To be honest with you, I try to ignore people on Twitter who don't have a lot of followers. Normally, it's not worth the time or the exposure I give them to respond to them. But this one has gone too far.
I'd like to introduce you to one @JamesMArcher. Here's his bio - a panoply of causes of the extreme Left, with the Democratic party being too far to the right for him.
He seems to use this picture fairly regularly - it's not the only time it's in his timeline.
There's just one small problem. Like so many other symbols of the Left, the picture is a fake.
The Israeli boy in the yarmulke is Zvi Shapiro, the son of two
secular American-Israelis. The Palestinian boy is Zemer Aloni, an
Israeli Jew. The only real aspect of the photo is that the boys were
indeed friends and that the picture was taken in their Jerusalem
neighborhood of Abu Tor,
which straddles the 1949 armistice line and contains both a Jewish and
an Arab section. The boys grew up on the Jewish side of the
neighborhood, and while they both recall interactions with Palestinians,
neither counted close friends on the other side of the line.
The picture was taken by Ricki Rosen,
an American photojournalist who has been covering the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict for 26 years. Rosen snapped the photo on
assignment for Maclean’s, the national news magazine of Canada, for a
cover story about the Oslo Peace Accords. Rosen said that the magazine’s
art director was so specific in what he wanted that he even drew her a
picture — one boy in a yarmulke, the other in a keffiyeh shot from the
back walking down a long road, which was supposed to symbolize the road
to peace. He didn’t care whether the boys were actually Israelis or
Palestinians, nor did it occur to him that the Palestinian’s keffiyeh
would be styled in a way more typical for elderly Palestinian men than
for young boys.
“It was a symbolic illustration,” said Rosen. “It was
never supposed to be a documentary photo.” She also took other
real-life photos for the same article.
Thursday, the rabbi tries to defend himself (and fails miserably)
Greetings from Paris Charles De Gaulle where once again it is a travel day.
It was a crazy weekend, so I didn't get to post this, but on Thursday someone shared with me a long email received from Rabbi Neil Blumofe of Austin, Texas, trying to defend the itinerary for his 'even-handed' Israel trip that included a visit to the tomb of the father of terrorism.
The email is way too long to post in its entirety, but I want to post part of it and comment. The full email is embedded below.
In our tradition, we have intractable enemies. While we blot out Haman's
name on Purim, we do so as we articulate it. We must find allies and
must not retreat into absolute positions. To be present somewhere is not
to pay homage -- rather it is to say we are still here, reclaiming the
memories of those who Arafat and his followers murdered, and educating
others about the continuing dangers of his legacy. This tomb is a
propaganda tool that is used to shore up mindless support for our
dehumanization. In turn, not to discuss this stymies dialogue, which
leads to our peril. Let us not fall into this trap. To think otherwise
empowers our real enemies and continues to drive us apart, intensifying
our systemic, historical traumas.
Yes, the tomb is a propaganda tool, so why would you visit it? If you want to visit a place to prove the point that 'we are still here,' visit Auschwitz. Remind your congregants what happened when Jews had no place to flee, when there was no State of Israel, and when the British - in competition with France for the second biggest anti-Semites in Europe after the Germans - barred the doors to keep Arafat's uncle (the Mufti al-Husseini) happy. That's saying 'we're still here' - not visiting the tomb of a terrorist that you admit is a propaganda tool.
What dialogue is the rabbi afraid of 'stymieing' if he does not go to Arafat's tomb? Dialogue with the 'Palestinians'? Has the rabbi elected himself Prime Minister of Israel? Why is it that no Israeli government minister and no non-Arab Knesset member would dream of visiting Arafat's tomb except in an IDF tank? Maybe it's because nearly all Israelis - even the Left - understand that paying homage to Arafat, even if it would be 'identifying with the other,' would do precisely nothing to advance the 'peace process'?
Day after day, I speak to people who are concerned about the slackening
of support, and the growing difficulty of advocacy for Israel in our
charged, polarized political climate. We see the dangerous way that the
repugnant BDS movement (Boycott, Divest, and Sanction) movement has made
incursions on our college campuses and I applaud and support those on
these front lines, directly beating back these efforts that seek to
delegitimize Israel and dehumanize our Israeli brothers and sisters.
I'm glad to hear that. But if that's the case, why do you feel the need to cooperate with many of the groups that fund the BDS movement?
I believe that we must do something too. We must learn the language of
those with whom we disagree -- especially those with whom we most
profoundly disagree. We must see the narratives, symbols, and myths --
and question them. We must develop a more sophisticated, critical
understanding of the world around us, as opposed to reducing our
justified fears to an "us versus them" mentality. We must learn to think
for ourselves and not accept whatever we may read that encourages
embitterment and distance. We must learn to have more informed, examined
opinions and hear competing voices so we may be more fully confident
and present in our own story.
The problem is that the average Jew in America - and even many in Israel - have no idea what 'our own story' is. The very suggestion that the 'Palestinians' have an ancient connection to the land of Israel, or that their connection is anywhere near as longstanding as ours, is simply farcical. You've read Tanach. Do you believe it? Where were the 'Palestinians' during the time of the Tanach? Do you think it's acceptable for them to pretend that the Temples just didn't exist? You know they did. Are we obligated to listen to every narrative regardless of how ridiculous it is? Are we required to accord credibility to every narrative?
By the way, have you ever read Joan Peters' From Time Immemorial?
I am sorry that a proposed stop in an internal draft document has caused
such furor. While it was a point of conversation within a larger
itinerary, I certainly do not seek public controversy and upon
reflection, I see it as a misstep in what I was seeking to accomplish.
What I think the rabbi might have missed is that the stop was just one point - the most outrageous one and the easiest one around which to rally opposition - in a very problematic itinerary.
Here's the full email:
Tuesday the rabbi's congregants conducted a witch hunt?
Yehuda Kurtzer, director of the Shalom Hartman Institute in the United States, published a lengthy and whiny piece in the Times of Israel complaining about the 'witch hunts' that are allegedly being conducted against 'my friend and colleague Rabbi Neil Blumofe — a great rabbi, leader, and
lover of Zion — was brutally smeared and defamed due to a perfidious
interpretation of how he built the itinerary for a congregational trip
to Israel.' That's a story I covered here.
For those who have forgotten, Blumofe canceled the itinerary, and promised that a new one would be issued that would not include a stop at Arafat's grave. Kurtzer brushes over that:
Rabbi Blumofe has expressed his regret for the decision to have his
synagogue stop at Arafat’s grave, as well as for the circulating widely
of a complicated itinerary that — taken out of context — was
misrepresented as the manifestation of an insidious agenda. One could
well imagine an aggrieved congregant who trusted Rabbi Blumofe’s
character taking issue with some of the trip’s content, express the
grievance, and then bring about a positive change. Once the grievance is
translated into the public sphere, however, even the capacity to bring
about change on the issue begins to decline.
The problem is that while the congregant who publicly took issue with Blumofe chose to focus on the Arafat stop - the most outrageous item - there was plenty more on the itinerary that a true 'lover of Zion' would find objectionable. Look at the itinerary above, and tell me that it doesn't reek of a political agenda that doesn't reflect 'love of Zion.' Look at the 'extra' descriptions in the entries for June 8 and June 13. Note the lack of politics in the June 14 and 15 descriptions. Which sounds more like 'If it's Tuesday, this must be Belgium'?
This evening, I received by email the following reply to the Kurtzer article from Sloan Rachmuth, one of the people who demolished an attempt by a rabbi in Raleigh, North Carolina to visit Arafat's tomb (covered originally here):
Rabbi K - why the rabbinical panicked hysteria in the face of communal opposition? Here you decry public objections to percieved rabbinical toʿevahs as "witch hunts." But in a marketplace of ideas this is called "opposition."
Opposition to these two rabbis occurred when they took a stand by publicly advertising (for money) a trip they had each planned, which included meeting with pro-Hammas groups topped off with a tribute to Arafat's grave to "understand his legacy." Our opposition to the actions of these two rabbis is not a withchunt, but a marketplace reaction best described by Newton's Law: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
And this reaction did not happen overnight. Members in both the Norh carolina and Texas communities wrote letters and had persoanl meetings with these rabbis months before the media learned of these two controveries. We sought to understand why these rabbis would lead delegations from our states that clearly endorsed a pro-terror, anti-Israel message. The rabbis igored us, they refused to answer our questions on more than a dozen occasions.
Rabbi Solomon in Raleigh has now gone on the attack against us, publicly shaming us as haters and "right-wing extremists" and demands we shut up and stop asking questions about the trip. Rabbi Solomon recently implored the community in his shul to do whatever it takes to silence his opposition (us).
Was Rabbi Solomon's reaction here in Raleigh also a with hunt? Or opposition?
To great credit of Rabbis Solomon and Blumofe, they raise their voices in opposition to issues of civil righs violations here in the south. They both understand that they have a resposibility to raise their moral voices to the markeplace of ideas regarding racial justice and equality. These rabbis know that taking a stand has its rewards and, sometimes, opposition.
By taking the premeditated action to plan, promote, and now defend a trip with a pro-terror narrative while Israel and the world is seeing extremist terror first-hand; these two rabbis are experiencing opposition. Not a witch hunt.
In case you were wondering about Yehuda Kurtzer's pedigree... I asked. He is the son of former US Ambassador to Israel Dan Kurtzer, who was twice called a Yehudon ('little Jew') a decade ago, and who had a lengthy history of interfering in Israel's internal affairs during his term here (same link).
The rabbi of Beth Meyer Synagogue in Raleigh, North Carolina announced on Friday that the trip to Arafat's tomb is off.
On Friday, August 19, 2016, 10:15 AM, Beth Meyer Synagogue wrote:
August 19, 2016
Shalom Beth Meyer Family,
I write to you with a very heavy heart.
The past few weeks have been
extraordinarily painful for me, Rabbi Jenny, our congregation's leaders,
and many in the Beth Meyer family and extended Jewish community. This
letter - which admittedly is quite lengthy - is designed
to provide a detailed explanation of how this situation came about and
how I have chosen to resolve it.
During my time at Beth Meyer, I have led
four "pilgrimage" trips to Israel that visited many of the historic and
spiritually-rich sites that lift the soul and build one's love for and
connection to the State of Israel. These tours
included stops at sites that illustrate the threats and precarious
security issues Israel faces on a daily basis. I will continue to offer
such tours in the future.
A few months ago, I invited Beth Meyer
members to participate in a trip to Israel and the West Bank under the
auspices of MEJDI Tours, a company that provides customized educational
tours in regions worldwide suffering from conflict.
In this case, the tour was to be a "dual-narrative" tour with both
Israeli and Palestinian tour guides that would visit Israel and the West
Bank.
This process began some two years ago
when I first heard of MEJDI Tours and began to look into the
organization. I learned that MEJDI, in the past, has partnered with the
Israeli Ministry of Tourism, the Israeli Foreign Ministry,
Israeli educational institutions and numerous American synagogues. In
addition, MEJDI has been featured in a range of respected media outlets,
including Haaretz, Forbes and National Geographic Explorer.
After thoroughly researching MEJDI's
credentials with rabbis and Jewish leaders across the U.S. and Israel, I
was comfortable that MEJDI was, in fact, a non-partisan tour operator
that offers individuals unique immersive experiences
to learn about complex issues first-hand. MEJDI does not preach or
support any specific agenda or form of hate, violence or terror. Rather,
it is an apolitical organization that believes increased education and
understanding can help build bridges across cultures
and stimulate peace.
While studying in Israel in the summer
of 2015, I took the opportunity to tour the West Bank in a group that
had with it a Palestinian MEJDI guide. It was, to say the least, a
profound (and often surprising) experience that allowed
me to hear perspectives few of us ever hear. For example, the guide was
highly critical of the Palestinian Authority and its leaders, both past
and present. He condemned violence by Palestinians and emphasized that
he "despises Hamas." When I asked challenging
questions, his responses recognized weaknesses in Palestinian
positions. Moreover, he mocked the backwardness of the Arab world, as
well as its lack of support for human rights and democracy. And, while
he did criticize a number of Israeli government policies,
his words were balanced, thoughtful and nuanced.
After reviewing this idea with Beth
Meyer's leaders and securing their approval, I invited the Beth Meyer
family to participate in a MEJDI tour next spring. I wholeheartedly
believed I was helping to provide a rare opportunity
for seasoned Israel travelers to learn about the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict in a broader, deeper way. With expert guides who would be both
supportive and critical of their own government's policies, I hoped
participants would gain new insights and hear from
peace-makers working on the ground to make a difference. I thought,
perhaps naively, that this MEJDI tour would offer a different kind of
experience for Zionist, Israel-loving Jews who want to explore the many
intricacies of this terrible conflict.
For some in the congregation, there was
immediate interest in participating and many quickly submitted their
deposits. For others, there was no interest at all. Some congregants
asked thoughtful questions, and others criticized
my attempt to organize such a trip due to their belief that the
itinerary was unbalanced. And there were some who expressed serious
concerns about the potential damage the tour could cause the Beth Meyer
community and the image of the State of Israel.
While my intentions were pure, my heart
broke as I listened to the pain my actions had caused some congregants. I
listened carefully to this feedback and discussed what I heard with
Rabbi Jenny and synagogue leaders.
After deep reflection and
soul-searching, I have decided to cancel the trip. To anyone who feels
confused, hurt or upset on account of my actions, I sincerely apologize
and ask your forgiveness.
Please know my decision was not made
because I don't believe in the tour's value - I do. Nor was it made
because a handful of individuals outside of our holy congregation - none
of whom have ever talked or met with me - spread
inaccurate and misleading information about Rabbi Jenny and me that
spawned threats of personal violence. In this season of Tisha B'Av when
we remember the many tragedies of our people, personally experiencing
this kind of sinat hinam (baseless hatred) was
especially painful.
Rather, I made this decision because I
deeply love Beth Meyer and what we, as a family, have built these past
11+ years. And I want to emphasize that my love embraces each and every
one of you, regardless of where you land on the
spiritual, social or political spectra. I am touched that so many
congregants pleaded with me to move forward as planned, but I cannot -
and will not - do anything that jeopardizes the integrity of the Beth
Meyer family.
I want to thank everyone who has shared
their thoughts with me about this issue. Most particularly, I want to
acknowledge the input and guidance I received from our President Eric
Lamb, the Beth Meyer Synagogue Executive Board,
lay leaders and, of course, my wife and partner, Jenny.
Just as the Torah teaches that God
created the world with immense variety, so too my vision of our
congregation is one where we accept and celebrate both the common bonds
and differences among us. Civil discussion, respectful debate
and honoring diverse opinions are Jewish values that our people have
embraced for millennia. They are the values that form the foundation of
my rabbinate, and they are the values that make Beth Meyer such a
welcoming community.
When appropriate and rooted in Jewish
values, I will continue to take public positions on issues where I
believe my contribution can be constructive. I want to stress, however,
that I do not and never will expect to have consensus
across our membership on any issue, least of all, the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict. (In fact, if all I heard was a unanimous
"Amen," I would think something was wrong. It wouldn't be Jewish, and it
wouldn't be the Beth Meyer that I cherish!)
At some point in the future, perhaps,
our congregation may again consider an educational initiative such as a
MEJDI tour. But that would happen only after there has been ample
opportunity for all interested members to learn about
the opportunity and discuss it thoroughly with input from a broad
cross-section of our members.
In that spirit, I invite anyone who has
questions about this situation or would like to share any other
concerns to contact me via e-mail (rabbi@bethmeyer.org ) or phone (919.848.1420).
I will be delighted to sit down and hear your thoughts and ideas.
This episode, though challenging, has
been a valuable learning experience for all of us. I pray that we use it
to deepen the bonds we share and inspire us to continue nurturing the
Beth Meyer family and strengthening our commitment
to and love of God, the Torah, the Jewish people, the State of Israel
and one another.
At this moment, perhaps more than ever, I
thank God and each of you for the privilege of serving as Beth Meyer's
rabbi. Rabbi Jenny and I, along with our entire family, look forward to
welcoming the New Year with our holy, hamish (warm)
congregation at the High Holy Days.
B'ahavah (With love),
Rabbi Eric Solomon
Something tells me there may still be a trip in the future....
The problem with trying to 'understand the other' is that it only works if it's a two-way street. In Israel, much of our population spent 1993-2000 trying to 'understand the other.' Unfortunately, it was never a two-way street (and we suffered plenty of terror attacks during that period) and it ended in a full-blown intifadeh that left hundreds of Israelis dead, wounded, widowed and orphaned.
The 'conflict' is insoluble because only one side is interested in a solution. Most Israelis now have had enough pain inflicted on them that they get that. I hope the rest of world Jewry comes around without suffering all the pain that we suffered.
Wednesday the Rabbi threw in the towel - visit to Arafat's tomb is off the itinerary
Greetings from Boston.
Earlier today, the following email from Rabbi Blumofe in Austin, Texas (the subject of yesterday's post) was forwarded to me:
> Dear Friends,
>
> Thank you for being in touch with me personally regarding the
unfortunate insinuation, opprobrium and personal defamation that has
surfaced based on the inaccurate and reckless premeditated judgments
from a member in our community about the draft of an itinerary
to Israel in June, 2017. The refusal to have communicated directly
with me has added hate and peril into this world.
>
> I very much appreciate your requests to help.
>
> Here's where things stand -- if you can communicate this
information to expanding circles and to folks who have reached out to
you, or whom you know would be interested to have a fuller/current
briefing, this would help to bring accuracy to a volatile and
distressing situation.
>
> 1. The draft of the itinerary that has gone public is no longer accurate. That itinerary was cancelled.
>
> 2. There will be a trip to Israel in June, 2017 that will be
planned with a different itinerary in the coming weeks, with the input
of the leadership of Agudas Achim. I believe that the goals of
exploring Israel as it wrestles with its status as a democracy
and Jewish state can be achieved in alternative, affirming ways -- and
rest assured, the new itinerary will not stop at the grave of Arafat.
>
> Please do not hesitate to be in touch as we continue to strive to
build engagement, literacy, and positive excitement for Israel within
our community -- and as we look to keep each other safe and well.
>
> Am Yisrael Chai.
>
> Neil Blumofe
> Rabbi. > ___________________ > Neil F. Blumofe, Rabbi
> > Congregation Agudas Achim > P.O. Box 28400 > Austin, Texas USA 78755-8400
The emphasis added was mine - not in the original.
Raleigh, North Carolina is not the only place where a rabbi thinks that Judaism requires him to go worship at the tomb of the father of terrorism. I'd like to introduce you to Rabbi Neil Blumofe of Congregation Agudas Achim (it's Conservative - contrary to what some of my Orthodox friends might conclude from the name) in Austin, Texas.
Below is a letter written by Richard Brook, a congregant of Rabbi Blumofe, who vehemently objects to Blumofe's idol worship.
Yes, the visit to Arafat's tomb is on Day 11. But it's only the start of the problems with this tour. This is how people are being educated to Judaism?
As it happens, I was in Austin two years ago on business, as some of you might recall. Congregation Agudas Achim is located in a huge gated complex that was donated by Michael Dell, the chairman of Dell Computers, who donated $1.8 million to American Friends of the IDF in 2014. The complex includes a day school, a community center, and Orthodox, Conservative and Reform synagogues (although when I was there in November 2014, the Orthodox synagogue was meeting in a classroom in the school). One has to wonder whether Mr. Dell is aware of what is going on at his campus, and whether visiting Yasser Arafat's tomb violates the terms of the land grant to Congregation Agudas Achim (I have no way of getting a copy of that grant - just raising the issue).
For the record, Mr. Brook has been in touch with me directly, and gave me permission to publish his letter (Hat Tips: Richard Allen and Sloan Rachmuth).
Bernie's 'Jewish Outreach' Director: F*** You Bibi
Greetings from... well, you can guess where.
Bernie Sanders has appointed a 'Jewish outreach' director. He need not have bothered. In a March 3, 2015 Facebook post, the director, one Simone Zimmerman, threw a slew of expletives - including the "F" word - at Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
Here's the original unedited post:
Zimmerman later edited the post to replace 'a-hole' with 'politician' and 'F-you' with 'shame on you.' But the internet has a long memory, and as Noah Pollak points out, the edits won't help Sanders much.
The choice of Zimmerman, a young anti-Israel activist with a history
of support for the BDS movement, signaled that the Sanders campaign was
not retreating from recent campaign behavior that many in the pro-Israel
community viewed as hostile.
Sanders turned down an invitation to speak at the annual AIPAC
conference, a bipartisan campaign stop for Republican and Democratic
politicians. Zimmerman condemned
Hillary Clinton’s speech to the AIPAC conference as “racist and
orientalist.” Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer on Sunday called Sanders’s recent comments about Israel’s conduct during fighting with the Hamas terrorist group “libelous.”
Zimmerman comes to the Sanders campaign after a stint as an
undergraduate at Berkeley, where she headed the campus chapter of J
Street, an anti-Israel lobbying and activist group.
Last year, Zimmerman promoted
a play called Martyr’s Street, whose plot compares an Israeli settler
to a Hamas bomb-maker. While a student at Berkeley in 2012, she signed a letter
criticizing the University of California system for issuing a report
about anti-Semitism on UC campuses. The next year, Zimmerman wrote an op-ed
calling on Hillel International, a national Jewish student
organization, to sponsor campus events promoting the BDS movement, which
seeks Israel’s destruction.
Maybe Bernie doesn't want any Jewish votes. He certainly doesn't want any pro-Israel votes.
Jonathan Tobin takes the Union of Reform Judaism to task for refusing to take a position on President Obama's sellout to a nuclear-armed Iran.
From the point of view of those opposed to the Iran nuclear deal, the decision of the Union of Reform Judaism (URJ) to sit out the battle
is not the worst possible outcome. To expect a religious denomination
whose very identity is inextricably tied with liberal politics to take a
stand against President Obama — a man that the majority of their
adherents likes and admires — was a stretch. That was especially true
since the president is treating this debate as a litmus test of loyalty
to the Democratic Party. Equally unlikely was the possibility that the
Reform movement would align itself with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu — a man that most of their members dislike and distrust — on
any issue. Indeed, the unwillingness of the URJ to join the ad hoc group
of liberal rabbis that have endorsed the pact with Iran reflects the
unease among even liberal Jews who care about Israel over what President
Obama has done. Yet the eagerness of Reform leader Rabbi Rick Jacobs to
pat himself on the back for staying out of the fray merits criticism.
Contrary to Jacobs’s formulation, the real problem with the debate about
Iran is not the nature of the rhetoric being used by both sides but the
way in which the administration is downgrading the U.S.-Israel
alliance. As difficult as it may be for Reform Jews to admit it, Obama
is forcing his Jewish admirers to choose between him and Israel and that
is not a choice any American, let alone a Jewish supporter of the
Jewish state, should be asked to make.
That's true. But count this non-admirer of Obama's as someone who could have predicted that the one thing the official arm of Reform Judaism could not do would be to oppose what President Obama has in effect turned into a 'no confidence' vote on his Iran policy. For most Reform Jews, loyalty to the Democratic party - and particularly to its Left wing - trumps any identification with Judaism or Israel.
When President George H.W. Bush spoke of fighting a lobby when he
opposed loan guarantees to Israel in 1991, a united Jewish community
slammed him for using language that was redolent of anti-Semitic slurs.
When conservative commentator Pat Buchanan also spoke of Jews not
fighting in a war they wanted America to fight for Israel, he was
labeled an anti-Semite. Yet liberals aren’t being as tough on Obama with
many of them looking for ways to rationalize or excuse his rhetoric.
Yes, yours truly slammed Bush Senior for his behavior toward Israel. For that matter, if you look back in this blog, I slammed Bush Junior many times too, even though he might have been the most pro-Israel President the US ever had this side of Lyndon Johnson. I am more loyal to the Jewish people and to Israel than to any American political party (I moved to Israel in 1991). But you won't find a whole lot of liberals slamming Obama on Iran (Tobin mentions Leon Wieseltier; I could have added Alan Dershowitz).
In examining the choices that the URJ and other liberal Jewish groups
face, it is fair to ask how they would react if a Republican president
had embraced détente with Iran and feuded with Israel. The answer is
pretty obvious. In spite of the growing alienation of many of their
members from Israel, even the Reform movement would have acted as
American Jews did a generation earlier when the elder Bush aligned
himself against a Jewish state that had yet to take the sort of risks
for peace that were made in the following two decades.
Polls have showed that the majority of Americans oppose the deal with
Iran. But if the deal is going to survive, it will be because
partisanship is a far more potent factor in our political life than many
of us are prepared to admit. If Reform Jews are incapable of choosing a
side in a battle where the interests of the Jewish people and the U.S.
is at stake, it is because they reflect the demographic reality of an
American Jewry that sees liberal politics as being equal to if not more
important than their support for Zionism. Throw in their affection for
Obama and antipathy for Netanyahu and the Reform decision not to back the president must be seen as a victory of sorts for the deal’s opponents.
'Our war isn't to lift the blockade - it's to liberate Jerusalem'
You have to feel sorry for Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri. Even when he says exactly what he means in Arabic (because they just won't say it in English), and it's translated into English, no one believes him. Here's a MEMRI translation of an August 17 speech by Abu Zuhri that's been on its website since yesterday, and which doesn't seem to have gotten much notice.
Let's go to the videotape. More after the video.
Given how little exposure this speech has gotten, I would argue that most of the world is not taking Sami seriously. And given the domination of the world's media by the Left, that's not surprising.
This is our dilemma. We face an implacable enemy who wants to destroy and subject us. The enemy openly proclaims his beliefs, even acts savagely on those beliefs, and we don’t want to know that we have enemies like that. Surely, as people say so often to the Israelis, if you sat down with Hamas, I’m sure you could work something out.
We want to be nice; we don’t want to be mean. And we end up being nice to the mean and mean to the nice. If we understand that we face an apocalyptic enemy who views the “other,” the infidel, as evil that must be destroyed, then we can’t keep telling ourselves that money and economic programs will solve the problem.
As a colleague said to me once about Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations, “I wouldn’t have that on my shelf.”
Academia, which tells us how to think, and the media, which tells us what to think, are both dominated by liberals.
It is difficult for the Western liberal to observe the new Middle
East. His worldview is based on criticizing the West and granting
sweeping amnesty to those who are seen as its victims. This liberal’s
code of values forbids him to define Third World evil as such. So he
demonstrated against the war in Vietnam, but kept silent in the face of
the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia. He opposed the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, but kept silent in the face of the oppression in Iran.
This
is why he hastens to denounce Israel, while displaying leniency toward
Hamas’ fascism. The Western liberal knows how to rise up against Western
exertion of force and likes doing so. But at the sight of Arabs
slaughtering Arabs, he is lost. Whom will he rage against? Whom can he
demonstrate against? At whom will he feel holy fury?
...
The new Middle East is now raising penetrating questions that must
generate an upheaval in liberal thought. Liberals can no longer ignore
the awful plague of Middle Eastern brutality and the fact that millions
of Arabs live with no rights and no future.
While voicing
justified criticism against Israel (for the occupation, settlements,
racist fringes), they must lift their eyes and see the expanse in which
Israel is located. An expanse in which Yazidis are massacred and
Christians are persecuted and women are stoned. An expanse in which
there is no democracy, or peace, or grace. This is a Middle East that
liberals must see as it is – and deal with its diseases courageously.
What else happens on those 10-day trips? There is a lot of hooking up
and plenty of, as Feldman writes, “reinforcing the Zionist claim to the
land” (Feldman’s tour guide identified everything they saw out of the
bus window as “in the Bible,” and her group was given maps that
identified the West Bank as “Judea and Samaria”). And, “at some point
during their all-expenses-paid ten-day trip to a land where, as they are
constantly reminded, every mountain and valley is inscribed with 5,000
years of their people’s history,” there is “the moment”— the moment when
participants realize just how important Israel is to them, to their
fundamental identity, and how important they are to Israel.
According to Steinberg’s parents, that is exactly what happened to Max. His mother told the Washington Post
that, initially, he didn’t want to go on the Birthright trip, but once
he did, it changed him. It was on his group’s visit to Israel’s national
cemetery at Mount Herzl that Steinberg saw the grave of an American
“lone soldier” who died fighting for Israel and “decided that Israel was
where he wanted to be.” He joined the IDF, his father said, because he saw it as an obligation were he to stay in Israel.
Birthright says that aliyah—the immigration of diaspora Jews
to Israel—is not one of its goals, but like Steinberg, many
participants come away with the feeling that Israel is where they
belong. Birthright estimates that 20,000–30,000 of its participants
have acted on that feeling by moving to Israel. I have known many young
American Jews who have made the same decision—who at 18 decided that
they belonged in Israel and, though they’d never considered joining the
American military, moved across the ocean to join the IDF right after
high school. People say Birthright is “just like camp,” and it sure sounds like a very condensed version of the Jewish camp I attended as a kid,
whose purpose was, at the very least, to foster a connection to Israel
in young Jews—and at best, to get us to move to the country and fight
for it. My camp, filled with the children of liberal American Jews, did
this by presenting a very simplistic picture of the political situation
in Israel and the threat to Jews worldwide, all within the context of
helping to fix the world while having the time of your life. Birthright
does a form of the same.
On Tuesday, Birthright issued a statement from its CEO, Gidi Mark.
“We are deeply saddened to inform you of the tragic loss of one our
Taglit Birthright Israel alumni Max Steinberg,” Mark wrote. “His life—a
life filled with promise cut short far too soon—will live in our hearts
forever as a reminder of the sacrifices he and so many before him have
made to keep Israel safe.”
What makes an American kid with shaky Hebrew and no ties to the state
of Israel suddenly decide he is ready to make this sacrifice? Maybe Max
was especially lost, or especially susceptible, or maybe he was just
looking to do some good and became convinced by his Birthright
experience that putting on an IDF uniform and grabbing a gun was the way
to do it. That serving and protecting the Jewish people was the moral
thing to do, and that the best way to accomplish it was to go fight for
the Jewish state. It turns out that it’s not that hard to persuade young
people to see the world a certain way and that Birthright is very good
at doing it. You spend hundreds of millions of dollars to convince young
Jews that they are deeply connected to a country that desperately needs
their support? This is what you get.
Maybe this explains why 78% of American Jewry voted for Barack Obama - his non-support of Israel notwithstanding. Because to them, being Jewish isn't about joining their lives and fate to that of the Jewish people, including by supporting Israel. It's about liberalism and liberal values and not seeing the basic goodness and morality embodied in the Jewish state. Max Steinber saw it and that's why he came here. His death is a tragedy, but it should not be used as a club with which to destroy Birthright. He was not brainwashed. He chose to realize his identity with the Jewish people.
By the way, 30,000 people attended Max Steinberg's funeral in Jerusalem last night. Even John Kerry was moved (check out the link). And another 6,000 attended the funeral of French lone soldier Jordan Simon in Ashkelon, where the biggest concern was that too many people would show up and there would ba rocket attack during the funeral.
Israel
would require some operational logistics and intelligence support from
the United States, and I would not put it past the Islamist-centric
President Obama to withhold such support. Furthermore, it is the “day
after” which should mainly concern Israel. Will the United States back
their play and have their backs?
This career soldier and former Paratrooper thinks not, and that is a
major concern for PM Netanyahu — to a point. Since his rise to power,
President Obama has effectively destabilized the neighborhood in which
Israel resides, and not by incompetence, but by intention.
Yet the American Jewish community blindly followed this mastermind of
disaster, not once but twice. And don’t forget, Hillary and Bill
Clinton entertained Yasser Arafat in the White House. The question is,
now that Obama doesn’t need the Jewish community for another election,
will they awaken from their misguided politically-driven stupor?
And this is the same logic that says that if we let the 'Palestinians' come right up to Jerusalem and the center of Israel, they will suddenly lay down their arms.
Dr. Ben Carson on White liberals... and Israeli Leftists
Dr. Ben Carson is a pediatric neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, who has gotten a lot of publicity since this speech about two months ago.
In the quote above. Carson is saying that 'affirmative action' is wrong because it dumbs down black people.
The behavior of White liberals in the US is very similar to the behavior of Israeli Leftists. The Leftists argue that we need to have a 'two-state solution' so that 'we'll be over here, and they'll be over there.' Except that they'll be over here too, so we really haven't solved anything other than making ourselves insecure.
I guarantee you that you won't need a magnifying glass to find the anti-Semitism at the New York Times this time. A couple of weeks ago, an article by one Joseph Levine (a 'man of the Left,' of course) scraped about as low as the Times has ever scraped. This brief essay by Edward Alexander in response is a must read.
American Jewry is often said to be divided between those who judge
Judaism by the principles of the New York Times and those who judge the
New York Times by the principles of Judaism.
...
Those Jews who judge the New York Times by the standards of Judaism
believe that the creation of the state of Israel was one of the few
redeeming events in a century of blood and shame, one of the greatest
affirmations of the will to live ever made by a martyred people, and the
most hopeful sign for humanity since the dove returned with the olive
branch to Noah. They tend also to cling to Orwell’s view that some
ideas–like the virtue of Jewish powerlessness–are so stupid that only
intellectuals can believe them.
Those who judge Judaism by the standards of the New York Times boast
of not having “danced in the streets when Ben-Gurion declared that the
Jews, like other peoples, had a state of their own.” They believe (as
does a majority of today’s Germans too) that Israel is the chief
obstacle to world peace, a diversion from such compelling goals as gay
marriage and unlimited access to abortion, and indeed the principal
cause of most of the world’s evils with the (possible) exception of
global warming.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
