Miscellaneous Thoughts on Antisemitism and Israel

Criticism of Netanyahu, of Israel’s government is absolutely NOT antisemitism. Calling Netanyahu a war criminal might or might not be correct, but it’s not in and of itself antisemitism. Criticizing Israel’s Gaza war or West Bank policy is certainly not antisemitism.

I criticize Netanyahu and his government all the time, as do most American Jews and most (believe it or not) Israelis. In fact, Netanyahu isn’t popular at all right now with Jewish Israelis. I don’t know what will happen tomorrow, but that’s where it is right now.

Obviously when critics of the Israeli government say that Israel does not have the right to exist as a Jewish state, that’s almost certainly antisemitism. Unless you’re willing to criticize every country with ethnicity or religion enshrined by law (including virtually every country in the Middle East, many counties in Europe, India, Japan, and many other nations), you are singling out Jews for special criticism. That is wildly inconsistent and therefore antisemitism. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen anyone actually do this. It’s possible, but it’s really more theoretical and than actual.

When people start using the words “Zionist” as a slur, that’s antisemitism. While the word, “Zionism” has come to mean Netanyahu and his policies to some, it really means the right of Jews to have their own state (as countless other ethnic/religious groups do). Whether or not Jews call themselves “Zionists,” about 90% of American Jews believe in the legitimacy and desirability of a Jewish state (i.e. Israel). Clearly for some on the far-left, the word, “Zionist,” is simply a proxy for Jews. If 90% of Jews believe in a Jewish state, and people slur them, well we know how Jews view that. We also know that much of the rhetoric is not ultimately about Israel, but about Jews themselves.

Even worse than “Zionist” is “Zio.” That’s clearly not an abbreviation for ease of speech, but out-and-out hate speech. It’s not much different from other slurs used against various minority groups

Zio” is everywhere in far-left circles, especially on social media. On X/Twitter I see it every day–unless I stop myself from looking at post comments (but I don’t have enough self-discipline for that).

Personally I don’t regard “Free Palestine” as inherently antisemitic. Palestinians have a right to their own state IMHO (as do Kurds, for example). So in isolation it’s not a problematic phrase.

If “Free Palestine means “Free of Jews” (as some have clearly said), that’s antisemitism. If “Free Palestine” is accompanied by attacks on the idea of a Jewish state or a desire to annihilate Jews, that is antisemitism. If Free Palestine is used alongside “From the River to the Sea,” that’s a promise of annihilating Jews, which is clearly antisemitic.

I support a two-state solution. So for me “Free Palestine” is reasonable as long as it’s about Palestinians getting their own state.

“AIPAC” is another hot word these days. I should say that I have criticized AIPAC for years now. Honestly I can’t stand them, and I have been ripped for criticizing them. I have told a few AIPAC reps what I think and I’ve said a certain amount on social media, and they just ignored me and moved on.

The problem is that politicians are using the word “AIPAC” repeatedly as if it’s a magic word or an obscenity. It’s essentially become e a code word for “Zionist.” While it’s certainly not antisemitic to criticize AIPAC (I’ve done so for years well before the current flood), to repeat it ad nauseam is a problem–especially if you don’t criticize other ethnic advocacy groups (Armenian, Turkish, Irish, etc.). If all you do is repeat “AIPAC” as a mantra, yes, you are wandering into the land of antisemitism.

Using “AIPAC” repeatedly also enters in the classic antisemitic trope of accusing Jews of ‘dual loyalty’. This goes back hundreds of years. This was one of the main accusations Nazis hurled against Jews and was effective in their murderous propaganda.

If you want to criticize AIPAC (as I have), explain precisely what you’re criticizing them for and make sure that you don’t solely focus on Jews when you discuss loyalty to foreign governments.

If you want to criticize AIPAC and not be problematic, you have an obligation not to simply repeat the word as a slur, but to explain what exactly you’re criticizing.

Another word thrown around regularly is “genocide.” I have taught courses on the Holocaust/Shoah, genocide generally, and mass murder,. I have studied it quite a bit, though I’m not an international lawyer. With that caveat, the word is deeply problematic.

For one thing, the population of Gaza is approximately the same as it was before the conflict (there are competing statistics here, but all in all there’s not much of change in population totals). Genocide laws require that a perpetrator target wiping out an entire population or wiping out a substantial portion of the population. No such evidence exists, however.

Second, you can’t just kill a lot of people in a genocide. You have to prove “intent” to eradicate a group or large part of a group. Without getting into the weeds (there are a lot of weeds), there’s not enough evidence that the IDF are attempting to do this.

So I think this is very likely not a genocide in a legal sense. Is it possible for a kangaroo court to conclude otherwise? Possibly I suppose (though the evidence is almost non-existent). People hate Jews for whatever reasons. In fact, the accusation of genocide is echoed in Nazi propaganda of the 1930s. The Nazis claimed that they had to kill Jews because Jews were trying to annihilate (exterminate–a word I don’t like) Aryans and Germany. You might think this sounds silly or crazy, but this is precisely what Nazi propagandists argued.

So in some ways, the word, “genocide,” is for Jews a kind of red herring–because it’s not based on facts or truth. Rather it’s an old trope without evidentiary basis that allows people to treat Israel and Jews badly. In fact, it’s the kind of language that encourages physical attacks on Jews globally–as some of the perpetrators themselves have acknowledged.

Also a substantial portion of those killed are members of the Hamas military. Hamas recently said that it was sending out payments to about 30,000 widows of Hamas soldiers. That makes a genocide accusation even less likely.’

Jews have been accused of targeting children since the 4th century C.E. This is one of the most common tropes used against Jews. Many of the Jews in the USA today have grandparents who fled Eastern Europe partly because they were facing mass attacks of local populations. We call them pogroms. The mobs murdered Jews in part because they accused Jews of killing Christian children or putting children’s blood in their matzoh during Passover. So when Jews hear about Israelis targeting children, and there’s not much evidence of intentional targeting, then Jews hear the sounds of 2,000 years of people calling Jews child murderers.

Also many of the deaths in Gaza occurred because Hamas used civilian locations, including neighborhoods and hospitals, to protect their soldiers and equipment. This is clearly an issue for any war crimes charges. This policy is often referred to as using “human shields.” It would be a difficult legal argument to overcome in any prosecution of war crimes.

Again I’m not an international lawyer, but killing civilians is not a war crime per se–especially if Hamas embeds itself in civilian locations. In war, militaries have the right to attack civilian areas if military units are located there. This is an intentional Hamas strategy. At Nuremberg and in other trials, Nazis (including Herman Göring) claimed that Allied bombing campaigns like Dresden were war crimes. This was rejected consistently by the courts. If we were to examine the Allied bombing campaign, we would be horrified by the level of death and destruction. We have seen how awful things were recently in the battles of Mosul and Fallujah in Iraq. If we examined WWII battles and civilian casualties and property destruction, we would be horrified. War is always brutal, but that in itself doesn’t make it a war crime. War may be wrong or even immoral, but that doesn’t make it necessarily a crime.

Netanyahu might well have committed war crimes in certain areas, such as denying food to come into Gaza. Also obstructing medical assistance could be a war crime conceivably. There are probably other potential crimes I have not thought of. I don’t know the evidence, and obviously the fighting isn’t over, but we would have to wait and see what might qualify as a war crime legally.

If we were to examine the Allied campaign in WWII, both in Europe and Japan, there were very likely war crimes committed. Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki war crimes? Didn’t the atomic bombs intentionally target civilian populations? This is a subject of debate.

In Europe, Allied soldiers often killed POWs (because having to use fighting soldiers as POW guards was viewed as hindering Allied military advances). Allied troops sometimes denied medical care to German and Japanese soldiers in WWII. Are these not war crimes? These kind of things happen in virtually ever war I’ve studied. The question is: are they isolated incidents or are they part of an intentional policy?

The biggest issue for me when it comes to Gaza is proportionality of protest.

This is very, very important. In Syria, there were between 500,000 and 1,000,000 killed by the Assad government in Syria. Most of them were civilians. We did not see protesters marching in the streets about that even though the total number of dead and wounded was far greater than in Gaza.

In Yemen approximately 150,000 people have so far died in the civil war (most civilians) and another 225,000 died of malnourishment. This was caused by the Houthi (Shiite-Iranian) revolt. Where have been and are the protests against this?

2.5 million people have died in the ongoing conflict in Sudan over the years. Where are the protests about this?

In February of this year, the Iranian government murdered (executed) between 30,000 and 40,000 people simply for the crime of protesting against the current government. Did we see protests in the streets of NYC or SF or anywhere? No we did not. In fact, many on the far-left have defended the Iranian government and criticized the protesters.

The Chinese government has placed 1,000,000 Muslim Uighurs over the past two decades in concentration camps and murdered thousands more. Are there people on the streets about this?

I could go on and on. The question is: Why do protesters focus on Israel and not on other countries? Why do some on the far-left and the far-right defend Assad in Syria and the Iranian government for what are more obvious violations of morality and war codes? If protesters treated all these cases seriously, including Israel, then we would have a far different landscape to look at. Why don’t protesters do this: For most Jews the answer is obvious.

If protesters were consistent (more or less) and applied their protests tactics equitably on various forms of violence, the Jewish community would feel a lot differently. But they don’t and have shown no indication of doing so. Criticism of Israel doesn’t occur in a vacuum. There’s over 2,000 years of history. Christians don’t have a lot of credibility here, given centuries of persecution of Jews, including the Crusades (which targeted Jews along the way, as well as Muslims). They are not neutral arbiters or observers. So when protesters focus on Israel at the expense of other brutal situations, this is what it looks like to Jews and those who understand the history.

Btw, I would say the same about Christian Zionists who blindly support Israel and Netanyahu. They honestly have no clue what they’re talking about. Sure the Israeli government loves their support and their money, but they’re wrong IMHO. They care about themselves and their theology and want Jews to convert. Many younger Evangelicals are not supportive of Israel or Jews. So the landscape is going to shift again probably–not too far away either. In any case, I’m under no illusion that they care about us. They don’t.

Some have argued that disproportionate criticism of Israel is justifiable, since the U.S. provides significant military and economic assistance. As far as economic and military ties go, do observers really think that there would be no protests against Israel if this had not been the case? In Europe where there is much less connection (and a lot more connection to Arab governments), there are massive protests against Israel and more attacks against Jews than in the USA. It’s clearly worse now there than in the USA for Jews. The diminished connections between European countries and Israel has not changed the protest landscape at all. There are no significant protests for any of the countries I mentioned.

Israel knows its days of U.S. support are coming to a close. It’s already established close relations with the Gulf countries (especially UAE, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia). It has peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. With Hezbollah weakened there are now talks with the Lebanese government–which is weak but wants a change from constant war status. It’s in a state of non-belligerence with Syria. It is developing close relations with India–and is probably cutting deals with China. It has relations with several countries in West Africa and improving relations with Morocco.

In fact, many in Israeli leadership would be happy not to have U.S. support at some point in the future. It would give them more freedom to operate independently. This might not be a good thing for Israel because the USA has had a positive influence overall. And it won’t probably be a good thing for the USA–since it provides jobs for Americans and since it gives the USA a lot of influence over an important area of the world. U.S. influence is already dissipating with the Iran war and with our current incompetent government, but the dissipation of influence will accelerate as U.S. aid diminishes to Israel. That is the reality of where we’re headed I think.

Jews in the diaspora are a whole different story. Many of our neighbors dislike us and conflate us with Israel. There’s also the 2,500 years of antisemitic history that we have to face daily. Israelis think all Jews should live in Israel and so they don’t really care that much about our lives here. We’re alone at this moment.

As I talk with my friends in the Jewish community, I hear lots of talk of moving outside the USA. We’re a nation of travelers, migrants, and nomads. That might happen again. But where? Is it really a good idea for all Jews to live in one place (Israel)? One or a few bombs can kill us all. I don’t think that Israelis have thought the diaspora issue through.

There’s a scene in Schindler’s List where a Russian soldier finds the Schindler Jews wandering around somewhere after Schindler had to flee. They’re trying to figure out where to go. He tells them that whichever way they travel, the people they meet will hate them (and probably murder them–which actually happened historically). So most of them ended up in the USA or Israel. It was a very claustrophobic situation, and it is now once again.

I still believe in the USA, even with MAGA, Trump, an authoritarian government, and the massively increasing antisemitism. It still can be a good place for Jews. I believe most Americans don’t like what they see with antisemitism on the far-right and the far-left. I believe that they’re overplaying their hands, but … I’m not sure about that. We just don’t know what’s going to happen on anything these days. I’m still an optimist at heart, but I’m a realistic optimist. Much as it pains me, I have to embrace uncertainty.

I’m betting that Jews in the USA will eventually get through this and that Israel will be ok.

Israel’s problem is no longer primarily strategic, but political. Except for Iran, Israel’s relations with its neighbors are much better than they’ve ever been. That said, Israel’s Public Relations are just dreadful across the globe. If the Israeli government can think of something to alienate people–even its supporters–then they almost always do it. It’s honestly breathtakingly dumb. How can really smart leaders do stuff so stupid?

Also Netanyahu has been pushing hard against democracy and freedom in his own country. Like Trump he’s trying to rig the courts and the political system so that he can stay in power and avoid prison time. This is is a serious problem, though it could prove (I hope) temporary. We’ll see. The next government after Netanyahu will be a big test.

In the USA, we’re experiencing a massive wave of antisemitism and Jew hatred, especially on the far left and far right. Jews in the U.S. have never experienced anything quite like it. Ultimately this has almost nothing to do with Israel, and everything to do with Jews. A lot of people despise and resent Jews in ways that they previously hid. How do we get past that? As someone who spent a large part of my life trying to address antisemitism, it’s disheartening to say the least. This is part of a populist surge, however, and those kind of waves usually wear themselves out over time and dissipate–as we just saw in Hungary.

“Populism” is almost never good for Jews. Historically, when the lid comes off and people start expressing (and acting on) how they really feel about one another, then the resentment and frustration almost always turns to attacking Jews–who are the world’s eternal scapegoat. It’s clockwork.

Graham Platner, Jews, and Israel

This is a response on social media to someone defending Platner:

—————

Platner didn’t remove/cover over the tattoo until he was shamed into doing so by the media. This tattoo is a TotenKopf tattoo, the death head image used by the Nazi Waffen SS who were in the front lines murdering Jews in the death camps and in the East. He has never apologized. He seems to have known what the tattoo meant over the years, but has tried to make that go away. To my knowledge, while he has generally condemned antisemitism, he has not explained what his specific views of the Shoah are. Calling the tattoo a youthful mistake is way, way insufficient. If he had apologized and explained why he did what he did was wrong, he would have a much better reception.

On this basis, if Platner is the future of the Democratic Party (as some have suggested), Jews don’t have much of a place in such a party.

Most Jews and many African Americans have warned Democrats about Platner, but White people haven’t bothered to listen. They apparently have already forgiven Platner. There aren’t many Jews or African Americans in Maine. So there you go. Apparently they know more than we do. When most Jews tell Democrats that someone has an antisemitism problem and they don’t listen, we already have a clear answer on how a large number of people view Jews. It’s honestly hard to miss.

I hope Platner proves me wrong by taking a more humane path. I truly do. But, if history has lessons to teach, we shouldn’t ignore obvious warning signs.

If I lived in Maine, unless something changes, I could not vote for either Platner or Collins. I’ve already explained Platner. But Collins is a coward who enables Trump, and she does virtually nothing to support democracy. Every step of the way she undermines our freedoms and only does what’s best for her politically. It’s gross.

I’m watching Trump, Republicans, and SCOTUS undermine and try to wreck our democracy, but many Democrats care more about ostracizing Israel and Jews than they care about the Constitution and the values that underlie it. Yes, we’ll likely get through this, but living through it sure is painful and exhausting.

Democrats and Jews

This is something I just wrote on a Democratic Substack group having to do with the Democratic Party and Jews:

____________

I am a life-long Democrat. I administer a Facebook group devoted to opposing far-right global nationalism. I have always supported civil rights, LGBTQ rights, abortion rights, Medicare for All, fairer taxation, reasonable regulation of markets, and liberal democracy. I could go on and on here, but you get the point. I have actively supported Democrats over decades and worked hard for them–both through volunteering and through contributions.

But I’m also Jewish, am an historian of Judaism and have studied and taught on antisemitism. I have spent my professional life teaching and writing about both Judaism and Christianity, trying to help heal the wounds of two millennia of pain. I’m sure that I was in part motivated by the Holocaust and the horrifying experiences of many of my fellow Jews during the Holocaust, including members of my own family. Though I strongly oppose the government of Netanyahu and support a two-state solution, I also believe that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state (just as numerous other countries rely on ethnic and religious identities).

What I’m seeing now in the Democratic Party is disappointing to me to say the least when it comes to the Jewish community. At a time when Jews are facing a massive upsurge of hate and threats (synagogues on average are spending upwards of 14-15% of their budgets on security), I’m watching the DNC and Democratic voters enable candidates like Graham Platner and Abdul El-Sayed. Of course, they are just the tip of the iceberg, with numerous Democratic candidates at lower levels espousing all kinds of crazy ideas about Jews. All this is happening while the FBI reports that about 68-69% of religious hate crimes are against Jews.

For example, Platner’s infamous tattoo is not just a Nazi insignia, but a death head (TotenKopf) SS insignia of the Waffen SS–the most vicious of Nazi storm troopers who wore it on the clothes as they led Jews to the gas chambers in death camps and swooped into eastern Europe to murder Jews. They were the most vicious and vile of the the Nazi murderers. They were responsible for the murders of countless Jews in Europe, including presumably members of my own family. Yet the DNC and voters do not seem to care about that, even though Platner has never apologized for wearing it and seems likely to have known what it in fact meant. If I lived in Maine, could I really vote for someone like that? I mean he wore a tattoo that the SS used when murdering millions of Jews and members of my family. That would be for me a violation of what I owe to them and their legacy. I’m not even mentioning the misogynist and racist rants in which he engaged on Reddit.

In addition to El-Sayed’s controversial comments on the West Bloomfield synagogue attack, he has campaigned with Hasan Piker who has called Orthodox Jews “inbred” and said that he supports Hamas and Hezbollah. Piker is avowedly anti-Zionist. Effectively in a speech a few days ago, El-Sayed essentially said that for Jews to be ok, they have to reject Israel and the Jewish state. He says that’s not antisemitism. But for most Jews that is in fact antisemitism. He doesn’t get to define what antisemitism is any more than I get to define what anti-Black racism or misogyny are.

Is it possible to be anti-Zionist and not antisemitic? Theoretically, yes, as long as you condemn all nations with ethnic and religious identities in parts of their constitutions. This would include basically the entire Arab/Muslim world, many countries in Europe, and Japan, as well as other nations. If people aren’t willing to do that, then, yes, they’re espousing an antisemitic idea by supporting anti-Zionism.

These are just two examples. I’m seeing all kinds of crazy stuff about Jewish money, Jewish power, Jewish dual allegiance, and on and on. This is happening all over the place in “progressive” Democratic circles. Of course, the far right does the same thing and is just as dangerous, but somehow I was naive enough to think that liberals and Democrats wouldn’t fall prey to that. I was clearly wrong, as I’m watching a sea of hatred against not only Jews, but also against African Americans and women on the far left. I know that this site is mainstream liberal–not far-left–but the Democratic party is not pushing back very hard against this. On the other hand, I’m very impressed by the British Labor party’s efforts to eradicate antisemitism from its ranks. They have not allowed far-left antisemitism to take hold. Unfortunately that’s not yet happened in the U.S. Democratic Party.

Maybe they figure that Jewish voters are too small a number to matter, that there will be such a blue wave that they don’t need Jews. Maybe they’re right. I’m not sure. The Jewish vote has generally been about 70%-30% Democratic. If that vote goes down to let’s say 55%-60% Democratic, that will cause problems for Democrats as some point, especially in 2028. Jews vote at a much higher rate than almost any group and are key voters in many state elections. Of course, Democrats need also to ask themselves whether this is the kind of party they really want to be. Do they really want to be a party that traffics in bigotry? If they do that, what makes them different from Republicans on issues of diversity and prejudice?

For many of us in the Jewish community, this is a painful time. I intend to vote Democratic as much as I possibly can and to support Democrats where I can. Antisemitism is my red line, however. Democracy is so important to me that I might even consider making some uncomfortable choices, but not when it comes to blatant bigotry. I will not be gaslighted. I hope the Democratic ship rights itself on this. Otherwise I have no party any more and will just float around as a free agent I guess. My ideas about liberal democracy and liberal values will continue, but not necessarily my party affiliation. This is the conundrum for many Jews who aren’t sure at this point what they’re going to do.

IS ANTI-ZIONISM ANTISEMITISM

First, we have to define what Zionism is. Zionism means the right of Jews to have their own state. That’s it. There are many different versions of Zionism, but it essentially comes down to the right of self-determination.

Since the destruction of the 1st Temple in Jerusalem in in the 6th century BCE and then the 2nd Temple in 70 CE, diaspora Jews longed to return to their homeland. Some continued to live there, but most did not. Jews preserved this longing in their daily&shabbat prayers&throughout Jewish writing.

In the 19th century, a formal movement arose that sought to make this longing into a political reality. This is what most refer to as the beginning of Zionism. But…the desire to return to what we now call Israel has been a part of Jewish identity for 2,500 years.

We can debate all the events that led to Israeli independence in 1948&what transpired afterwards, but supporting “Zionism” doesn’t mean that one agrees with everything that Jews in Israel did prior to 1948 or that one agrees with all that that the Israeli gov did after 1948.

Criticizing the Israeli gov or Netanayhu or the conduct of the Gaza war does not make one anti-Zionist. It simply means that one disagrees with Israeli policy. Even finding Israeli Gaza policy repugnant in some ways does not make one anti-Zionist. Jews everywhere do this every day.

To understand this, we probably have to understand that Judaism is not solely a religion. E.g. I grew up in a family that was not religious at all, but my parents saw themselves as part of a people, a nation, a civilization. This view of Judaism is common among Jews.

The religious part is only part of being Jewish. For many Jews in the U.S. I would say that it’s not even the central part. I would say that this is true for many Jews in Israel as well. “Religion” is a problematic category for understanding what Jews&Judaism are.

In fact, the word “religion” as a category of identity&meaning is a modern one that arose primarily in a Christian context, especially in German academia in the 19th century. Other movements which we call now “religions” have a similar issue (e.g. Hinduism, Confucianism).

So “Zionism” can have a religious meaning to some Jews, but to many it does not. What non-religious&religious Jews generally share is the idea that Jews need their own state to thrive&to avoid the prejudice, hatred, discrimination, persecution that has plagued Jews for millennia.

My guess is that about 85% of American Jews are effectively Zionist, since they support the idea of a Jewish and democratic state, meaning Israel. That would probably be higher in other countries& in Israel. But the remaining Jews could be either non-Zionist or anti-Zionist (not the same thing at all btw: non-Zionism means that Zionism is not a central orienting point for that person’s Judaism and/or Jewish identity).

So if they are anti-Zionist, those individuals are in opposition to the overwhelming majority of Jews in the world. They are essentially saying to Jews that they are wrong&that their c. 3,000 year-history is misguided.

Yes, there are some anti-Zionist Jews–that is Jews who don’t believe that Jews have their own right to a state. That would put them way out of the mainstream, but they certainly exist as a minority.

Back to the question: Is anti-Zionism antisemitism? The answer is most likely Yes.

I have not met them, but it’s possible that there are some people who believe that there should be no ethno-states globally. So if they reject the right of all people—e.g. Japan or Saudi Arabia or India–to have their own ethno-states because they don’t see that as legitimate and if they speak out vociferously against those states in favor of some other form of governance (as intensely as they focus on Israel), then they are not engaging in antisemitic discourse. They would have to be clearly consistent in their opposition to such states, not focused on Israel.

But this would at best be a rare position, which is not the kind of thing you normally see on social media or at protests or elsewhere.

It’s important to make a distinction here between antisemitism&Jew hatred. Some of the people espousing anti-Zionism don’t necessarily hate Jews. There may not be personal animus involved. But…they are engaged in a discourse that is structurally antisemitic. It’s often an unconscious or subconscious prejudice that is so deeply embedded in human consciousness for centuries that they cannot see or sense what they are doing.

It doesn’t matter whether the anti-Zionists are Jewish or not. Most Jewish anti-Zionists&some non-Jewish ones don’t hate Jews, but they are in fact espousing a view that is very likely antisemitic.

I realize that there are problems with the word, “antisemitism” (partly because the word was actually invented by someone who strongly disliked Jews), but there really currently aren’t better words or phrases.

“Racism” is probably the closest word to describe prejudice against Jews, but “race” is how the Nazis categorized Jews. Jews for good reason are leery of using a word that allows Nazis to dictate the terms of Jewish identity. Plus, “race” has no biological basis and is effectively a social construct.

In any case, anti-Zionism is an idea that in a practical sense is likely antisemitic. Human beings are naturally prejudiced, since it’s the way they learned to survive in a hostile world. So prejudice against Jews is a natural phenomenon that isn’t really surprising.

What is notable is that prejudice against Jews has lasted for 2,500 years&has now seen a massive resurgence in the last few years. Why do people fixate on Jews? That’s a question for another time.

ABANDONMENT AND BETRAYAL: HOW I FEEL ABOUT THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT AND THE ORGANIZED JEWISH COMMUNITY AFTER THE HAMAS MASSACRE

I’m not primarily writing this to non-Jews. It’s difficult to experience a feeling of betrayal when one already knows what the score is. When I see rallies, demonstrations, social media posts calling for violence against Jews, often promoting genocide, using old antisemitic tropes, I’m not at all surprised. I used to tell Jews that this is what could happen, but what I said usually fell on deaf or skeptical ears. People either didn’t believe it or couldn’t believe it. As a scholar of both Judaism and Christianity, none of this is surprising to me. You don’t work in that arena as a Jew without experiencing antisemitism. I always knew that the issues were deep and unyielding. I could not have predicted the timing, but I knew it would come one day in the future.

I’m writing this to Jews, particularly to Israeli leaders and to global Jewish organization and institutions.

With Netanyahu and his political allies, we have a group whose betrayal extends almost beyond description. We have a leader who has spent the last months busily trying to dismantle Israeli democracy through a judicial coup while cozying up to global, antisemitic dictators. Alienating the majority of Israelis and mocking members of the IDF who disagreed with him (particularly in the air force and special forces), he divided Israel and helped make its enemies think it was vulnerable. The military was in open revolt, as were many Israelis. Despite his support for the judiciary earlier in his career, he nevertheless pressed on, bullying all those who opposed him—presumably to keep himself out of prison due to an ongoing bribery trial. He was willing to rip apart Israel, which responded with the largest protest demonstrations in its history. Is time in prison really that bad that he would divide the nation and destroy the democratic tradition that had served as a model in the Middle East? Apparently for him and his cronies, it was.

We have a man, one of whose signature policies was to work with Hamas in Gaza in order to degrade the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank. Now he talks tough, but he and his buddies were the ones who enabled Hamas which then fooled him into thinking that all was under control and that he knew what he was doing: obviously he did not. He’s an over-confident know-it-all (*chacham* in Yiddish) who thought he could outsmart terrorists, but he was the one outsmarted.

While doing this, he removed IDF troops from the Gaza border to help out his settler allies who were celebrating Sukkot in the West Bank, confident that he had Hamas under control and that Israeli hi-tech could protect the border fence. He left Sderot and all those left-wing kibbutzim to fend for themselves. He abandoned all of them, left them alone to fight against heavily armed murderous barbarians. How much did he care about civilians in Sderot and kibbutzim? Not much. He left them (the ‘little people’ for him) alone to be tortured, mutilated, beheaded, raped, and burned alive. That is his government’s legacy. You don’t leave an extremely hostile border area without physical protection of actual troops. That says it all right there–how little he and allies care about Jewish life.

For Gaza border residents, the basic contract was: “You live there, and we’ll protect you.” The government reneged on that contract. How many other contracts have they broken and will they break?

Netanyahu and his allies aligned themselves with fundamentalist Christians to get their money and political support, even though these far-right advocates dislike most actual Jews, want to convert Jews, frequently use antisemitic tropes, and even cite Nazis with approval. Would anyone really be surprised how that’s going to work out down the road?

Netanyahu allied himself with the ultra-Orthodox/Haredim most of whom don’t serve in the military. In fact, he’s been busy trying to pass legislation to make de-facto military exemptions for yeshiva students a legal fact (de iure). If you talk to many Israelis, especially those with children, you’ll get an angry earful about how most Haredim live off the welfare of the state through citizen tax dollars and don’t have to send their children to war. How do you think most Israelis feel right now when many Haredim live their lives as if nothing were happening while the rest of Israel goes to war, potentially to face trauma, injury, or even death?

As a member of the diaspora Jewish community, I look to Israel as a safe place and a protector of Jews everywhere. Netanyahu abandoned us, left us alone, made us more vulnerable to antisemitism, to the violence of hate, to the indifference of a world that views Jews (.2% of the global population) as disposable.

Then we have have the organized Jewish community in the U.S. and globally. What have they been doing?

Well, through most of my career, they’ve spent time defending Israel no matter what (including the Netanyahu government) or promoting outreach to non-Jews.

I’ve never been able to stanch my criticism of Israeli policies. So I’ve never really done very well with that first category. That said, as far as promoting Israel goes without criticism, we can easily see the shortcomings of this approach by simply looking at the anger of most Israelis toward the current government. The extent may be broader now with the Hamas massacre, but it’s always been there. Yet, during the protests, most Jewish organizations downplayed the protests or avoided discussion altogether. How seriously will upset Israelis and diaspora Jews take these organizations now?

As for the second category, I’ve done my share of outreach and “dialoging” and know that, as important as it is, it is nowhere close to a panacea. For many of the participants in dialog groups, it’s often more of a gig than an encounter with reality and pain. I’ve always said that these kinds of groups are more about feeling good than about the truth of hatred and antisemitism, the truth of Christian and Muslim antisemitic discourse and persecution of Jews, the exposure of authentic prejudice and pain. For that reason, we’re unprepared for what we’re seeing now on college campuses and city streets. Institutions preferred the ease of comfortable discussion with support from sympathetic granting agencies to the more unpleasant task of actually being present to real pain, anger, hatred, and fear.

As far as general outreach goes, the idea of making allies sounds good and is good, but, no matter how many friends you think you have, just look at places like the former Yugoslavia to see what friends can do to one another when push comes to shove. Look at how neighbors treat neighbors, former friends, and meal companions. When hatred emerges, friendship and even family relations are tested and often fall short. That’s one of the lessons of genocide around the world. Of course, we need to cultivate allies, but we also have to recognize that we’re ultimately doing this as Jews on our own and that we Jews have to take care of of one another as a starting point

It’s that last part of taking care of one another that Jewish mainline organizations have fallen short. Many members in mainline Jewish communities feel alienated, alone, unsupported, unvalued, uncared for, unacknowledged, and unprotected. Volunteers who take on a disproportionate amount of the work feel those emotions even more strongly, with the added feelings of burnout and exhaustion. Leaders who want to know why people aren’t more engaged might want to start by examining how we care for and appreciate one another in mainline Jewish communities and organizations, many of which are not known for their warmth and openness.

In this way, I, as a diaspora Jew, feel a kinship with Israelis who feel a sense of abandonment and betrayal from their government. Obviously my complaints are less existential in comparison, but that’s what Jews across the world are experiencing. There’s a sense that Jewish political, religious, and social institutions have their own agendas set for their own perpetuation, that they’re not authentically committed to the well-being of Jews as a whole, that they’re more concerned about power and money than human relations, that they place a greater emphasis on institution building than on quality of life, and that they do not truly value the efforts and lives of their citizens and members.

JEW HATRED

Really and truly, and I don’t mean to be flippant or mean or cynical, but I have to assume that most people who aren’t Jewish are antisemitic or racist against Jews or whatever you want to call it. We’re all prejudiced–all of us–about others, and that’s just inbuilt into who we are as human beings. But hatred of Jews is the oldest, continuous human prejudice–at least 2,500 years old. Just 80 years ago, we witnessed the annihilation of 6 million Jews, and we act as if this is now only marginally relevant to our lives in 2021.

I honestly assume that most people, when they find out I’m Jewish, will dislike me, make certain assumptions about me, maybe hate me, patronize me, see me as some kind of biblical incarnation, look at me as part of Jesus’ family, believe I’m smart and rich, resent me–you name it. In the U.S. (but not in Europe for the most part), people can’t look at me and most other Jews and figure out we’re Jewish. That’s an enormous advantage, but, once they do figure us out, then all the crap comes through. Even when they’re trying to be nice, it comes through–because, well, being nice is a way of acknowledging that we Jews are different and a minority, and they have to treat us in a different way. And, the truth is, we are different. So I don’t blame them.

But it’s exhausting, and people feel as if they can attack Jews without much consequence these days. Now we Jews all stand as some kind of stand-in for Israel. So, if the Israeli government or Netanyahu does something they don’t like, then we’re supposed to stand up and condemn Israel as evil. If we don’t–if we present a more nuanced picture–then they attack us and condemn us–even if we criticize Israel. And then they tell us that we’re wrong to call them antisemitic. They say they’re just criticizing the actions of the Israeli government.

Why do anti-Zionists get to decide what and who is antisemitic? Do heterosexuals get to decide what homophobia is? Do men get to decide what misogyny is? Do White people get to decide what racism is? Really??? Why do non-Jews get a free pass at engaging in patently prejudiced behavior? Inquiring minds want to know. As far as I’m concerned, that’s just proof of Jew hatred that’s out there–Jews aren’t even allowed to identify when others are engaging in offensive behavior or language.

For example, if you support BDS, you’re antisemitic. You just are. Because: 1) you’re picking on Israel without doing the same thing for other countries that have engaged in far more offensive and violent activities; and 2) you’re supporting a movement that opposes the right of Jews to have their own state (that’s what BDS states)–while not doing the same for countless countries across the globe.

Yes, there lots of antisemitic language I hear on both the far-right and far-left. It comes from politicians across the political spectrum on both sides of the aisle. I’m hearing it today with regard to the recent conflagration in the Middle East. But it’s not restricted to politicians. It enters into daily life and is just part of the most routine activities. Could I ever imagine myself putting a menorah in my window? You’d have to be crazy to do that. Why? Because someone would throw rocks in your windows–or worse. And why do you think synagogues have to have to have police security these days? This is reality across the globe, including the U.S.

So here we are. I have no idea how to address this. I wish I did.

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2021 Laurence Kant

Israel, Gaza, and the Hamas Charter (Covenant)

The Israeli government has engaged in many stupid and unethical acts preceding this recent engagement–especially at Sheik Jarrah. And where has the Israeli state been when crime has overwhelmed Arab-Israeli communities? Nowhere. And what about the nation-state law, which is deeply damaging to Jewish-Arab relations in Israel? Meanwhile Netanyahu is using everyone as a means of keeping himself in power and out of prison.

But, whatever Israel has done, Hamas has done far worse, as always. It uses its own citizens (including children) as human shields, trying to get them killed– so that Hamas can improve its PR and image in the international public square. This should not be a surprise, because Hamas describes itself in its own words as hating Jews and seeking their annihilation (genocide).

Here’s some of what the Hamas Covenant (Charter) says on Jews. This is not Israeli or Jewish or U.S. or European imagination. It’s what Hamas itself states in its founding document–its mission statement if you will. Enough said:

Introduction: “For our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave, so much so that it will need all the loyal efforts we can wield, to be followed by further steps and reinforced by successive battalions from the multifarious Araband Islamic world, until the enemies are defeated and Allah’s victory prevails.”

Article 7: “The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: ‘O Moslem, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.'”

Article 15: “The day the enemies usurp part of Moslem land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Moslem. In the face of the Jews’ usurpation, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised.”

Article 28: “Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims.”

Article 32: “The HAMAS regards itself the spearhead and the vanguard of the circle of struggle against World Zionism… Islamic groups all over the Arab world should also do the same, since they are best equipped for their future role in the fight against the warmongering Jews.”

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2021 Laurence Kant

Jewish Space Lasers and Shabbat: Recent Controversies

From Andy Borowitz: “Marjorie Taylor Greene Claims Jewish Lasers are Turned Off Friday After Sundown.” Borowitz also recently coined the phrase, “magic Jewish mittens,” in relation to this controversy and the trending Bernie Sanders inauguration meme.

______________

Laurence Kant’s Response to Andy Borowitz:

In fact, the Talmud has extensive discussion of this in Tractate Mittens 39a BT (missing from the Palestinian Talmud unfortunately). Lasers are in fact a sub-category of work and therefore prohibited on shabbat (sabbath). Rabbi Shmuel ben Laser (part of the now well-known Laserofsky dynasty) holds a minority opinion, however, that lasers are life-giving and therefore excluded from the shabbat prohibition—but only when protected by magic Jewish mittens. This is extensively debated in Responsa literature. As a traditionalist, I accept the prevailing majority view here and will turn off my lasers on shabbat.

If anyone really wants to know, my giant Jewish space lasers are hidden in an invisible, secret compartment dug by me in the earth in my backyard. Rothschild Inc. (LLC) has paid me money (with interest) to do their bidding whenever they text me.

As far as the mittens go, I just want to say that I love my magic Jewish mittens. Bernie has provided them to me at wholesale through Rothschild Fashion Inc. (LLC). They allow me to hypnotize my enemies and get them to walk in the path of my giant Jewish lasers.

If you need to use the lasers, please let me know. They are available for use at a discount in 5- to 30-minute slots—but only if you act FAST.

I want to offer profound thanks to Professor Andy Borowitz for alerting the public to the enormous significance of magic Jewish mittens. We are all in your debt. You are a light to the nations.

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2021 Laurence Kant

MORE ON ILHAN OMAR AND ANTISEMITISM

There was no state of Israel in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but antisemites, and later the Nazis, made similar claims about Jews then: they’re more loyal to one another than to the nation; they’re “clannish”; they stick together; they plot against the nation; they have foreign allegiances; they’re “cosmopolitan”; and on and on. If you watch a Nazi propaganda film like “Jud Süss,” you’ll see much of the same rhetoric repeated.

Ilhan Omar is not using language that relates specifically to AIPAC and those who have a particular view of Israel. She’s using language that those living around 1900 or in the 1930s would have had no problem understanding.

If Omar had criticized AIPAC’s backing of Israeli settlement policy, that would be one thing; it would be a policy dispute. And I don’t agree with AIPAC much of the time. But that’s not what she did here. She used a trope that revealed her real views of Jews and who we are as a people and how we’re not really authentically loyal Americans. David Duke (former Grand Wizard of the KKK) is now praising her and backing her. And, sadly, he has good reason to do so given what she said.

I may strongly disagree with those who back Israel right or wrong, but I don’t question that they want the best for the United States and for Jews and for Israel. I don’t doubt their motives. They believe that the interests of American and Israel are aligned and that we share common values of democracy and freedom. And they have a point on that, even though recent Israeli policies on democracy have fallen far short IMHO. I think that their views are misguided and leading us to a situation where Jews and Israel and the United States will find themselves in much greater danger. In fact, I see Omar’s comments as vindication of my argument. But those with whom I fiercely disagree are loyal Americans as well as committed Jews, and I will not question their motives. We’e all doing our best in a confusing world and trying to make sense of very difficult and hard-to-solve problems and issues.

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2019 Laurence Kant

DEMOCRATS FIGHTING OVER HOW TO RESPOND TO ILHAN OMAR ANTISEMITISM

Ds had better deal with this one way or another. If they don’t, they will lose a core constituency and also lose their moral authority on issues of diversity and hatred. Good luck on winning in 2020. This is not Trump or a racist Republican. This is one of their own. If you want to stand against prejudice, you start with your own. Otherwise, you’re hypocrites and should just shut up on all issues of hatred. If you can’t see that accusing Jews of dual loyalty is profoundly antisemitic, then the white supremacists and neo-Nazis really have won:

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2019 Laurence Kant

Womens March Leadership and Jew Hatred

Apparently, as they curry favor with Louis Farrakhan, Tamika Mallory and her colleagues have also concluded that they can exclude Jews who are in their view “white” and therefore privileged. They have no problem exalting a man who has called Jews “termites” and praised Hitler, but they happily decide that “white” (whatever that means in this context) Jews don’t deserve to belong in their circle of power.

This is hatred, pure and simple, and it’s disgusting and revolting. Hitler and the Nazis murdered Jews because of their “race” and didn’t give a s*** what their color was. Almost all of those six million were “white” according to this interpretation by Mallory’s little band of haters–a definition which is absolutely idiotic given that Hitler and the Nazis did not view Jews remotely that way. Jews were their own “race,” which had nothing to do with color, but with genetic theory in which the 1930s gang of swastika wearers placed great faith.

Do the murdered in Pittsburgh matter to Tamika Mallory? Do the gassed in Auschwitz matter to her? Do my bullet-rain relatives matter to her? Maybe their blood is irrelevant to her because we don’t actually count as human in her system of accounting–and in Farrakhan’s. Are these representatives there to give her and her friends cover to spew more venom at Jews? Sure looks like it. They are being used.

There are all sorts of excuses made for why Tamika Mallory and others supposedly don’t have to condemn Farrakhan: the history of oppression of African Americans, separation of families, previous requests to condemn other African American leaders, different responses to hatred on the part of Jews and African Americans. But there should be no excuses. Being a victim does not excuse one from following basic moral principles. That applies to Jews, as well as to any other group. Making excuses for not condemning Farrakhan is relativism gone mad. Wrong is wrong. And we need to say so for Farrakhan and for anyone else no matter how uncomfortable it makes us feel.

Further, why is Linda Sarsour not white, but Vanessa Wruble white? We’re all descended from Semitic peoples and related to one another. Basically, they call Wruble white because she’s Jewish, but the others are passable because the big bosses decided that they’re another kind of minority and get a pass for their Jewishness. So once again people who are not Jewish are trying to control the lives of Jews for their agendas and writing some Jews out of history. Really that’s not much different from what the Nazi commandant, Amon Goeth, said in the film “Schindler’s List” when he talks about eradicating the history of Jews in Krakow and Poland. (Yes, I know, that was not an historical quote, but it was definitely how Nazis like Eichmann conceived of their project). If you erase Jews, then you’ll get rid of them forever. Sounds familiar once again. It’s a form of dehumanization.

I cannot express how utterly depressing and maddening this is. Until they repudiate Farrakhan and his despicable beliefs and meaningfully apologize, Tamika Mallory and her buddies should be shunned.

https://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/279077/the-womens-march-doesnt-get-to-decide-who-the-white-jews-are?fbclid=IwAR3BT8y7VARbQaSxUbGNQQXLV7HyDKQWY4OOlzQFi5cMVUbp-Wmc81dOGTs

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2019 Laurence Kant

Dietrich Bonhoeffer and his Legacy

Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2018 Laurence Kant

Jewish Federation of the Bluegrass Press Release: On Tolerance, Hatred, and Respect (including response to Stephen Bannon appointment)

PRESS RELEASE

SUMMARY

The Jewish Federation of the Bluegrass (JFB) issues a call for tolerance, a rejection of hatred, and a respect for all. The JFB also asks that President-elect Trump reconsider his appointment of Stephen K. Bannon.

———

STATEMENT

THE JEWISH FEDERATION OF THE BLUEGRASS CALLS FOR TOLERANCE, A REJECTION OF HATRED, AND RESPECT FOR ALL

The Jewish Federation of the Bluegrass issues a call for tolerance, a rejection of hatred, and an embrace of diversity and pluralism.

In recent months, we have seen a spate of incidents of intolerance and prejudice in the U.S. and abroad. Numerous instances of bullying, vandalism, violence, ugly language, and name calling targeting ethnic, racial, and religious minorities have led to a climate that both adults and children find unsettling and even frightening.

The appointment of Stephen K. Bannon, especially, as President-elect Donald Trump’s “chief strategist and senior counsellor” has caused consternation among many Americans, and particularly in the Jewish community.

All presidents should have the right to make their own choices as to who advises them on strategic and other matters. We respect the latitude necessary for a president to work efficiently and productively on issues of national and ultimate global significance.

Yet, Mr. Bannon, through his position as chief executive of Breitbart News, has associated himself with a variety of radical views that fall into the categories of anti-Semitism, xenophobia, racism, Islamophobia, homophobia, and misogyny. For these reasons, white nationalists and neo-Nazis celebrate him as one of their own. No one with these associations should be in the White House, especially among our president’s closest advisors.

It is the responsibility of our Federation to support and defend the rights of the Jewish community and all minority communities against all forms of bigotry, racism, hatred, and persecution.  We understand that prejudice, including anti-Semitism, exists at both ends of the political spectrum. History has taught us that silence is both unacceptable and dangerous.

We urge President-elect Trump to demonstrate his commitment to the pluralism, diversity, and respect for all Americans he pledged in his victory speech when he promised to “bind the wounds of division” in America.

As a first step in this endeavor, we ask President-elect Trump to reconsider his appointment of Stephen K. Bannon. We also request that he reach out and show in all his personnel appointments his desire to work toward genuine healing in our divided society.

Our Federation, along with other federations, including the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle, continues to stand for the values we have always upheld: welcoming the stranger, fighting injustice, repairing the world, supporting Israel and Jewish communities around the world, speaking up for the voiceless, and protecting the orphan and the widow.

Hate is neither a Jewish nor an American value. We urge local, state, and national leaders on both sides of the aisle to speak up against this threat to American democracy, to uphold inclusion, to fight against bigotry and discrimination of all kinds, and we encourage other community groups to join in our efforts to combat prejudice and abuse.

TRUMP, HITLER, AND THE RETURN OF FASCISM

TRUMP, HITLER, AND THE RETURN OF FASCISM

Laurence H. Kant

 

Many, including Melania Trump, have assured us that Donald isn’t Hitler. Some commentators object to the comparison outright; others simply bleat the equivalence hysterically, without further explanation. All should contend with the evidence:

 

• Trump’s tweeting a Mussolini quotation and retweeting neo-Nazis, white supremacists;

• Trump’s belated (and weak) disavowal of David Duke and the KKK;

• Trump’s refusal to condemn or even rebuke Jew-hating tirades—including death threats and concentration camp oven imagery—against Jewish journalists who’ve criticized   him (Bethany Mandel, Ben Shapiro, and Jonathan Weisman);

• Official association of Trump’s campaign with white supremacists and neo-Nazis, giving talk-show host, James Edwards, a VIP press parking space and interview with Donald Trump, Jr. at a Memphis rally, and designating William Johnson a California Trump delegate to the Republican convention;

• Ivana Trump’s Vanity Fair statement (1990) that her husband kept a copy of Hitler’s collected speeches, “My New Order,” in his bedside cabinet (which Trump acknowledged);

• The right-arm salute Trump invokes at his rallies, recalling the Nazi salute (some dispute this, but, given his media skills, it’s safe to assume that Trump knows the symbolic effect of every image he uses);

• Trump’s use of “America First,” alluding to an isolationist, early-40’s U.S. movement that was rife with Jew hatred and called for negotiations with Hitler;

• Trump’s October 13 speech that refers to international bankers, media, and global elites that allegedly strip the U.S. of its rightful power—a trope that recalls the classic Jew-hating screed, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” , and has numerous and widespread parallels in other Jew-hating rhetoric as well;

 

Does anyone really believe that this self-described “really smart” Wharton grad draws on the Nazi tradition of political rhetoric, symbolism, and ethnic/racial scapegoating unawares?

The onus should be on those who deny the obvious connections to explain in detail why they’re not relevant.

Countless other items of evidence connect Trump to fascism more generally:

 

• Using threatening gestures, encouraging supporters to beat up protesters and intimidate critics;

• Forecasting (and encouraging) “riots” at the Republican convention;

• Calling reporters “scum” and implicitly threatening them, and barring major media organizations (left and right) from his campaign events;

• Calling to change libel/slander laws to curb criticism of public figures;

• Demonizing ethnic groups: labeling Mexicans “rapists” and “drug addicts,” calling for mass deportation of 11 million undocumented aliens, advocating a ban on Muslims entering the U.S., and demanding the recusal of a judge as biased and unqualified because of his ethnic heritage;

• Targeting the disabled by mocking the arm and facial movements of New York Times reporter, Serge Kovaleski;

• Praising dictators, including North Korean Kim Jong-un, for murdering potential  enemies; Chinese rulers, for cracking down on Tiananmen Square protesters; and Vladimir Putin for being “a leader’’;

• Openly and frequently calling for the jailing of his political opponent, Hillary Clinton—this happens as a matter of course in totalitarian societies from the Congo to Cuba to North Korea;

 

No, Trump doesn’t outline a genocidal philosophy or well-thought-out plans to implement discrimination—what coherent policy strategy has he ever enunciated?—but he is aware of Hitler and Mussolini and riffs off of them. He knows who they are and borrows their ideas—most notably the use of intimidation and violence to acquire political power.

Does this make him more like a third-world dictator (Marco Rubio’s assessment)? Would Mussolini serve as a better comparison than Hitler? Silvio Berlusconi?

We don’t know what he sincerely believes, but does that really matter? We can only judge him by his words, his actions, and what he promotes.

We d­­­on’t know what Trump would actually do if elected president. Given the American system of checks and balances, his attempt at authoritarian rule would likely be limited by the realities of governance. Yet, is that a risk worth taking?

Why don’t commentators address the specific evidence instead of asserting that Trump isn’t Hitler? Many in the press minimize the Trump phenomenon by laughing off his words or by rationalizing the crazy stuff he does. The reason is clear: because the evidence is so troubling and disturbing, and the implications so appalling, that they would rather it simply go away.

If we’ve learned anything from the holocaust, it’s that we can’t take on the role of bystanders and let troubling events transpire by ignoring or glossing over them.

Too frequently in the past, politicians and commentators trivially compared political adversaries to Hitler and the Nazis, leading to what many call “Godwin’s law”: the inevitable invocation of Hitler or Nazis to refute an argument. Neither mindless name-calling nor willful ignorance force us to face the facts before us.

The facts are clear: Trump uses language, images, and tactics that directly recall those of the Nazis and Hitler, along with other fascists. To allow him to speak destructively by incorporating this pernicious tradition and to permit him to encourage violence without calling him to meaningful account does nothing more than offer him a media get-out-of-jail free card. It amounts to an abdication of the sacred responsibility the founders gave the press in the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. Who is willing to stand up and be counted?

 Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2016 Laurence Kant

Mizrahi Nation: Middle Eastern Jews in Israel and a Brief History of Jews in the Middle East

A superb article by Matti Friedman, one of the best of I have seen not only on the history of the Mizrahi (Middle Eastern Jews) in Israel, but on what it means to be Israeli, Jewish, and living in the Middle East. This article offers a perspective that is rarely found in discussions about Israel and the Israel/Palestinian conflict. After reading it, you may find your views on Israel, Jews, and the Middle East at least a little different.

I particularly enjoyed his characterization of the “religious vs. secular” Jewish dichotomy as a Western/Ashkenazi labeling. For Mizrachi, that distinction doesn’t exist. They have their own “liberal” form of Judaism which is not Orthodox, but “traditional”/Masorti–the name for Conservative Judaism, but different, because it has its own history and application that is completely different from the European-based movement. For example, some Mizrachi may go to Synagogue in the morning, head to the beach in the afternoon, text to one another, while celebrating Havdalah (end of Shabbat) later.

Overall the Mizrachi are much more “liberal” in practice than the Ashkenazi (European-based) religious, but more politically conservative than many Ashkenazi. Their conservatism is not based on ideology (as is typical of Ashkenazi on all sides of the political spectrum), however, but more on experience in having lived in the Middle East for many centuries (well before Islam ever got there).

http://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2014/06/mizrahi-nation/

 Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2014 Laurence Kant

Media Bias and Israel

More on the bias of Western media coverage of Israel by a former AP reporter, Matti Friedman: hostile fixation on Jews and Israel; censorship of Gaza coverage under pressure from Hamas and failure to report Hamas using civilians as human shields; and failure to report on an Israeli peace proposal. The original story discussed the failure of Western media to report on the corruption of the Palestinian Authority; the all-consuming media criticism of Israeli society and politics, with virtually no criticism of Palestinian society and politics; intense documenting of Israeli violence against Palestinians, with no corresponding, remotely equivalent documenting of Hamas’ brutality and vast military infrastructure; failure to report on Hamas intimidation of reporters; failure to describe the Hamas charter, which call for the genocide of Jews and uses the notorious Jew-hating Protocols of Zion to call for the murder of Jews; failure to report on Israeli peace proposals prior to the Netanyahu government; failure to report on the tiny size (both geographically and demographically) of Israel in contrast to the Arab/Muslim world; failure to connect Hamas to other extreme, exclusivist, violent Muslim religious movements (e.g. al Qaeda, ISIS, Hezbollah, Taliban); and the overall equivalence of Israel as bad oppressors and Palestinians as sympathetic victims.

I am a strong critic of many Israeli policies (settlements, racism against Arabs, too much religion in government, the Netanyahu’s goverment failure to engage the Palestinian Authority), but it’s appalling how media coverage is so one-sided and tilted against Israel (and Jews as well) and so relatively non-critical of Hamas (which advocates genocide of Jews, believes in forced conversion to Islam, supports brutality and violence, and opposes democratic and secular values) and the Palestinian Authority (which is notoriously corrupt, inept, suspicious of democratic values, and refuses to accept Israel as Jewish): http://tabletmag.com/scroll/184707/ongoing-controversy-around-the-most-important-story-on-earth

Here’s the original article by Friedman: http://tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/183033/israel-insider-guide?all=1Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2014 Laurence Kant

The Christian Left and Jew-Hatred

Hard to see how anyone can rationalize Jew-hatred (antisemitism) by blaming it on Israeli policy, but many are doing just that now. Shipman and anyone else have the right to criticize Israel as they reasonably see fit (and I would do so as well), but they don’t have the right to excuse hatred–which is exactly what Shipman and others are doing. Attacking Jews on the street and putting swastikas on synagogues and fraternities does not happen because of Israeli policy. It happens because some people hate Jews. Period.

No one on the left (which is what many apparently consider me) would attribute assaults on women to provocative dress or police brutality toward African Americans on black-on-black violence, but somehow it’s OK for liberal Christian activists to do so when it comes to Jew-hatred. They don’t see how they’re drawing on 2000 years of ugly history. All this exposes the ugly underside of Christian prejudice toward Jews. Jewish-Christian dialogue has made progress since the Holocaust, but not as much as we had thought. We’re now seeing the public viewing of what was always there, but hidden.

All people have prejudices that are unknown even to them. I’m no exception to that. It’s part of the human condition. However, the most dangerous people are those who act as if they are immune to prejudice. If Shipman had apologized and reframed what he said differently, we could have moved beyond this. Not only does he refuse to do so, but he plans to continue in his crusade. Clearly we still have a long way to go: http://time.com/3340634/yale-chaplain-bruce-shipman-israel-anti-semitism/

Gaza, Israel, and Media Coverage

Why are the global protests all focused on Gaza? Many more are dying in Syria: 700 over a two-day period.

Israel is the bogeyman for world media, but no one gives a hoot if Arabs are slaughtering other Arabs. What does this say about Israel and about antisemitism (yesterday protesters looted and ransacked Jewish businesses in a Paris suburb)?

Part 1: RESPONSE TO A COLLEAGUE ARGING THAT MEDIA COVERAGE OF GAZA IS SO EXTENSIVE BECAUSE OF ISRAEL’S FAILURE TO AGREE TO A CEASEFIRE

I don’t agree with you that the ceasefire issue is what drives the media.

The reason everyone pays attention to Gaza, and not to Syria, is because no one in the West gives a darn about Arabs and Muslims dying, but they do enjoy scapegoating Jews wherever they are. Whatever problems there are in the Middle East, blame it on the Jews. Now Muslims and Arabs have joined in on this. Take a look at Paris and its suburbs, where protesters have now burned and decimated French Jewish businesses. This is not primarily because of Gaza, but because fundamentally, at root, people blame Jews for whatever problems exists in their communities and cultures.

It’s sad, but it’s a fact. I don’t see a lot of people in Europe attacking Russian churches and community centers, because Russian separatists shot down a passenger jet. Where are the protesters on Iran’s treatment of the Bahai? Israelis are trying to protect their civilian population. You can argue about their tactics and effectiveness, but they do have a good argument based on self-defense.

No, fundamentally, the media and most people are fixated on Jews. This is a 2500-year-old problem, deeply rooted in history and culture. Those of us who devote our lives to working on antisemitism, Jewish-Christian-Muslim relations, must face this on a daily basis. That’s the reality, and no amount of rationalizations get around this fact.

PART 2: RESPONSE TO A COLLEAGUE ARGUING THAT EXTENSIVE MEDIA COVERAGE OF GAZA IS DUE TO LIMITED FINANCIAL RESOURCES

a) It’s not just Syria that the media ignores. Last I heard France is pretty good digs for reporters. Yet how much media attention is focused on protesters burning down Jewish shops and businesses, calling Jews “pigs” and shouting “kill the Jews,” vandalizing and storming synagogues, and hunting Jews on the streets? There were similar (though less destructive) events in Germany. I don’t see much on the TV about that. Iran is a police state, but it’s relatively safe to travel in. Where is the attention on the Iranian treatment of the Bahai, who are viciously persecuted and murdered? What about the Iranian treatment of their native Arab population and political dissidents, whom they like to hang from cranes? Where is the attention on the destruction of indigenous communities worldwide (including in the US and Canada) for corporate profit (oil, minerals, gems, whatever)? What about China and Tibet? What about the treatment of women and gays in the Arab/Muslim world? How much media attention is there on that compared to Israel? I could go on and on. The fact of the matter is, the media, and people in general, are obsessed with Jews. Israel is a good proxy for that.

There is one financial factor you did not mention: Israel coverage markets well to a public that is focused on Jews and Judaism. In other words, “Israel” sells. As the newspaper people used to say, “Israel” makes good copy.

That said, I do agree that the safety and cheapness of travel to Israel is a factor in media coverage of Israel. Part of the attraction is also that Israel is a pleasant place to which to travel and a democracy with a free press. There’s just a lot more to it than your explanation.

b) Israel is in the news all the time. The media always has stories about the Palestinian situation–not as intensely as Gaza right now, but these stories are all over the place regularly. They’re hard to miss. I don’t see nearly as much attention on the stuff I describe above as I do on Israel, even when Israel is not involved in a war.

Beyond that, there has been massive violence (with concentrated deaths in short periods of time) in other locations over the past decades with relatively little media attention: Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Congo, Ivory Coast. Back in the 1960s through the 1990s we saw hideous numbers of deaths in conflicts in South America, Africa, and East Asia (remember East Timor) without comparable attention. Naturally disasters such as occur in Bangladesh and India attract relatively little attention. These are not all impossible to cover (not as easy as Israel, but not Syria), and yet we saw very little on them. I would not expect the equivalence of Gaza, but I would have expected a lot more than we got.

Somehow the media figured out a way to cover our wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, and Vietnam. The media covered the breakup of Yugoslavia, including Bosnia/Serbia. They covered the Tiannamen Square uprising in China. They gave blanket coverage to the Indonesian tsunami. They focused on the 2009/10 election protests in Iran. In the U.S. the media covered the Tea Party, but much less the Occupy movement.

If it wanted to do so, the media could cover Syria to a greater extent than it has recently. Yes, it’s not easy, and, yes, it’s more expensive. Coverage of Syria would never equal coverage of Gaza, but the media could give Syria much more attention than it has–even without a lot of reporters on the ground. It chooses not to, because Syria, Arabs, and Muslims just don’t hold the attention of the public or of news decision-makers. They’re just not sexy or meaningful to enough people.

I’m not saying that it’s unreasonable to give Gaza a lot of attention. And I’m not saying that a Jewish fixation is the only reason the media focuses on Israel/Gaza/West Bank. I am saying that Gaza has attracted much more attention than other stories of similar magnitude and that part of it has to do with the public’s fascination (for both good and ill) with Israel and Jews. I’m also saying that the media picks and chooses what it decides to cover, in part based on what it thinks sells best. And Israel sells real well. And it has since 1948, especially since 1967.

And I can tell you this. Unless a miracle happens soon, stories about Israel’s conflicts with its neighbors will continue to abound (massive deaths or not), while stories about Ukraine and Russia will have long since faded into oblivion. This does have to do with the prominent place of Jews (in spite of their small numbers) and Israel in human culture and history.

c) All in all I just don’t buy this argument. It does not pass the smell test. The amount of coverage on Israel/Palestine (the former British Mandate), a tiny piece of land with a miniscule population of Jews and Arabs is massive and overwhelming, even without the current Gaza conflict. The overwhelming coverage cannot be explained away simply by reference to limited media resources. An alien from another solar system who dropped onto earth and saw the media coverage would assume that Israel/Palestine must comprise a large continent and a major portion of the world’s population. Obviously, that’s not the case. There are other reasons why the public and the media are obsessed with this little slice of our planet. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

d) I do think antisemitism is a major factor, but not the only one. It’s fixation on Jews that’s really at the core here. Even some supporters of Israel are motivated in part by the Bible and by their belief in Jews as part of God’s plan. And there are philosemitic non-Jews who focus on Jews and on Israel for a whole host of reasons. I wouldn’t call that antisemitism, but it does reflect a somewhat unhealthy obsession with Jews and Judaism. So fixation on Judaism is not simply antisemitism, but can actually be philosemitism as well. I would certainly rather have the latter than the former, but even that is a sword cutting more than one way.

I think it would be best for Jews if others would simply live their lives and leave us be. At the same time, I admit that Jews sometimes cultivate this fixation, and I’m certainly uncomfortable with that. There should be dialogue and conversation–not as an attempt to convert or to preach, but in order to learn and grow. I think it’s much better for Christians to become better Christians than to become Jews or something else, and I think it’s much better for Jews to become better Jews than to spend our time distinguishing ourselves from Christians and others.

As for one-sidedness, that’s a red herring. There are lot of one-sided conflicts in the world (some of which I already mentioned above) that do not get the same attention as Israel/Palestine. In Tibet, it’s mostly Tibetans getting killed, not Chinese. In Iran, no government officials get killed, only dissidents and disfavored minorities. In Central America, governments killed rebels and dissidents far more than the latter killed the former. In France, supporters of Israel are not attacking pro-Palestinian demonstrators, while Palestinians supporters are engaging in numerous attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions. Right now in Syria, ISIS seems to be inflicting most of the damage.

Actually, the death toll in Gaza is now over 700 Gazans and 32 Israeli soldiers, plus two civilians. Of course, that’s because Israelis try to protect their civilians, while the goal of Hamas is to have as many civilians as possible killed in order to promote their PR/media campaign. It’s amazing (though sadly not surprising) to me that the media mentions this only in passing or skeptically. Also, we have no way of knowing how many Gazan civilians vs. soldiers are being killed–Hamas is not exactly a trustworthy source for this kind of info.

In any case, the media would do well to spend more time looking more deeply at what’s going on and not simply reporting death numbers as if it’s a football game. From that perspective, however, Hamas is winning. For them the side with the most dead is the victor. So on the media scoreboard, Hamas is currently ahead of Israel, c. 1,058 vs. 53. That’s a lopsided victory for Hamas. I’m sure Hamas’ leaders are thrilled. The culture of death is winning in a landslide over the culture of life.

Perhaps, however, the distancing of other countries from Hamas that I have observed recently is a move in the right direction. That would certainly show some sophistication in not simply accepting Hamas’ explanations at face value. I hope the media will move in that direction as well.

 

PART 3: ON ISRAELI AND ARAB POSITIONS ON A PALESTINE STATE (INCLUDING THOMAS FRIEDMAN WHO WANTS ISRAEL TO FOCUS ON DEVELOPING THE WEST BANK AS A THRIVING DEMOCRACY)

I’m not a fan of Netanyahu and have never supported him or Likud. I’m not sure he’s as opposed to a Palestinian state as you think, but I’m not sure he believes in much of anything–except his own political survival. And I wrote on this blog that most Arab governments don’t want a Palestinian state either: see the same thing here-http://mysticscholar.org/whats-really-going-on-in-the…/

As far as the West Bank goes, Friedman is right in principle, but that’s no easy task either. Fatah is corrupt, inept, and non-democratic, and there is not much of a prospect for more salutary groups or institutions that could take the lead. The West Bank would need a massive shift in culture and outlook for what Friedman suggests to happen. And Arab governments, as well as Iran, have no interest in an autonomous, free, democratic Palestine. They will do everything possible to prevent that from happening. So that leaves essentially a mess for Israel to deal with. Netanyahu is not much of a leader, but I doubt that anyone or any Israeli party could deal with the current state of things. 

So what are the options? What should Israel do in light of all this? I have no idea. Neither does anyone else as far as I can make out. The best I can think of is play a waiting game and hope that the West Bank cleans up its act and that the Arab world develops some kind of democratic institutions (Tunisia??).

As far as handling Hamas, I don’t know what Israel should do. I’m not an Israeli, and I don’t live there. But I know I wouldn’t put up with rockets firing on my land and tunnels with terrorists pouring out. Perhaps there’s a better way to deal with Hamas, but I don’t know what it is, and I haven’t heard anything plausible. Demilitarizing Gaza would make sense, but that seems impossible, given Hamas and given the sentiments of Gazans. 

If you have something practical to suggest, I really would listen–really. But most of what I’ve heard out there is, quite frankly, naive, totally impractical, or simply wrong. I’m waiting–but sometimes, you just have to tread water for a while. 

Friedman can talk and talk, but his ideas are not really pragmatic or feasible; they just sound nice and thoughtful. He’s not really suggesting anything workable, just a lot of hopeful words.

In the meantime, I have to deal with the antisemitism that’s out there and that’s integrally related to the media’s depiction of Israel. France is a mess, and the attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions is reminiscent of Nazi-era events. And this is happening across Europe. The situation is ugly and screwed-up, and the media is making it worse by not explaining what’s going on.

It does bother me that Israel gets singled out for its deplorable conduct, while the other nations you mention get a pass. The BDS movement focuses on Israel, but shows no interest in advocating divestment in other countries with far worse human rights violations (in the Middle East, that would include Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, among others). This too is ugly and antisemitic, and the media does not address it at all. When you’re dealing with the detritus of the Holocaust that still remains with us and the burgeoning global antisemitism, this is very disturbing indeed.

 

Part 4: ON ISRAEL LEAVING THE WEST BANK AND THE CREATION OF A PALESTINIAN STATE THERE

The problem is: if Israelis pull out and declare a Palestinian state (so called Plan B, which many Israelis are discussing, by the way, including Netanyahu), then you are left with a disfunctional Palestinian government/society and major security issues right on Israel’s border. The West Bank Palestinian economy is not good, and no amount of help from Israel can fix a broken system. Israel has limited resources with its own enormous economic issues: a large population of young who do not have much upward mobility (just as is the case globally), an excessively high cost of living, a minority of ultra-orthodox who profit from the current welfare system without putting much back into it, an electoral system that promotes fragmentation (giving excess weight to small parties), and a military budget that will not diminish just because Israel leaves the West Bank.

Therefore, if Israel leaves the West Bank on its own or with an agreement, it will be faced with a restive, frustrated Palestinian population in the West Bank, a corrupt government that is anti-democratic and probably unable to improve the economy much at all, and the potential for a neighbor that will continue its war and terrorism against Israel as a way of casting blame away from itself. And you cannot forget that the Fatah government would have limited ability to govern, given that Hamas has considerable influence in the West Bank and that there are numerous other splinter groups in the West Bank committed to the destruction of Israel. There is no guarantee that Hamas, a fanatic group committed to the destruction of Israel and Jews worldwide, would not take over there. As we learned in Iraq, a democracy/free society does not emerge just because you wish it to be so. A lot has to be in place before that can happen. If it doesn’t, Israel will be in an even more precarious position.

Further, Arab/Muslim governments for the most part do not want an independent, free, democratic Palestinian state for a simple reason: they would be forced to face their own populations and explain themselves. Their opposition would create further difficulties for both Israel and Palestine and make the situation potentially even more volatile..

I do not support the continued building of new settlement outposts, and I’m not going to defend that. I think it’s wrong. But I don’t know what the way out is. There are many critics of Israel (including Israelis), but I have not heard much about how to solve this pragmatically other than hopeful words and pleasant thoughts. If anyone out there has read something or heard something that is practical and specific, I would be thrilled to read or hear it.

As to the media, I stand by what I’ve said. Israel/Gaza/West Bank is a tiny strip of land with a miniscule population. Even when there’s no major conflict, the media focus is enormous and disproportionate. That’s because it sells globally: in the U.S., in Europe, and in the Muslim world. It’s because it’s the land of the Bible. And it’s because Jews are involved.

PART 5: RESPONSE TO A COLLEAGUE ARGUING THAT THE CONCEPT OF THE “CHOSEN PEOPLE” AND OF “DIFFERENCE ARE WHAT DRIVE SOME OF THE ANIMOSITY TOWARD ISRAELIS AND JEWS

On the whole “chosen people” business, I rarely hear Jews, including most Israelis, talk about this. Most of the Israeli settlers are looking for suburban plots near Jerusalem and have no interest in theology. There are extreme settlers who talk about the Chosen People (Hebron, for example–and quite a number of them are American immigrants), but they are a small minority, and most Israelis (even religious ones) strongly dislike them.

It’s mostly Christians who talk about Jews as the Chosen People. I’ve led a lot of Jewish study groups, and that topic hardly ever comes us, except in response to Christians. Conservative/Evangelical Christians love the whole “Chosen People” trope and run with it non-stop. They have their own agenda, with end-time theology and mass conversion. Mainline and liberal Christians hate the whole idea of it and complain incessantly about Jewish superiority and tribalism.

Jewish sources talk about the Chosen People, but mostly not with pride. In Jewish tradition, God asked every other people to be the chosen ones, and they all refused. The Jews were the last, and they finally agreed to it–with a lot of complaints that have continued through the centuries. The concept of being “chosen” is not necessarily positive at all, but a burden that Jews are stuck with, forcing them to live difficult lives without much reward.

Even so, most Jews today don’t talk about it much, because it’s not an important part of daily life, of identity, or of practice. It’s mainly Christians (and now Muslims) who obsess over it.

Now, on the concept of “difference,” that’s a different matter. Lots of individuals and groups think of themselves as different. And, in fact, they are.

Teilhard de Chardin (who was a Catholic evolutionary biologist and theologian) had a concept known as the Omega Point, which he believed was the ultimate level of collective consciousness that human beings could attain in the distant future. He thought that collective consciousness depended not on homogeneity, but on hyper-individuality–each person’s authentic uniqueness.

We’re all different, and, yes, we’re all similar too, but Jews focus more on the “difference” part. They’re not the only group to do that. I don’t think that everyone should have to be the same. There should be a place (I hope) on the planet and in the human species for individuals and groups who focus more on difference.

 

ON THE DIFFICULTIES OF A TWO-STATE SOLUTION

The problem is: if Israelis pull out and declare a Palestinian state (so called Plan B, which many Israelis are discussing, by the way, including Netanyahu), then you are left with a disfunctional Palestinian government/society and major security issues right on Israel’s border. The West Bank Palestinian economy is not good, and no amount of help from Israel can fix a broken system. Israel has limited resources with its own enormous economic issues: a large population of young who do not have much upward mobility (just as is the case globally), an excessively high cost of living, a minority of ultra-orthodox who profit from the current welfare system without putting much back into it, an electoral system that promotes fragmentation (giving excess weight to small parties), and a military budget that will not diminish just because Israel leaves the West Bank.

Therefore, if Israel leaves the West Bank on its own or with an agreement, it will be faced with a restive, frustrated Palestinian population in the West Bank, a corrupt government that is anti-democratic and probably unable to improve the economy much at all, and the potential for a neighbor that will continue its war and terrorism against Israel as a way of casting blame away from itself. And you cannot forget that the Fatah government would have limited ability to govern, given that Hamas has considerable influence in the West Bank and that there are numerous other splinter groups in the West Bank committed to the destruction of Israel. There is no guarantee that Hamas, a fanatic group committed to the destruction of Israel and Jews worldwide, would not take over there. As we learned in Iraq, a democracy/free society does not emerge just because you wish it to be so. A lot has to be in place before that can happen. If it doesn’t, Israel will be in an even more precarious position.

Further, Arab/Muslim governments for the most part do not want an independent, free, democratic Palestinian state for a simple reason: they would be forced to face their own populations and explain themselves. Their opposition would create further difficulties for both Israel and Palestine and make the situation potentially even more volatile..

I do not support the continued building of new settlement outposts, and I’m not going to defend that. I think it’s wrong. But I don’t know what the way out is. There are many critics of Israel (including Israelis), but I have not heard much about how to solve this pragmatically other than hopeful words and pleasant thoughts. If anyone out there has read something or heard something that is practical and specific, I would be thrilled to read or hear it.

As to the media, I stand by what I’ve said. Israel/Gaza/West Bank is a tiny strip of land with a miniscule population. Even when there’s no major conflict, the media focus is enormous and disproportionate. That’s because it sells globally: in the U.S., in Europe, and in the Muslim world. It’s because it’s the land of the Bible. And it’s because Jews are involved.

 

ON PROSPECTS FOR A TWO-STATE SOLUTION

Actually, believe it or not, I think there will be peace some day. So I’m not pessimistic in the long term. I may be wrong, but, in my view, the Arab/Muslim world will have to move toward a more democratic system of governance before a two-state solution works. That’s going to take time. In spite of its shortcomings, the “Arab Spring” (which is not Spring in some places I realize) was a positive step. Tunisia will be interesting to watch.

Dialogue between Israelis and Palestinians will also help over time. This will not transform the region over night, but it is slowly affecting the situation and will continue to do so..

As for your idea, Ehud Barak offered something similar in 1999. Arafat and the PLO rejected it. It may not have been the right time, and Barak was a terrible negotiator.

Israel did not “seize” Gaza and the West Bank. Israel entered them in 1967 after facing a massive Arab attack. When the Arab world decides to accept a Jewish state in the Middle East (which governments are beginning to), then it will be easier to deal with the logistics of this problem.

On the Arab right of return, this is obviously a thorny issue and will involve compensation. The Palestinians are the only group in the world given “refugee” status after multiple generations of absence from a territory. When the Arab countries expelled Jews after 1948, Israel accepted them as full citizens of the state of Israel. On the other hand, Arab governments forced Palestinians to live in refugee camps and did not integrate them into Arab societies.

Israel will have to deal with this issue financially, but it’s not as one-sided as your words imply. There are two stories here, each having legitimacy: two peoples with two painful histories and competing narratives and claims to the land.

As for Hamas, I’m glad you’re confident in Gaza tossing them out under the right conditions. I’m not. And I don’t think Israelis can assume anything. All I have to do is look at other parts of the Middle East to draw another conclusion.

Nevertheless, at some point, the day will come when a two-state solution can be put into action. I just don’t think that day has arrived yet. Let’s hope it comes soon.

RESPONSE TO A COLLEAGUE WHO ARGUES THAT ISRAEL IS NOT A DEMOCRACY, COMPARING IT TO ALABAMA 100 YEARS AGO

KantGazaExchange1

 Copyright secured by Digiprove © 2014 Laurence Kant

Review of Robert Nicholson, “Evangelicals and Israel”

The author is intelligent, knowledgeable, and thoughtful–but also generally wrong: http://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2013/10/evangelicals-and-israel/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=share-via-email

I won’t go into great detail, but here are just a few points:

1) Eschatology is a BIG deal for evangelicals. In my many years of encounters, conversations, bull-sessions, and scholarly exchange with evangelical Christians, I cannot remember many times of serious interchange when the subject of eschatology did not come up. Nicholson is right that evangelicals do not agree on the details, but wrong when he downplays the importance of eschatology. In fact, I would go so far as to say that evangelicals are obsessed with both end times (all it takes is a cursory google search to see this), and that’s why evangelicals don’t always agree. In any case, in almost every scenario, Jews do not fare well. The “voluntary” conversion that Nicholson identifies is also generally accompanied (no matter which scenario) by the mass death and slaughter of the vast majority of the Jewish population. In fact, those Christian end time images of genocide (which one also finds in some Catholic depictions) have inspired antisemites for centuries, including the Nazis.

While eschatology may say nothing about the actual future, it does say something about the ways in which some Christians view Jews–and it’s not good. It says that Jews are not worthy of life in the same way that believing Christians are worthy of life. It implies, in essence, that Jews are somewhat less than human. To be fair, the view of Jews as sub-human (which the Nazis glorified) also applies to members of other faiths and to agnostics and atheists,* but Christians have had a special relationship to, and history with, Jews. For that reason, the symbolism and language of eschatological discourse and the implied status of Jews as sub-human means that Christian-Jewish relations are fraught with particular dangers and risks.

The relentless drive to convert Jews to Christianity, which characterizes most evangelicals, also presumes that Jewish practice and belief without Jesus Christ are insufficient for full human status.

2) Christian evangelical anti-Zionism is not simply a left-wing phenomenon. The author does not discuss the conservative Christians who hold disturbing views on Jews and Judaism and oppose the state of Israel. This is nothing new and has existed for a long time.

3) Since the topic of Christian Zionism, particularly CUFI (Christians United for Israel and John Hagee), has come up in many Jewish communities, I have warned that the worm will turn. There may be a substantial number of Christian Zionists today, but many of their ancestral co-religionists persecuted Jews and opposed the state of Israel. A movement which owes much of its theology to Martin Luther and other antisemites cannot just shed its inheritance in a decade or two without a serious discussion and eventual confession. And I have not seen that take place–not even remotely. Until I do and until enough time passes afterwards, I do not think that Jews should place much faith in alliances with Christian Zionists.

What’s more likely to happen is that Christian Zionists will eventually perceive Jews as intransigent and difficult because Jews are not willing to convert. Then, when their frustration reaches a tipping point, these same Christian Zionists will turn on Jews. That’s what I think is happening now. It’s not a question of “liberal” (whatever that means) evangelicals, but rather the inevitable reemergence of hatred and prejudice that has always sat lurking just beneath the surface.

This does not mean that I am opposed to conversations (which I still relish) or even to occasional alliances on very specific issues of mutual interest. I remain deeply committed to Jewish-Christian dialog, especially to the interfaith study of biblical texts, the history of Jewish-Christian relations, and theological reflection. However,it does mean that we Jews need to be clear-headed and honest about our interlocutors. The naivete, or perhaps willful ignorance, of many in the Jewish community (especially the organized Jewish community) is an even greater danger than the antisemitism of many Christians. If we Jews were more self-aware and sober in our understanding of the evangelical point of view, I would feel a lot more comfortable about Jewish-Christian relations on Israel.

And, by the way, I would have much to say that is critical of the mainline Christian community as well (especially their siding with Palestinians and their reflexive criticism of all Israeli policy), but they do not currently seem to present the same set of problems for leaders in the organized Jewish community that Christian evangelicals do. In addition, we Jews will have to confront our own prejudices and assumptions about all Christians, including evangelicals.

This article by Robert Nicholson has the potential to further cloud the minds of many in the Jewish community and lead them astray in a time of anxiety. In my view, especially when it comes to Israel, we Jews are on our own, and the sooner we realize it, the better off we’ll be. Hope, if I dare pronounce that word, comes from a survival instinct that has guided our community for over three thousand years and from the realization that resilience is part of our spiritual makeup.

How We Should Respond to a Pro-Nazi Teaching Assignment

This teaching assignment that compelled students to take a pro-Nazi position against Jews was obviously a bad mistake, but it is one in which we all of us (especially those in the Jewish community) need to demonstrate compassion and forgiveness to the teacher. Justification of hatred is not something that is legitimate in a class teaching students how to think, especially in a classroom of teenagers. Yes, we can justify any horrible action or idea through reasoned argument, but humanism and our ethical principles have to intervene at some point. At the same time, the teacher was probably not intending to promote antisemitism and hatred, but rather the opposite. Further, all the time we permit actors in theater and film to portray Nazis (think Ralph Finnes as Amon Goeth in Schindler’s List or Bruno Ganz as Adolf Hitler in Downfall [Der Untergang]), and we want them to do so in a convincing fashion. In fact, we applaud them for it and give them awards. This is not an easy topic, and it’s one where all of us can go astray. Let this event not be an opportunity for recrimination and shouting, but a teaching moment.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/13/nyregion/albany-teacher-gives-pro-nazi-writing-assignment.html?_r=0

Courage to Resist

This is the story of those who plotted to assassinate Hitler. But it’s also the story of anyone who resists authority and conventional wisdom, of anyone who is a boat rocker. When you challenge what’s wrong, always be prepared to stand alone. In an ultimate sense you are not alone, but in the normal world you are. It’s a great lesson, though a very hard one:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/the_courage_to_resist_20130224/

 

This is a wonderful article by Chris Hedges, but I would also like to see attention drawn to Henning von Tresckow, who was the prime mover of the plot to assassinate Hitler (Operation Valkyrie) and a staunch opponent of antisemitism: http://mysticscholar.org/last-words-of-a-hero-general-hermann-henning-von-tresckow/

Neo-Nazi Shot by Son

A strange story in a strange world of hate:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/us/11nazi.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/13/us/13hall.html

The Moral Ambiguity of Spanish Jewish Heritage

Is the Spanish government’s  emphasis on Jewish tourism a legitimate enterprise? http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/04/04/3086707/spain-building-monuments-to-its-jewish-past-critics-question-motives

The Fall of Glenn Beck: Wacko Conspiracies and Antisemitism

This describes the demise of one of the more bizarre figures in American culture: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2011/04/06/AFNEgnqC_story.html

The Auschwitz Album

These images are particularly powerful because they show the victims at Auschwitz as real human beings rather than near-corpses (“muselmann”) or piles of actual corpses.

The Only Surviving Album of Auschwitz: http://www1.yadvashem.org/exhibitions/album_Auschwitz/mutimedia/index.HTML

 

The Rise of Far-Right Terrorism

Many are focused on terrorism from the Middle East, but there is also a large trend in the US toward far-right terrorism, especially associated with the Sovereign Citizens movement:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/24/far-right-terrorism

For further discussion of these movements, see the following:
http://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do/hate-and-extremism/law-enforcement (with lots of links) and
http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/scm.asp?xpicked=4

John Galliano and Antisemitism

Chief designer for Christian Dior, John Galliano, is fired for antisemitic remarks:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/fashion/02dior.html?_r=2&hp=&pagewanted=all

Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Yusuf al-Qaradawi

Relations between the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas are close, as this article indicates.  And now Hamas has invited one of the charismatic leaders of the Brotherhood to Gaza, Yusuf al-Qaradawi.  Egyptian Qaradawi has frequently called for jihad against Israel and Jews, the destruction of Israel, and has said that he himself looks forward to coming to Israel to personally shoot Jews.

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e137.htm

For more on Qaradawi and his hatred of Jews, see the following:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/02/sheikh-qaradawi-seeks-total-war/71626/

http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=35&x_article=2000 (this discusses not only Qaradawi’s anti-semitism, his love for Hitler and his hopes for another even more successful Jewish holocaust, but also his support for female genital mutilation and wife beating, suicide killers, the fatwa ordering the murder of Salman Rushdie, the execution of apostates, and laws treating religious minorities differently.  The author emphasizes the whitewashing of Muslim Brotherhood hatred and violence in the New York Times.

Tunisia: Islamists Demonstrate Against Jews

This is the other side of Middle Eastern protests and freedom movements:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQHdxYDTH_Y
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4030359,00.html

British Trade Union Movement, Israel, and Boycotts

The British Trade Union Movement has been co-opted by anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian activists, committed to ending the existence of Israel as a Jewish state.

http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=3&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=624&PID=0&IID=6082&TTL=The_British_Trade_Union_Movement,_Israel,_and_Boycotts

Israel Transit Ads War on US Buses

This reflects increasing polarization in our country and more aggressive anti-Israel campaigning.

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/02/08/2742900/battle-over-mideast-transit-ads-heating-up-across-the-country

Benny Morris on Crossing Mandelbaum’s Gate

This provides an excellent review of history over the past century and provides an analysis of anti-Israel revisionist history.

http://www.tnr.com/print/book/review/kai-bird-mandelbaums-gate

“Palestine, an Obsession of Radical West, Not Arabs”

This essay is impressive.  Brendan O’Neil absolutely nails it.  This is all about victims and who is the biggest victim.

Back when Israelis looked like victims in the fifties and sixties, the same lefties loved Israelis and Jews (by the way, I’m no conservative either).  Israelis and Jews were good victims then too.  Until Israel won wars in 1967 and 1973, the Israelis and Jews (because of the Holocaust experience) were the favored victims.  Many Jews were glad to have their support, but now I realize what that support actually meant.  Jews are fine for these protesters as long as they remain victims:  holocaust survivors, victims of anti-semitism, and poor Israelis facing massive odds against far more populous Arabs.  However, God forbid that they should defend themselves and emerge victorious.  Like the Palestinians, Jews were a tribe that middle-class empathizers could “coo” over.  We’re still a tribe.  Only we’ve made the mistake of forming a prosperous, democratic county and protecting ourselves.

There’s no question that Israel has done things that are problematic, especially the settlement policy.  Israelis have also fallen into the trap of responding to every Palestinian provocation with force.  There’s racism against Arabs that is prevalent in Israel.

Still this is a democratic society (the only full-fledged democracy in the Middle East) that is under siege from surrounding countries who want to annihilate it and to remove all Jews from the Middle East.  Israel’s own Arab citizens have more economic opportunity, mobility, and freedom than the vast majority of other Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East. It is a diverse society that has women serving in the military, gay pride parades, as well as Arab and Ethiopian Jews.

In the end, whether you are Israeli/Jewish or Palestinian, most in the West look at you as a symbol, a trope.  Not many really give a hoot about you, except in so far as you conform to some preconceptions that elicit feelings of tenderness or revulsion.  It’s not just liberals, but conservatives, as well, especially some fundamentalist Christians.  The latter see Palestinians as Muslim allies of the Anti-Christ ready to destroy Christianity, while Jews are ancient witnesses to Christ whose presence in the “Holy Land” will help usher in the Second Coming.  Of course, in this scenario, the returned Christ will pretty much kill all of us, Muslim and Jew alike, unless we convert.

It would be nice if people could look at us, both Jews and our Palestinian cousins, as fellow human beings.  Perhaps that’s too much to ask.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/palestine-an-obsession-of-radical-west-not-arabs/comments-e6frg6zo-1226006572220

Glenn Beck and Antisemitism

Many have spoken on the rise of antisemitism on the left in recent years, but antisemitism is alive and well on the right as well, even among those who ostensibly support Israel.

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20110131/OPINION04/301310047/1002/rss07/Dana-Milbank-Glenn-Beck-s-brutal-hateful-routine

This is article is now archived. See instead the op-ed by Dana Milbank for the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2011/04/06/AFNEgnqC_story.html

Nick Popaditch, Violent Rhetoric, and Antisemitism

Antisemitism is on the rise.  That’s not a surprise in hard times, but it gets a little disturbing when an election night loser (Republican Nick Popaditch, known as Gunny Pop on Facebook) takes a mob of his supporters and corners the winner (Democrat Bob Filner) at his victory celebration on November 2 (2010).  Using physical intimidation and lots of nasty language, including shouting “Jew” at Filner and his wife, the bullies get their chance to intimidate someone who is “liberal” (whatever that means) and Jewish.  Wonder if that bears any resemblance to the . . . 1930’s.

In any case, this is just one of many examples of violent rhetoric run amok.  We all need to take a hard line against over-the-top language and posturing, whether on the left or the right.  People have a right to speak wherever and however they want, but we have a right to ask them to stop when they step over the line, not to listen to them when they continue, and to prevent physical intimidation.  Otherwise, we enter a gateway into tyranny and authoritarianism.

http://lastblogonearth.com/2010/11/03/nick-popaditchs-last-stand/ (particularly the second video at the bottom of the page)

http://eastcountymagazine.org/node/4690

http://gawker.com/5733427/angry-man-screaming-jew-at-congressman-is-not-a-great-face-for-tea-party?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+gawker/full+(Gawker)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOeRGjkC42g&feature=player_embedded

Antisemitism on Rise in West

See Laurence H. Kant, “Anti-Semitism on Rise in West,” op-ed, Lexington Herald Leader, January 8, 2007:  Antisemitism1

Neturei Karta

This is from an email I wrote to a friend about some photos depicting clearly ultra-orthodox Jews happily meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, the President of Iran.

—————————————————————

Photos like these are actually pretty well known. Most ultra-Orthodox or Haredi (whether Hasidic, followers of the Lithuanian Yeshivah tradition, or Sephardic) have always opposed Zionism and the secular Jewish state, but they do not support harm coming to Jews.  Many of these have by now compromised (such as Agudat Israel and Shas and Hasidic groups such as Lubavitch), working with the Israeli state even though they oppose it in principle.  Among the Haredi, however, there is a particularly fanatic, right-wing group who goes beyond their opposition to the state of Israel by advocating for Israel’s destruction and who support violence against Israelis and against Jews who actively support the state of Israel.  They actually virulently oppose other Haredi who work with the Israeli state, back Ahmadenijad, give credence to Ahmadenijad’s holocaust denial (in part because they believe that many of the Jews murdered in the holocaust were not “real” Jews), and embrace Ahmadenijad’s threats of violence against Israel.  The group is called Neturei Karta (“Guardians of the City”), whose members live in various places around the world, most notably in  Meah Shearim in Jerusalem. Ahmadenijad has been photographed with them before.  See the following links:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/15/nyregion/15rabbi.html?fta=y
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neturei_Karta

Neturei Karta is radically isolated and cultish, the most extreme of the extreme.  In short, they’re crazy.

P.S. There is an Israeli film called “Kadosh,” which gives a glimpse at the lives of ultra-Orthodox groups like Neturei Karta in Meah Shearim.

Oskar Schindler Museum

http://jta.org/news/article/2010/06/09/2739531/exhibit-at-schindler-factory-site-recalls-nazi-era-krakow
Krakow (Poland) opens Oskar Schindler Museum at site of his factory.

Martin Heidegger and the Jewish Question

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/books/review/Kirsch-t.html

Two very different approaches to Heidegger’s association with the Nazis. Heidegger is one of the most well-known philosophers of the the 20th century (very influential on post-modern thought) and a leading existentialist thinker

Horned Moses

The reason Moses has horns here and in other art works is because Exodus 34:29-35 describes Moses’ face as “qaran,” which is normally translated as “radiant” or “shining.” The Septuagint (Greek Bible) translates it this way. But Hebrew “qaran” also looks and sounds like “qeren,” which means “horn.” The Latin Vulgate version (4th cent. CE) of the Bible translates the description of Moses’ face as “horned” (cornuta). Because of the influence of the Latin Vulgate in European Christianity, the “horned” Moses became the predominant image of Moses in Europe.

I don’t believe that there was anything originally antisemitic in this interpretation, because there are scholars (including Jewish ones) who recognize the possibility of “QRN” as having something to do with “horns.” I’m not even sure that “horned” is a complete mistranslation. Later the reference to horns became part of a stereotypical antisemitic myth, when the horned Moses morphed into the horned Jew. There may still be some in rural areas in the US who believe that Jews have horns. I once jokingly told someone that the reason Jews don’t show their horns is because they’re retractable. We press a button to make them come out.

« Previous Entries