% in 2007 during the Annapolis peace process brokered by former president George W. Bush between former prime minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

It was at its lowest point in 1995 with only 36.9% support, based on IDI data.

From July 27 to 29, the IDI polled 750 Israelis over the age of 18 by phone and over the Internet, including 151 Arabic-speakers. The margin of error is 3.59% for the poll on a wide array of topics, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Participants were asked if they would back a “two-state solution with the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.”

Israeli-Arabs were much more likely to support a two-state resolution than their Jewish peers.

Saudi FM praises Abraham Accords, puts Palestinian statehood first

The Abraham Accords have been good for the Middle East but its momentum should be used to help the Palestinians achieve statehood, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud said at a virtual conference of the Aspen Security Forum on Tuesday.

“We think, overall, the Abrahamic Accords have worked positively to spur engagement in the region, so in that sense, the decision by those countries can be viewed positively,” he said.

The Saudi Foreign Minister added that the best way to build on the normalizations between Israel and Arab states in the past year would be “to find a path to solving the issue of the Palestinians and finding a path to a Palestinian state because that will deliver complete normalization for Israel in the region.”

Peace, he said, “is a strategic choice of the Arabs” that must be used to reach a comprehensive solution for the Palestinians.

Asked if that’s a precondition for Saudi-Israel normalization, in light of the divisions among Palestinian factions making Israel-Palestinian peace unlikely in the short term, Prince Faisal did not address the first part of the question.

Rather, he said that the PLO and Palestinian Authority are the legal representatives of the Palestinians.

“That engagement is the key engagement in order to progress towards a peaceful solution,” he stated. “I think without solving the Palestinian-Israeli conflict in a sustainable, long-term way not, we’re not going to have real, sustainable security in the region. We need to try everything we can to make that happen.”

Prince Faisal pointed to the new government in Israel, saying “perhaps it can deliver some progress. Let’s wait and see.”

Saudi Arabia's foreign minister also said that he sees an emboldened Iran acting in a negative manner around the Middle East, endangering shipping, arming Yemen's Houthis and contributing to political deadlock in Lebanon.

Here's @PressSec on same topic: "Aside from putting forward a peace proposal that was dead on arrival, we don’t think [Trump admin] did anything constructive, really, to bring an end to the longstanding conflict in the Middle East."

But what would the Saudi FM know about that? https://t.co/intNP1c6xn
— Omri Ceren (@omriceren) August 3, 2021

The only Jewish village in Jordan

In the Israeli War of Independence in 1948, Jews were expelled from East Jerusalem and Gush Etzion in the West Bank. Not well known is that a few Jews were also expelled from the east bank of the Jordan. According to the Jewish Virtual Library, Tel Or was the only Jewish village, built to house the employees of a power station.

During the Israeli War of Independence in 1948, Tel Or was the only Jewish village in Transjordan at the time. Tel Or was designated for residence of the permanent employees of the power plant and their families, aiming to create an agricultural village at the Eastern border of the Land of Israel. Employees of the power station also farmed thousands of dunams of land and sold some of the produce at a company workers’ supermarket in Haifa. Due to its relative isolation and despite the limited number of resident families, the village included a clinic, a kindergarten and even a school, established by Yosef Hanani for the children of employees.

An Iraqi brigade invaded at Naharayim area on May 15, 1948, in an unsuccessful attempt to take the Gesher kibbutz and fort. The power plant was occupied and looted by the Iraqi forces. After the Tel Or village and the power plant were overran by the Arab forces they were destroyed. To prevent Iraqi tanks from attacking Jewish villages in the Jordan Valley, the sluice gates of the Degania dam were opened. The rush of water, which deepened the river at this spot, was instrumental in blocking the Iraqi-Jordanian incursion.

Today the power plant and the destroyed village of Tel Or are located on the Jordanian side of the Israel-Jordan border. The remains of the power station are part of the Jordan River Peace Park on the Island of Peace on the Israel-Jordan border.

After the expulsion of the residents of Tel Or, combined with the expulsion of the Jewish residents of the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem, an Arab commander remarked,
“For the first time in 1,000 years not a single Jew remains in the Jewish Quarter. Not a single building remains intact. This makes the Jews’ return here impossible.”

Lebanon has been failing as a state for years, and in the past year its severe problems have been on the world stage with the explosion at the Beirut port and the incompetent government response.

That has been only the most visible part of Lebanon's swift decline. A political deadlock has left Lebanon with a government has not been able to govern. Hezbollah has veto power over anything it doesn't want. Even so, the terror group had built its own independent army that is more powerful than the Lebanese army, with an arsenal of 200,000 rockets in civilian areas. Internal fighting still breaks out. Lebanon treats Palestinian refugees from Syria differently than other Syrian refugees. It's COVID response has been anemic. Its economy is in shambles as people cannot get basic goods.

This morning, rockets were fired from Lebanon into Israel. This has been the most serious such rocket fire, although it has not been the first one - there have been other rocket launches in recent months. Hezbollah is not behind them - Palestinian groups in Lebanon are.

A wide assumption is that Hezbollah is the beneficiary of Lebanese chaos. It has better organization than most Lebanese political parties - and it has an army. This is probably true.

But the further assumption Hezbollah, and therefore Iran, would take over Lebanon itself is far less likely.

Alma, an Israeli thinktank that specializes in threats from the North, gave its latest analysis in its weekly newsletter yesterday:

The statement that Hezbollah is taking over Lebanon is vague and needs more clarification. Hezbollah will not be a sovereign government serving on behalf of the Iranians after officially, legally, and completely replacing the Lebanese government.

Like Syria, Lebanon is made up of a variety of ethnic groups. There are areas in Lebanon like the Druze Chouf Mountains, the Sunni Tripoli in the north, or even Christian areas, that Hezbollah would not be able to enter easily. In any scenario in which "Hezbollah takes over Lebanon", with or without the defeat of the Lebanese army, there will be more chaos than order.

Like Syria, Lebanon is likely able to be divided into areas of influence and control of the various factions, local or foreign, while the central government becomes irrelevant. This is a reasonable scenario, in light of the images originating in Lebanon, that depict a shortage of food, fuel, and medicine. They depict an unending political crisis and a ruling elite that is in no hurry to solve the country's fundamental problems.

Lack of control and chaos also require a different approach on Israel’s part - when negotiating on the maritime border, Israel cannot assume that it is dealing with a normal sovereign state.

Israel has no influence over what is happening in Syria and Lebanon, and if it does have any influence, it is a very small amount and cannot prevent the collapse of these two countries. But the Israeli government has a greater responsibility than any other country in the world in anticipating the future and being prepared for continued instability in our neighboring countries.

Saying that Hezbollah will take over seems too simplistic. However, Iran certainly benefits from a Lebanon in chaos and divided in sectarian sections, just as it has benefitted from Syrian and Iraqi chaos. It doesn't necessarily have to take over the country to achieve its goals of creating safe areas for its military and allied militants to act with impunity.

In fact, just as in Gaza, governing is a distraction from Iran's goals. What would Hezbollah be able to achieve that it cannot do today? It already has near complete control of its own virtual state on the border with Israel.

Hezbollah might be unable to rule Lebanon - but the alternative chaos may be even worse.

Here is an article about a new market in Portland, selling Palestinian goods and meant to "preserve Palestinian culture."

Sprinkled among the examples of this culture are anti-Israel incitement and lies, which is the real product being sold.

On the corner of NE MLK and Morris, a new-ish market serves as a culinary portrait of Palestine and the Palestinian diaspora. Jerusalem Rose’s storefront sits right next to owner Ramzy Farouki’s other project, the Center for Study and Preservation of Palestine.

That project is intended to counter the narrative "created by a western, pro-zionist gatekeeper system of discourse."

In 1948, Farouki’s family fled their homeland, along with 700,000 other Palestinians who were left stateless when Zionist forces expelled them.

Most of the Arabs fled, and were not expelled.

On one end of the fixture, as a sort of unconventional sign indicating the produce section, a photo of Palestinian watermelon men balancing the fruit on their heads is tacked up. “The watermelon is a special thing to Palestinians because during the first popular uprising by the people—called the first intifada, and even before that—the flying of the Palestinian flag was criminalized,” Farouki explains. “But many Palestinians would use the watermelon as a symbol of their culture because it contains green, white, red, and black.”

He is cheering the murder of over 250 Jews during the first intifada. Moreover, people don't realize that Palestinians killed hundreds of fellow Palestinians during that innocent sounding "uprising."

This is what he celebrates.

Another time-honored product stocked at Jerusalem Rose is Nabulsi olive oil soap. Once the site of a booming soap industry of over 40 soapmakers, there are now only two factories left in the West Bank making soap with a thousand year-old technique. The rest were tragically decimated by a large-scale Israeli military operation in 2002, which also resulted in the severe damage or destruction of 64 UNESCO heritage buildings.

Two baldfaced lies in one sentence.

Israel didn't destroy 38 soap factories in Nablus - one was damaged and it was rebuilt. The others closed over the decades because of no demand for their product.

Israel didn't destroy 64 UNESCO heritage buildings. It damaged buildings in Nablus' Old City that were being used by terrorists, another small detail that is missing. Some of the damage came from Palestinian fighters placing explosives between the buildings there as booby traps.

It turns out that this store really does market Palestinian culture. Lying about history and about Israel is Palestinian culture.

The Center for Study and Preservation of Palestine next door shows this to be the case, as there is nothing in the window that indicates anything about Palestinian cuisine, costumes, soap, or history - only anti-Israel (and BLM) posters.

Hate, incitement and lies about Israel and Jews are the most important and integral parts of Palestinian culture.

(h/t RealJerusalemStreets)

Speaking at the Democratic Socialists of America national convention this week, Rashida Tlaib nodded and winked for an attack on Jews using the codewords that we hear so often.

We also need to recognize and - this is for me as a Palestinian-American - we also need to recognize... you know as I think about my family in Palestine that continue to live under military occupation and how that really interacts with this beautiful black city I grew up in, you know, I always tell people cutting people off from water is violence and they do it from Gaza to Detroit and it's a way to control people to oppress people.

It's those structures that we continue to fight against.

So I know you all understand the structure we've been living under right now is designed by those that exploit the rest of us for their own profit.

I always say to people, you know I don't care if it's the issue around global human rights and our fight to free Palestine or pushing back against those that don't believe in the minimum wage or those that believe that people have a right to health care and so much more, and I tell those same people, that if you open the curtain and look behind the curtain it's the same people that make money - and yes they do - off of racism, off of these broken policies, there is someone there making money and you saw it it was so exposed during the pandemic, because all those structures everything that was set up they made record profit when we were all at having some of the most challenging most difficult times in our lifetime at that moment, and and again they made record profit so if anything this pandemic just exposed what we all have been fighting against.

Tlaib makes a direct connection between the Jews in Israel and the money-grubbing capitalists in America. Both of them are "they." "They" are racists. "They" are greedy. "They" profit from their racism. . "They" are hiding behind the curtain, and she reveals to her audience who "they" are: rich, miserly, greedy Fagins.

Even the leftist Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL called this antisemitic.

Tlaib knows what she is saying. She knows her audience. It's barely a dogwhistle - it's an air raid siren.

UPDATE: "Behind the curtain"

This is what @RashidaTlaib means when she says "behind the curtain”.

This is a piece of Nazi propaganda that presents Jews as behind the curtain controlling the Nazi’s enemies. pic.twitter.com/EV4p8samHg
— Ben M. Freeman (@BenMFreeman) August 4, 2021

08/03 Links Pt2: Boycotting the Western Wall; When cancel culture comes for Jews; My College Experience at Temple University Was Tainted by Antisemitism

From Ian:

Boycotting the Western Wall

Mittal has made it crystal-clear that she considers eastern Jerusalem “occupied territory.” As recently as July 30, for example, she re-tweeted a statement about “Israeli occupiers” arresting Arab rock-throwers “from Sultan Suleiman Street in J’salem.” Sultan Suleiman Street runs along the walls of the Old City. Part of it is within the pre-1967 armistice line, part of it is beyond. To the chair of the Ben & Jerry’s board, it’s all “occupied.”

So why, in their official announcements, has Ben & Jerry’s been coy about Jerusalem? Because they know what would happen if they said, openly: “Our company is boycotting the Old City, the Western Wall and Temple Mount because we consider it to be Occupied Palestinian Territory.” The volume of protests that Ben & Jerry’s is facing would be ten-fold what it is now. The Gristedes supermarket chain would not be reducing its Ben & Jerry’s shelf space by 30 percent, as they have announced; they would reduce it by 100 percent. Delta would not still be serving Ben & Jerry’s on its flights to Israel; neither would any other airline.

But as long as the company makes it seem as if it’s just targeting “settlements,” a certain segment of the Jewish community will support them. A number of left-wing Jewish groups, including J Street, Americans for Peace Now and Partners for Progressive Israel, have issued statements taking the side of the ice-cream makers.

And some major liberal Jewish groups, such as the Union for Reform Judaism, have not actively joined the protests. Look at the URJ website. Not a word about the Ben & Jerry’s action against Israel.

A divided Jewish community undermines the anti-Ben & Jerry’s protests and makes it more likely that the company will stick to its guns. The backing of Jewish left-wing groups enables Ben & Jerry’s to say, “See? We’re not anti-Semitic. We’re not anti-Israel. Look at these Jewish groups that support us.”

Could an organization such as the Union for Reform Judaism remain on the sidelines if a major American company says it is boycotting the Western Wall? I don’t think so.

It’s time for Ben & Jerry’s, and its left-wing Jewish supporters, to stop playing word games. Stop trying to pull the wool over the public’s eyes. Stop pretending that this is an argument over a handful of wild-eyed “settlers” on remote hilltops. This is a fight over boycotting the Western Wall. They know it, and we know it.

Imagine the reaction if Israel decided to …

For many of us, the world’s hypocrisy when it comes to Israel is self-evident, and the double standards applied to the only Jewish state are clearly anti-Semitic. Typically, we think about these biases when issues arise directly related to Israel, but it may be even more obvious to others if we consider the likely response if Israel engaged in some of the policies and activities of other countries.

Imagine the reaction if …

Israel announced it was planning to ban halal slaughter.

The European Union’s highest court ruled in 2020 that countries can ban ritual slaughter (including by Jews) to promote animal welfare. How loud do you think the condemnation would be if Israel told Muslims how to practice their religion?

Israel moved to disband Muslim civic groups and shut down a mosque where thousands worship as the French have done?

Look at the furor over Israel’s activities related to the Temple Mount even as tens of thousands of Muslims were praying there on their most recent holy day.

Israel banned Muslims from wearing headscarves?

In another ruling, the E.U. court said companies could ban the hijab if justified by an employer’s need to present an image of neutrality to customers. France has prohibited the wearing of headscarves in state schools since 2004. Unlike the Europeans, Israel does not feel threatened by Muslim attire, and women can be seen in hijabs at the beach in Tel Aviv and the streets of Jerusalem.

Israel made it illegal for Muslim women to wear the full-face veil?

France first enacted a ban in 2010. In April, Switzerland became the latest European country to ban the niqab. Other countries with full or partial bans include Belgium, Bulgaria, Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway. It is inconceivable that Israel would consider, let alone get away with, fining or arresting women for wearing veils.

My College Experience at Temple University Was Tainted by Antisemitism

In the Fall of 2018, I took my first political science course at Temple University. In November of that year, Marc Lamont Hill gave an antisemitic speech at the United Nations, which led to his firing at CNN. During a class discussion, my professor proudly stated that he “fully supported” Marc Lamont Hill’s call for a “Free Palestine from the river to the sea” — a dog whistle to ethnically cleanse Israel of its Jewish population.

One year later, I attended a political science social event. I was repeatedly asked,“how do you feel about Israel and Palestine?” And I soon found myself debating with a notable campus leftist, who violently declared that “Jews are not a people.”

This was just the beginning.

In January 2021, Jewish students were welcomed back to campus with a viral Snapchat video posted by a Temple Student Government representative viciously raising his middle finger at the Israeli flag with the caption “f*** outta here.” Facing backlash, the student resigned from his position.

On February 26, 2021, a Temple University student spoke through a university program called “Dissent in America Teach-In.” Her presentation was titled, “Israel/Palestine: Can Biden’s Middle East Policy Broker Peace?” I just so happened to see the event advertised in the Temple Political Science Department newsletter, so I decided to attend.

The presentation was riddled with propaganda, antisemitism, and threats.

One slide stated that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is one of the strongest lobby groups in the country, with the speaker stating that “Jewish political participation is important because of [the] dependence of politicians on campaign cash.” This is a classic antisemitic trope — that Jews have financial control over the political landscape.

Another slide displayed a cartoon of Uncle Sam serving then-Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a drink with an AIPAC umbrella on a golden platter. Bibi was depicted with a pinocchio-like nose, resembling the “hook nose” Jew from 1930s Nazi propaganda, which categorized Jewish people as racially inferior.

It's amazing how Mizrahi Jews and Ethiopian Jews in Israelcan turn on a dime from being people of color oppressed by Ashkenaz Jews into becoming Jewish white supremacist oppressors, depending on the day's narrative.

On anonymity

There was a thought provoking article about Internet anonymity in the New York Times this week. In general, the writer supports the ability to be anonymous, despite the chances that bad actors will abuse that ability.

I've always remained anonymous because of concerns about my career far more than any worries about harassment or threats. In recent months, though, the latter reason has come to the forefront for me.

Antisemitism is worse than it has been in decades, and the digital world is where one can see it in its most ugly forms, in real time.

I see how Zionist social media stars - especially but not exclusively women - are routinely harassed. One of the reasons is because they are not anonymous. Bigots want something to hang onto as their objects of hate, and the more human a person is, the more of a target they are.

I've become most appreciative that I have separated the Elder persona from my real world self as I've seen the explosion of antisemitic attacks both in the real world and online.

If I was only concerned with my own safety, I could brush it off. But I have to worry about my family, my kids and grandkids - all of whom could become targets from sick, hateful Jew haters (including those who swear they are only "anti-Zionist.")

It is actually frightening to think that the more I share about myself, the less safe I and my family would be.

We aren't in 1930s Europe yet. But all arrows are pointing in that direction. The Internet is where to see the early indicators of hate, and it has been a reliable metric for what happens in the physical world not long after.

08/03 Links Pt1: It’s Time for Biden to Leave a Bad Deal in the Past; 'Violations' the UN Security Council Does Not Care About; Commercial ships no longer safe after Oman attack

From Ian:

Richard Goldberg: It’s Time for Biden to Leave a Bad Deal in the Past

When asked if Raisi’s selection would complicate the administration’s drive to rejoin the nuclear deal and lift U.S. sanctions on the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, Biden national-security adviser Jake Sullivan said only one person mattered in Iran: the supreme leader. How funny — that’s exactly what opponents of the nuclear deal said back in 2013 when the Obama administration was selling America on the need to embrace a flawed nuclear deal to empower “Rouhani the moderate.”

Of course, Sullivan is correct — and the selection of Raisi is only one of many signals the supreme leader has sent Biden this year, making clear that Khamenei fully intends to pocket any sanctions relief he receives from Washington to fuel the Islamic Republic’s war on the United States and its allies.

The Justice Department revealed last month that Iran attempted to carry out a terrorist attack on American soil, kidnapping a U.S. citizen from New York. Iran-backed proxies in Iraq have attacked U.S. forces for months with little to no response from Biden. Iran-sponsored terror groups such as Hamas in Gaza and the Houthis in Yemen have lobbed missiles at Israel and Saudi Arabia. And the supreme leader has vastly escalated his nuclear provocations — enriching uranium up to 60 percent purity, producing uranium metal, and limiting monitoring by international inspectors.

In every way that matters, Khamenei is telling Biden, “We will bury you.” Biden’s response has been to offer cash. After all, the nuclear deal is fundamentally an appeasement pact masquerading as a nonproliferation deal; it offers Iran money for temporary nuclear restraint, and no restraint at all on the development of nuclear-capable missiles and the regime’s pursuit of regional hegemony.

In his first press conference as president-select, Raisi made clear that Iran would never negotiate the longer, stronger deal Biden said he could achieve by first returning to the old one. Khamenei reaffirmed as much last week. Biden should take “no” for an answer and leave a bad deal where it belongs — in the past.

Iran’s New Suitors

King Abdullah II of Jordan has always been glorified by both the Western and Israeli media as a moderate monarch who seeks peace and even democracy for his country and the Middle East. But perhaps Abdullah should be understood more in the light of his recent trip to the Jordanian village of Kerak, 75 miles south of Amman, to visit the tomb of Ja’far ibn Abi Talib, a cousin of the Prophet Muhammad and the brother of Ali ibn Talib, the founder of Shi’ite Islam. The Kingdom of Jordan has never opened this site to Shi’ite visitors.

Ja’far ibn Abi Talib is a holy figure among Shiites, one of the “rightly guided” caliphs, as the first four successors of the prophet are called. The majority of Muslims worldwide, and nearly all Jordanians—95% of whom are Sunni—consider visiting graves for prayer as an act of polytheism. But there was Abdullah, wearing his military uniform and performing prayers in a Shi’ite shrine with the Jordanian media and state cameras rolling.

In the past several decades, Abdullah has never had much patience for Shi’ites. There is not a single Shi’ite mosque in the kingdom. Jordanian intelligence keeps a close watch on Shi’ites in Jordan, as well as on any local Sunni Muslims who adopt elements of Shi’ite faith and practice. Jordanian authorities, for example, bar any Shi’ite-related religious ceremonies, especially Ashura, the mourning of the death of Husayn ibn Ali, the son of Ali ibn Abi Talib. Shi’ite clerics abroad claim that Jordanian intelligence has broken into private homes to prevent such observances. Abdullah’s sudden decision to publicly embrace the Shi’ite faith was as shocking as it would be if the president of the United States had himself filmed performing Islamic prayers at a mosque.

One day before his visit to Kerak, Abdullah flew to Baghdad on June 27 for a curious meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi and Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi. All three men signed an agreement for a “New Levant,” ostensibly an economic deal for the three countries to cooperate in the fields of energy and electricity, agriculture, and the oil trade, with Jordan serving as a transit point for Iraqi oil to Egypt, and from there on to Europe via the Mediterranean Sea. The three leaders also decided to establish a single visa for entrance into all three countries. This type of European-style border arrangement is exceptionally rare among Arab countries.

The question puzzling many in the region is why Egypt, which shares a border with neither Jordan nor Iraq, is part of such a deal. One likely possibility is that el-Sissi feels isolated in general, and in particular with regard to his struggle to prevent Ethiopia from building a mega dam that threatens Egypt with drought. With very little help from the Biden administration, and the Gulf Arab states wielding almost no leverage within the Egyptian government, el-Sissi is signaling a tilt toward Iran—short of full normalization, but steps in the direction of better ties. As the Iranian regime controls the Iraqi government, military, and intelligence service, all of which are used as puppets to help Iran avoid U.S. sanctions, Egyptian participation in the export of Iraqi oil—which is also controlled by Iran—would have been unimaginable during the Trump administration. Under Biden, who is tilting toward Iran himself, it’s close to common sense. This is the opportunity Abdullah seems keen to exploit.

Khaled Abu Toameh: 'Violations' the UN Security Council Does Not Care About

Such Security Council sessions have become routine and almost always end up with statements denouncing Israel after hearing complaints from PA officials about Israel's alleged "violations" and "aggressions."

Yet the Security Council meeting, which was held last week, did not hear a word about human rights violations and aggressions committed by the PA in the West Bank and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

[Nizar] Banat, the anti-corruption activist and vocal critic of the PA leadership, was allegedly bludgeoned to death on June 24 by more than 20 Palestinian security officers.

More than a month has passed since his brutal murder but the Security Council has not found the time to address this grave incident.

The Security Council has undoubtedly not heard of the case of Emad Al-Tawil, a 27-year-old Palestinian who died on June 25 after being beaten by Hamas security officers. Tawil was a resident of Nuseirat refugee camp in the Gaza Strip.

The Security Council and international human rights organizations and journalists most likely did not hear about the case of Hassan Abu Zayed, a 27-year-old Palestinian from the Gaza Strip, who was shot dead by Hamas "border guards" on July 23.

The Palestinian human rights abuses and the crackdown on political activists and journalists are ignored not only by the UN, but also by the Biden administration.

Instead of pressuring Palestinian leaders to cease imprisoning, torturing and killing their people, the Biden administration is, absurdly, searching for ways to strengthen the PA leadership.

Apparently, in the eyes of the Biden administration, strengthening PA leaders means allowing Palestinian security officers to beat political activists to death, drag women by their hair on the streets of Ramallah, and imprison and intimidate journalists. The Security Council members, meanwhile, take their unjustified obsession with Israel to new heights as Palestinians are taken to prison or the graveyard at the hands of the PA and Hamas.

By Daled Amos

The Palestinian Authority goes to great lengths to dissuade Palestinian Arabs from selling land to Jews.

That is nothing new.

Recently, Palestinian Media Watch reported, Fatah publicly exposed, shamed and endangered an Arab “traitor” who sold land to Jews in Jerusalem:

The PA has publicly exposed, shamed, and literally endangered the life of an Arab who sold land to Jews in Jerusalem. According to the PA, Palestinians who sell land to Jews are considered “traitors” and criminals. In fact, the PA has forbidden selling land to Jews by law. Anyone who tries to sell land to Jews will be sentenced to 5 years of hard labor, and someone who actually sells land to Jews will be sentenced to life in prison with hard labor. [emphasis added]

Despite this "law," Palestinian Arabs selling land to Jews is an ongoing problem for the PA.

For example, in December 2018, The Jerusalem Post reported that 44 Palestinian Arabs were arrested for selling property to Jews. One of them, a Palestinian-American, was sentenced to life imprisonment -- and only with pressure from both the US and Israel, was he released and deported 3 weeks later.

This came from the Palestinian Authority -- Israel's "peace partners," who are theoretically dedicated to the idea of a two-state solution that will bring about a Palestinian state living in peace side-by-side with the Jewish State of Israel.

This dedication to a two-state solution might be considered progress, since there was a time when even suggesting the idea of an Arab Palestinian state existing side-by-side with Israel could get you killed.

Hussein Aboubakr Mansour, an Egyptian political dissident, tweets about Fatah's former opposition to a Palestinian state next to Israel:

Quoted from: Armed Struggle and the Search for State: The Palestinian National Movement, 1949-1993 by Yezid Sayigh (emphasis in the original tweet)

Similarly, Avraham Sela writes in The PLO at Fifty: A Historical Perspective. Contemporary Review of the Middle East:

Even before attaining a collective recognition of the Arab states as the sole representative of the Palestinian people, Fatah sought to silence local public figures (by force, if necessary) who made public statements concerning the future of the Occupied Territories, challenging the PLO exclusive authority as the ultimate Palestinian policymaker. Tensions and differences between the ‘outside’ PLO and public figures in the Occupied Territories reached a boiling point already in the late 1960s resulting in threats on the lives of Hebron Mayor Muhammad Ali al-Ja`bari, and publicists Hamdi al-Taji al-Farouqi and Muhammad Abu Shalbayah, and the lawyer Aziz Shehadeh (who was eventually assassinated)—all avant-garde advocates of the idea of a Palestinian state within the Occupied Territories [emphasis added]

There were deep divisions among the Palestinian Arab leadership on the issue of establishing a Palestinian state.

The example of West Bank lawyer Aziz Shihada (Shehadeh) is instructive.

Following the Six-Day War, Aziz Shihada was, in fact, one of the first to suggest the creation of an independent Arab Palestinian state that would exist alongside Israel in the context of a peace agreement with the Jewish State.

According to The New York Times, Shihadi "became the first Palestinian to draft a proposal for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" -- and was threatened with death:

In broadcasts from their Damascus exile, the [Palestinian] leadership addressed him directly: ''A.S., you are a traitor, a despicable collaborator,'' it announced over the airwaves. ''You shall pay for your treason. We shall eliminate you. Silence you forever.''

As noted above, Fatah was not opposed to the idea of a separate Palestinian state at first. But as it turned out, Shihadi's treatment by his fellow Palestinian Arabs is a precursor to today's all-out refusal to have anything to do with Israel that would imply normalization:

The Palestinian lawyers' union refused to practice before Israeli military courts in an act of protest against the occupation. But there were no other courts to which Palestinians could appeal, and Shehadeh felt that this refusal to challenge Israel under its own rules simply gave the Israelis a free hand. He insisted on defending Palestinians against land seizures and arbitrary treatment at the hands of the military. For his efforts, he was disbarred for life by his own union, which subsidized Palestinian lawyers on the condition that they not practice their profession. [emphasis added]

For all his support for a Palestinian state side-by-side with Israel, Shihadi still saw Israel as the opposition. But then again, he was wary of Jordan as well.

Prior to 1967, Shihadi was imprisoned because of his opposition to The Occupation -- in this case, Jordan's occupation:

Shehadeh, whose first name Aziz means 'the dear one,' was imprisoned several times by Jordan's King Hussein because he viewed Jordanian control of the West Bank after 1948 as occupation. [emphasis added]

In the end, Shihadi was killed in 1985, and it was never known whether his murder was politically motivated or because of a legal case he had taken on.

This was 4 years after Sadat was assassinated in 1981, in part for his having made peace with Israel. Later, there were Palestinian representatives who still condemned Sadat as a traitor:

This clip of Professor Musa Mazzawi, one of Arafat's consultants, reacting to Sadat's assassination is darkly hilarious: pic.twitter.com/kOzUNlXzCX
— CasualtiesOfTheDay (@Ayei_Eloheichem) July 27, 2021

Another twitter account, CasualtiesOfTheDay, also tweeted about the Palestinian rejection of normalization. He quotes from the book, My Home, My Land: A Narrative of the Palestinian Struggle, a memoir by Salah Mesbah Khalaf, also known as Abu Iyad. Abu Iyad was deputy chief and head of intelligence for the PLO and the second most senior official of Fatah after Arafat, before being assassinated in 1981, by the Abu Nidal's organization.

In his memoirs, Abu Iyad wrote that the idea of a Palestinian "mini-state," even with the ultimate goal of a unified Arab state of Palestine, was controversial within Fatah.

He drew comparisons on the one hand with Zionist leaders such as Ben Gurion who accepted the 1947 partition plan in the short term -- with the Vietnamese, North Koreans and East Germans on the other:

Abu Iyad claims that it was not just moderates like Shihadi who talked about a Palestinian state in the "West Bank" and Gaza following the Six-Day War, but within the Fatah leadership as well. But Faruq Qaddumi, a member of the PLO leadership was in the minority. Not only the idea of a mini-state, but according to Abu Iyad, "the strategic objective of a democratic state in all Palestine didn't have everyone's support either":

Normalizing relations with Israel remains a problem for leaders of the Palestinian Arabs today, just as it was then -- even if such normalization is considered as merely a short-term goal towards eventual control over all of Israel.

This is highlighted by the periodic claims of unification between Fatah and Hamas, a neat trick if indeed Abbas is committed to the two-state solution when Hamas is decidedly not.

If anything, their attempt at unification shows that both groups want Israel's destruction, just by different means and different speed, and remains a priority above and beyond the creation of a Palestinian state.

What would it look like if Zionists attacked leftist haters using their own methods? A humorous, yet very serious, example.

Al Jazeera published a profoundly idiotic op-ed where a contributing editor of the socialist Jacobin site engages in faux outrage that Zionists are attacking Hamas paramilitary training of children in summer camps.

Normally, I would fisk Belen Fernandez' arguments, noting how the entire article is a huge exercise in whataboutism, with provably false claims that Israel is worse than Hamas in every possible aspect and therefore Zionists have no right to say a word against Palestinian child abuse.

But facts are irrelevant. Fernandez doesn't care about facts - which is why she doesn't address them. She wants to play to readers' emotions, accusing Israel of raising its own children with the singleminded goal of blowing up Arab babies. She wants to change the subject. This is the modus operandi of Israel's critics - since the facts aren't on their side, they ignore the facts and make up others, or engage in character assassination or other diversions, all to avoid actually addressing the issue.

So this time, instead of pointing out facts, I will take a page out of the socialist, leftist playbook.

My foray into writing an article that ignores actual issues, makes up facts based on the flimsiest of evidence, and adopts the methods of the anti-Israel crowd begins here.

______________________

Belén Fernández is a sexist.

She writes in Al Jazeera:

Recently, Lawrence J Haas of the American Foreign Policy Council took to the pages of Newsweek to publicise a dangerous phenomenon: “Western Silence as Gaza Summer Camps Train Future Terrorists”.

According to Haas – whose panties have been propelled into a massive bunch by the (hallucinated) idea that Western media and academia are obsessed with a “narrative of Israeli oppression and Palestinian victimisation” – Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are teaching teenage boys in the Gaza Strip how to “shoot guns, launch anti-tank missiles and protect themselves while peering around walls”.

The expression "panties in a bunch" comes from the British expression "don't get your knickers in a twist." As Eric Partridge writes in A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, eighth edition (1984):

knickers in a twist. Don't get your ..., don't become cantankerous or contentiously touchy: both among men (implying femininity) and from men to women: since ca. 1950. (L[aurie] A[tkinson] 1976)—2. Get (one's) knickers in a twist, to get flustered, to panic: coll[oquial]: since 1960 at latest.

Using that expression against women says that women are over-emotional and not to be taken seriously. Using it against a man says that the man is as bad as a woman is in not being able to look at an issue with a clear head. To use that expression against a man is to agree with its premise that women are unable to think clearly and logically and men who get upset over something are acting in an inferior "female" way.

Fernandez' use of this expression also betrays her transphobia, as she is clearly denigrating men who choose to wear women's undergarments.

Ignorance is no excuse. The phrase has been recognized as offensive for years.

This is a sexism, and by using that highly offensive phrase, Belen Fernandez proves that she feels that women are inferior to men. Consciously or not, Fernandez hates women.

She's not even embarrassed to use this phrase. Maybe because she is a privileged, white-passing person who could afford to spend six years of her life hitchhiking across Europe with no idea of what the word "responsibility" means.

Perhaps she chose Al Jazeera as her media outlet to engage in explicit sexism because she looks down at Arabs and feels that they aren't as sensitive as Westerners towards misogyny, and she feels more comfortable using a highly offensive sexist phrase in an environment where she thinks it would be more welcomed. That attitude is condescending and racist.

Such a shocking phrase from an alleged leftist and nominal feminist should raise alarms about the systemic sexism, transphobia and hypocrisy that permeates socialist circles.

Anyone who truly cares about feminism, trans rights and human values must demand that Balen Fernandez apologize to Lawrence J. Haas - and keep apologizing until he and everyone else she has attacked in this article accepts her apology.

Obviously, Fernandez must be fired from her position for her offensive, sexist and racist behavior, and all of her articles must be scrubbed from existence, so no one can be exposed to her offensive hate of women. Jacobin surely does not want to be associated with someone like that, and anyone who cares to fight for equity for women must insist that her employer does the right thing.

_______________________________

Does this type of argument look familiar?

People who support Israel see this sort of thing every single day.

(h/t YMedad)

During the war in May, as hundreds of thousands of Israelis were forced to run to bomb shelters as Hamas sent thousands of rockets towards them, a member of the Brighton NY town board, Robin Wilt, posted on her Facebook page "Free Palestine" and featured a picture of her with her arm around Linda Sarsour, who has spoken out against humanizing Israelis under attack and who has defended antisemites like Louis Farrakhan.

When the Jewish community raised their voices in concern, Wilt doubled down. She spoke at an anti-Israel rally (43.25) where the speaker before her told a ridiculous story that there are separate checkpoints in Gaza with signs for Jews and non-Jews. Wilt herself gave herself a pat on the back, saying that she supports Palestine even though there are lots of Jewish voters in town. (That part was edited out.)

She, and other town board members, attended a Zoom session against antisemitism, and Wilt showed not the slightest amount of empathy for Jews nor regret for how uncomfortable she made her Jewish constituents feel.

Which brings us to the town hall that was in Brighton last week.

For hours, there were Jews arguing that they have a right to be upset at Wilt while Wilt's supporters argued that the Jews were racists and white supremacists for attacking her. As usual, the lies from the pro-Palestinian contingent were legendary, like Israel has expelled 1500 residents of Sheikh Jarrah to build a theme park.

When Jews spoke, they were routinely interrupted and shouted at.

At the end, when Wilt spoke, she made herself into the victim and again took no responsibility for hurting a large number of residents of Brighton with her words.

But the story isn't an idiot councilmember who opposes Jewish nationhood. It is the many people who felt comfortable publicly attacking Jews as racists and baby-killers. The town hall has made the Jews of Brighton even more uneasy and feeling under attack than they were beforehand. The councilmembers seemed to listen, but no one on the other side in the audience (from the portions I watched) showed any empathy, instead many of them played the victim card themselves as they attacked the Jews, as if someone who is Black cannot possibly have done any wrong.

This is a heavily liberal, supposedly tolerant town. As we've seen in recent years, leftist tolerance usually has a Jewish exception.