Democrats debate a discarded desegregation scheme decades later.
Redacted from a smashing article by Lance Morrow
Wall Street Journal July 8, 2019
In the second Democratic presidential debate, hosted by NBC News, Kamala Harris made judgments over the former Vice-President’s stance on busing. Biden called it a “mischaracterization of my position across the board.”
On a sunny day in May 1954 the Warren court handed down its 9-0 decision in the case of Brown v. Topeka Board of Education. The 58-year-old Plessy doctrine of “separate but equal” was dead—though only on paper.
A lifetime later. Sixty-five years have elapsed. We are well into the never land of the 21st century. A black president has come and gone. On my flat-screen TV, I watch as a female U.S. senator of Jamaican and Indian descent stands and berates a white-haired white man—the black president’s former vice president—on the matter of his record concerning something that happened 40 or 50 years earlier. That something was busing, a policy that was designed to accomplish what the Warren court intended: to abolish racial segregation from the country’s public schools.
It seemed a little odd that Kamala Harris brought up the long-ago subject of busing during a 2019 Democratic debate. Presidential candidates usually wish to deal in new ideas. Busing is a period piece.
Ms. Harris spoke of it as having been an unambiguous good. It was not. Older Americans recall the busing days as contentious, complicated and divisive.
The idea was to try to solve the problem of de facto segregation by busing black children to public schools in white parts of town while transporting white children in the opposite direction. Almost no one was satisfied with the scheme, although it did succeed in some places, such as Charlotte, N.C.
Some blacks who rode the buses as children say now that they benefited from it. But in the worst light, it seemed a piece of brutalist social engineering that placed hard burdens on the kids (long rides twice a day to strange neighborhoods, away from friends and community). The policy offended many blacks with its implication that a black child cannot learn without sitting next to a white child.
No matter. Ms. Harris’s mind wasn’t on justice anyway. Busing was the McGuffin. She invoked it as a way of proving that she could take down the powerful white male front-runner, Joe Biden.She staged the scene in order to establish, early in the first round, that she was capable of ruthless and creative effrontery. She sucker-punched Mr. Biden. Next morning, she was the coming thing—the psychological front-runner. As she intended, people began to imagine her in the ring with President Trump, toe to toe.
One of the interesting things about Ms. Harris is her swagger—the sly and private half-smile, the dare in her eye, a hint of the reckless. On the night of the debate she showed off an instinct for the cynical uses of sentimentality. “That little girl was me,” she said, her body torqued poignantly toward Mr. Biden.
She conjured herself as a heroic but vulnerable child on her way to future glory despite the efforts of then-Sen. Biden and his Southern segregationist pals to stop her—a prequel glimpse of predestined greatness. She was Moses in the bulrushes.
Her childhood occurred, mind you, not in Mississippi or the Chicago projects but in Berkeley, Calif., where her father was a professor of economics.The Harris household was intellectual, accomplished and, at the very least, solidly middle-class.
There was so little spontaneity in her stunt that, just afterward, her campaign offered commemorative merchandise—T-shirts showing the image of “that little girl.” All this was unfair to Mr. Biden, but his complacency no doubt needed a jolt.
Besides that, the dangerous thing now is hate’s half-brother, sentimentality—and the cynicism with which it is manipulated for purposes of gaining or keeping power. Everything in the politics and policy-making of 2019 is processed (by both the woke and the Trumpists) in those idioms: raw emotions cynically manipulated, especially on social media. It is true on the issue of immigration, for example, and especially true on the related issue of race.
Sentimentality is the traditional style of American politics. At one time, it was endearing, in the antique Norman Rockwell way. But the dark side of sentimentality is shallow and thoughtless and volatile and dangerous. At its worst, it is the style of mobs and dictators.
Mr. Morrow is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
From archives of brilliant retired Harvard Professor Ruth R. Wisse
And …. more pertinent than ever
October 18, 1992
The New York Times Archives Book Review
“If I Am Not for Myself . . .: The Liberal Betrayal of the Jews.”
By Ruth R. Wisse. 225 pp. New York: The Free Press. $22.95.
“WE fell victim to our faith in mankind, our belief that humanity had set limits to the degradation and persecution of one’s fellow men.” So wrote Alexander Donat, a survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto and Treblinka and the author of “The Holocaust Kingdom,” a book about the Jews of Europe at the time when the Nazis and their collaborators began herding them into cattle cars.
Mr. Donat’s words capture the thrust of Ruth Wisse’s new book, “If I Am Not for Myself . . .: The Liberal Betrayal of the Jews.” It is her contention that liberalism, the very political ideology that would seem to provide shelter and promise for the Jews, was their undoing in the 1930’s and 40’s — and is in our day as well.
By liberalism, Ms. Wisse, who teaches English and Yiddish literature at McGill University in Montreal, means a belief in progress, rationality, freedom, cultural pluralism and the rule of law. “Liberals trust that all human problems are amenable to negotiated solutions, that all people are united in a spirit of brotherhood,” she writes.
“They detest the use of force, not only for the damage it causes but because in admitting the limits of reason it throws humankind back to a more primitive stage of civilization. The pure liberal spirit precludes the possibility of intractable hatred or intransigent political will.”
For this reason, she says, liberalism could not protect Jews from the Nazis. By necessity, she continues, liberals had to be unsympathetic to the fate of the Jews, “not because of any personal antipathy but because the national fate of the Jews contradicted their view of the world and called into question their deepest assumptions.” Because of the Jews’ political vulnerability, they had no allies in Europe, “not even in such opponents of anti-Semitism as the Marxists.”
In our day, Ms. Wisse writes, the Arabs, recognizing the remarkable political durability of repudiating the Jewish people and their religion, have joined the campaign. The Arab success in the world arena actually increased, she contends, when they “exchanged the language of the right for the language of the left, presenting Israel as the bloodthirsty exploiter of impoverished innocent Arab masses.”
“Since democratic society does not want to perceive itself as heartless or collaborationist,” she continues, “those who court favor with the Arabs have to deny the war against the Jewish state or else justify their betrayal of the Jews in a language of moral convenience. The tilt toward the Arabs has the code name of evenhandedness.”
According to Ms. Wisse, as long as Israel brought Jews outside Israel “the dowry of international good will,” the relationship was untroubled. But when those Jews were faced with Arab propaganda against Israel, they grew nervous, their insecurities blossomed and, as avowed liberals, they turned their backs on the Jewish homeland.
There are large holes in her argument. “In contending with so relentless an assault [ as the campaign mounted by the Arabs ] ,” she writes, “many Jews grow weary, and the very mention of anti-Semitism draws a yawn.”
This is an astonishing claim to make. The majority of Jewish institutions in America successfully continue to appeal to Jews for funds through no other issue than the threat of anti-Semitism.
Ms. Wisse also creates something of a straw man to bolster her thesis. She speaks of the nervous Jew “who feels his Jewishness to be a burden or knows very little about it, or who in marrying a non-Jewish wife and moving into higher business or banking circles gradually left his Jewishness behind, like an old skin.”
“It must be stressed that [ the ] split in the Israeli population is not between secular and religious Jews,” she writes, “since some of the most idealistic recruits for the defense forces come from the ranks of the modern Orthodox yeshivas.”
“Despite the unparalleled success of anti-Semitism, few university departments of political science, sociology, history or philosophy bother to analyze the single European political ideal of the past century that nearly realized its ends.”
This book should be read not only for its potent indictment of liberalism’s failings. The work also stands as a warning to all Jews of a clear and ever-present danger.
Ruth R. Wisse is the retired Martin Peretz Professor of Yiddish Literature and Professor of Comparative Literature at Harvard University. She is the sister of David Roskies, professor of Yiddish and Jewish literature at the Jewish Theological Seminary.
To subscribe to Israel Commentary:Send your email address to email@example.com
The Fourth of July, American Independence and the Jews
Two hundred forty-three years ago, a new nation was inspired by the Old Testament.
By William McGurn
Wall Street Journal July 1, 2019
Rabbi Meir Soloveichik explains how Jonas Phillips was a religious Jew and an American patriot, and how his life is a testament to the Jewish significance of the uniquely American tradition of religious freedom. Image: The Tikvah Fund
Since that fateful July 4 when the Second Continental Congress invoked the unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to declare independence from King George III, an argument has raged over the Christian roots of the American Founding. Now a group of scholars suggest that if we are looking only to the Gospels to understand the new American nation, we may be arguing over the wrong testament.
“The American Republic,” they write, “was born to the music of the Hebrew Bible.”
The book is called “Proclaim Liberty Throughout the Land: The Hebrew Bible in the United States: A Sourcebook.”
The title comes from Leviticus and is inscribed on the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia. The book comes courtesy of the Straus Center for Torah and Western Thought at Yeshiva University, where it was pulled together by Meir Soloveichik, Matthew Holbreich, Jonathan Silver and Stuart Halpern.
These men are not arguing that America was founded as a Jewish nation. Nor is their subject Jews in America, or the role of Jews in the American Founding. Their proposition is more supple and profound: that at key moments in the national story, Americans have looked to the ancient Israelites to understand themselves, their blessings and their challenges.
The evidence, they say, is all around us.
The American landscape is dotted with town names that reflect this understanding, from the Zions, Canaans and Shilohs to the Goshens, Salems and Rehoboths. And whether it is John Winthrop invoking a “covenant” to characterize the order the Puritans established with Massachusetts Bay Colony, or Martin Luther King more than three centuries later talking about having been to the mountaintop, Americans have long looked to the biblical Israelites for the “political and cultural vocabulary” to explain the American proposition.
Though this American affinity for the Israelites pre-dates the Revolution, the war for independence intensified the parallels. In their revolt against George III, the men of the 13 colonies saw themselves as modern Israelites escaping a latter-day Pharaoh. So when the Second Continental Congress created a committee to design a seal for the new United States, also on July 4, 1776, it was only natural that two of the committee members—Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin—turned to Exodus.
Jefferson proposed the seal feature the Israelites in the wilderness, led by a cloud during the day and a pillar of fire by night. Franklin suggested Moses extending his hand over the Red Sea, causing the waters to overwhelm Pharaoh in his chariot. These days, you could call these examples of cultural appropriation.
As the subtitle indicates, this is a sourcebook and not a sustained argument. But it is no less compelling. As the authors note, all these American allusions to the Israelites didn’t come from Jews. They came from Christians, low-church Protestants in particular.
With the possible exception of Martin Luther King, no American leader integrated the imagery and language of the Hebrew bible into his own speech as seamlessly as Abraham Lincoln, who as president-elect in 1861 spoke of his fellow Americans as the Almighty’s “almost chosen people.”
From the cadence of Psalm 90 in the opening of his Gettysburg Address (“four score and seven years ago”) to his letter telling the mayor of Philadelphia “may my right hand forget its cunning and my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth if I ever prove false” to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, to his invocation of Psalm 19 in his Second Inaugural (e.g., “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous forever”), when Lincoln spoke the moral language of liberty, his words echoed the Hebrew Bible.
This was a double-edged sword when it came to slavery. Abolitionism found much to embrace: “I have heard their cry” (Exodus 3:7), “Let my people go” (Exodus 5:1), “Break every yoke” (Isaiah 58:6) and so forth.
But relying on Scripture for denunciations of slavery had its problems, beginning with Noah’s curse against the Canaanites in Genesis 9.
Jews describe Passover as zeman cheiruteinu, or “the time of our freedom.” Independence Day might thus be thought of as America’s Passover. And that magnificent second stanza of “America the Beautiful” ends with a line that could have been delivered by Moses: “Thy liberty in law.”
Across the land this July 4, American homes will play host to backyard barbecues, the company of family, friends and neighbors, maybe all topped off with fireworks. You might say it is the American version of what the Hebrew prophet Micah had in mind when he wrote that “they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree, and none shall make them afraid.”
Which also happens to have been George Washington’s favorite way to describe the blessings of liberty we celebrate this and every Independence Day.
They’ve rejected every peace initiative. Their no-show this
week in Bahrain should be the last.
By Eugene Kontorovich
This week’s U.S.-led Peace to Prosperity conference in Bahrain on the Palestinian economy will likely be attended by seven Arab states—a clear rebuke to foreign-policy experts who said that recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the Golan Heights as Israeli territory would alienate the Arab world.
Sunni Arab states are lending legitimacy to the Trump administration’s plan, making it all the more notable that the Palestinian Authority itself refuses to participate.
The conference’s only agenda is improving the Palestinian economy. It isn’t tied to any diplomatic package, and the plan’s 40-page overview contains nothing at odds with the Palestinian’s purported diplomatic goals.
Some aspects are even politically uncomfortable for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Given all that, the Palestinian Authority’s unwillingness to discuss economic opportunities for its own people, even with the Arab states, shows how far it is from discussing the concessions necessary for a diplomatic settlement. Instead it seeks to deepen Palestinian misfortune and use it as a cudgel against Israel in the theater of international opinion.
This isn’t the first time the Palestinians have said no. At a summit brokered by President Clinton in 2000, Israel offered them full statehood on territory that included roughly 92% of the West Bank and all of Gaza, along with a capital in Jerusalem. The Palestinian Authority rejected that offer, leading Israel to up it to 97% of the West Bank in 2001.
Again, the answer was no. An even further-reaching offer in 2008 was rejected out of hand. And when President Obama pressured Israel into a 10-month settlement freeze in 2009 to renew negotiations, the Palestinians refused to come to the table.
After so many rejections, one might conclude that the Palestinian Authority’s leaders simply aren’t interested in peace. Had they accepted any of the peace offers, they would have immediately received the rarest of all geopolitical prizes: a new country, with full international recognition.
To be sure, in each proposal they found something not quite to their liking. But the Palestinians are perhaps the only national independence movement in the modern era that has ever rejected a genuine offer of internationally recognized statehood, even if it falls short of all the territory the movement had sought.
The best example is Israel itself, which jumped at a 1947 United Nations proposal for a Jewish state, even though it was noncontiguous and excluded Jerusalem and much of its present territory. The Arab states rejected the proposal, which would have also created a parallel Arab country.
India and Pakistan didn’t reject independence because major territorial claims were left unaddressed. Ireland accepted independence without the island’s six northern counties. Morocco didn’t refuse statehood because Spain retained land on its northern coast.
While there have been hundreds of national independence movements in modern times, few are fortunate enough to receive an offer of fully recognized sovereign statehood. Including 1947, the Palestinians have received four. From Tibet to Kurdistan, such opportunities remain a dream.
Several lessons must be drawn from the Palestinians’ serial rejection of statehood—and this week, even of economic development. First, the status quo is not Israeli “rule” or “domination.” The Palestinians can comfortably turn down once-in-a-lifetime opportunities because almost all Palestinians already live under Palestinian government. Since the 1993 Oslo Accords, they’ve enjoyed many of statehood’s trappings, particularly in foreign relations. Israel undertakes regular antiterror operations, but that’s different from overall power. For instance, the U.S. doesn’t “rule” over Afghanistan.
Second, statehood and a resolution to the conflict is not what the Palestinians truly seek. This is what economists call a “revealed preference”: To know what consumers truly want, look at what they choose. The Palestinians have repeatedly chosen the status quo over sovereignty.
Finally, throw out the assumption that when Palestinians reject an offer, it stays on the table and accrues interest. If offers will only improve with time, the Palestinians have an incentive to keep saying no.
The Palestinian Authority cannot be forced to accept a peaceful settlement, and Israel doesn’t wish to return to its pre-Oslo control over the Palestinian population. But rejectionism, culminating this week in Bahrain, must have consequences.
For more than 50 years, the future of Jewish communities in the West Bank—and the nearly half a million Jews who now live there—has been held in limbo pending a diplomatic settlement. While the authority rejects improved hospitals, port arrangements and employment centers, many of the benefits for Palestinians could still be achieved by locating them in parts of the West Bank under Israeli jurisdiction.
But to do that, the question mark over these places, which include all of the Jews living in the West Bank and a much smaller number of Palestinians, must be lifted. Washington should support Israeli initiatives to replace military rule with civil law in these areas, normalizing their status. The Palestinians’ no-show in Bahrain should end their ability to hold development and growth hostage.
Mr. Kontorovich is director of the Center for International Law in the Middle East and a law professor at George Mason University, and a scholar at the Kohelet Policy Forum.
Redacted from remarks by Katie Hopkins with additional italicized commentary by Jerome S. Kaufman
The showing of the documentary, Homelands in Israel was originally denied — the result of collusion between the Muslims in the UK and deluded, useful idiot, Jewish organizations in the UK and Israel, who joined with the Muslims to prevent the showing.
Despite this opposition the documentary was eventually shown in Jerusalem as a result of the direct action of Fleur Hassan-Nahoum, Jerusalem’s deputy mayor. She explained:
“I helpedKatie Hopkins because I believe in debate. People with more extreme views and more unsavory friends than her sit in the Knesset. That’s freedom of speech.
Ms. Hopkins’s documentary chronicles anti-Semitism and growing Islamic fundamentalism in Europe and examines how Israel offers protection and shelter to European Jews.
One might assume that showing this kind of film would not be an issue, but given the current conflicted reality of British Jews, it was.
On the one hand, the community is fighting the terrible plague of anti-Semitism coming from both Islamic fundamentalism and from the liberal left, in the form of Jeremy Corbyn and his band of Jew-hating communists.”
And, on the other hand these “conflicted” Jews trying to shut down the revealing of Muslim fanatical anti-Semitism throughout Europe have elected to return to their sick shtetl mentality, hide in their ghetto cellars, try to disappear into the woodwork and not make any waves.
French Jews are rapidly coming to a far more realistic conclusion — one violently thrust upon them.It is painfully obvious to them that “French pessimists at the time of Adolph Hitler ultimately escaped to swimming pools in Southern California while optimists as to Hitler’s intentions, ended up in Auschwitz.”
At this very same moment, Non-Jewish English families, like those of Katie Hopkins, are also being forced out of their own towns by Muslim pressure and deliberate orchestrated violence. Mrs. Hopkins lamented to the audience that the Jews were fortunate in one respect, in that they had Israel to which to escape but, where were she and her family to go? Those British capable of leaving are looking at options to escape the UK by emigrating to places like Poland and Hungary where nationalism is a respected concept. (But, what un-British alternatives and surely a sign of their desperation)
Jews aliyah to France
As usual, the always vulnerable Jews are the main target of Muslim hatred and their centuries-old desire for world domination.
Jews, with terrifying memories, are escaping before the apparently inevitable next Holocaust while the inane toothless optimistic slogan, Never Again, goes down the sewer, where it belongs.
An attack in January 2015 at a Kosher market in Paris that killed four people just days after shootings at the Charlie Hebdo newspaper seemed to confirm just how dangerous France had become for Jews.
A few days after the attacks, the Jewish Agency said it was being flooded with calls inquiring about “aliyah,” the Hebrew term for moving to Israel. The Jewish Agency, an organization created by the Israeli government to encourage aliyah, projected that as many as 15,000 French Jews could leave for Israel in 2015.
The numbers of French Jews making aliyah increased to 3,293 in 2013 and 7,200 in 2014, according to the Jewish Agency.
The number of Jewish people who left France in 2015 remained relatively flat, at 7,328, according to the Jewish Agency. More recently, the Agency reported that immigration from France to Israel was 3,424 in 2017, down down another 28% from 2016.
This relative diminishment of emigration from France reminds me of the mindless chickens quickly forgetting yesterday’s invasion by the fox of the chicken coop, only to be quickly reminded by his return the very next day.
There continue to be hundreds of anti-semitic incidents in France each year. There were 385 incidents during the first nine months of 2018, two-thirds of which were threats and the other third were physical attacks on persons or property, a 69 percent rise compared to the same period the year before.
While in the Detroit area where she has visited several times, Mrs Hopkins was kind enough to comment on our own local situation. She unequivocally declared that Dearborn MI and Hamtramck MI are Sharia Law dominated areas, in fact, taken over by the Muslims, their mosques and their ideology.
What was a revelation from Ms. Hopkins and a very knowledgeable former Dearborn politico in the audience was that Democrat Party icon John Dingel, now deceased, long time Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, was firmly in the pocket of the Muslims of Dearborn. Upon his retirement in 2015, his wife Debbie successfully ran for election to succeed him in his Congressional district and was reported to have also taken over his place in the Muslim pocket. No wonder Dearborn, MI has come under virtual Sharia law.
The audience was, as usual, left with the elephant in the room question – What do we do about this unbelievably successful Muslim invasion? The only answer, in a genuine democracy, is to try to make our reluctant, blindly “liberal” population, acutely aware of the problem, its immediate danger and the very clever strategy of the enemy. We must then vigorously move against them with our police forces, our courts, our elections and in our naive, useful idiot Left wing media.
Wake up America before you go the way of fallen continental Europe and the UK.
Available at the lecture was a straight forward educational pamphlet, Sharia Law for Non-Muslimsby Dr Bill Warner, Ph.D The pamphlet is only $5.00 plus postage and can be ordered online at:
The Center for the Study of Political Islam: www.CSPIPUBLISHING.COM
Katie Olivia Hopkins is an English media person, award winning document maker, radio talk show host and best selling author.She was a contestant in the third series of The Apprentice in 2007, and following further appearances in the media, she became a columnist for British national newspapers.
By Eugene W. Rostow, former US Assistant Secretary of State, (1966-l969) and former Dean of the Yale Law School and primary producer of the pertinent UN Resolution 242
The True Story of the Israeli Settlements (The communities of Judea, Samaria and Gaza)
United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338. Resolution 242, adopted after the Six-Day War in 1967, set out criteria for peace-making by the parties to the conflict.
Resolution 338, passed after the Yom Kippur War in l973, makes resolution 242 legally binding.
Resolution 242, which as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs between 1966 and 1969, I helped produce, calls the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in l967 until a just and lasting peace in the MiddleEast is achieved.
When such a peace is made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces”from territories” it occupied during the Six-Day War not from “the” territories, nor from “all” the territories, but some of the territories, which included the Sinai Desert , the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip,
Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy made it perfectly clear what theResolution 242 means.
Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from “all” the territories were defeated in theSecurity Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the “fragile” and “vulnerable” Armistice Demarcation Lines, but to “secure and recognized” boundaries agreed to by the parties
THE FOURTH GENEVA CONVENTION
Israel has established its settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in accordance with international law. Attempts have been made to claim that the settlements violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 which forbids a state fromdeporting or transferring “parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” However, this allegation has no validity in law.
Israel maintains that the Convention (which deals with occupied territories) is not applicable to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. As there was no internationally recognized legal sovereign in either territory prior to the l967 Six Day War, they cannot be considered to have become “occupied territory” when control passed into the hands of Israel.
Article 49 would not be relevant to the issue of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. The Convention was drafted immediately following the Second World War,against the background of the massive forced population transfers that occurredduring that period.
Israel has not forcibly transferred its civilians to the territories and the Convention does not place any prohibition on individuals voluntarily choosing their place of residence.
Moreover, the settlements are not intended to displace Arab inhabitants, nor do they do so in practice. According to independent surveys, the built-up areas of the settlements (not including roads or unpopulated adjacent tracts) take up about 3% of the other territory of the West Bank.
Other communities, such as the Gush Etzion bloc in Judea, were founded before 1948 under the internationally endorsed British Mandate. The right of Jews to settle in all parts of the Land of Israel was first recognized by the international community in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine.
As the former US Under- Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Professor Eugene Rostow, has written: ” the Jewish right of settlement in the area is equivalent in every way to the right of thelocal population to live there.” (AJlL, 1990, volume 84, p.72). 84, p.72)
II Addendum from The Jewish Press, May 17, 2019
Over 400 rabbis, leaders of the Rabbinical Congress for Peace (RCP) issued the following statement of principle:
“The original sin and root or all problems is the delusional theory that withdrawing from territories brings peace and security to Israel.”
We have sounded the alarm repeatedly clearly showing that previous withdrawals from Gaza, a small section of south Lebanon and parts of the Golan have been a major mistake and must never be repeated.
These areas have only resulted in creating bases for terrorist strong-holds used to launch missile attacks against Israel. They are also used to create massive tunnels into Israel proper which are the groundwork for further direct invasion.
(Israelis and their leaders would have to be out of their minds to give up one more inch of territory and thus contribute to the centuries-old ambition of the Arabs to drive the Jews from their G-d given land.) jsk
Israel Commentary. To subscribe to Israel Commentary:Send your email address to: firstname.lastname@example.orgWeb Page: www.israelcommentary.org“Like” on Facebook @ 1. Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman
May 2, 2019, Israel observed Holocaust Remembrance Day. It was a good time to re-examine the Jewish state’s relations with the Federal Republic of Germany, formerly Nazi Germany, a nation that perpetrated the greatest crime in history against Europe’s Jews, known as the Holocaust.
Naturally, many Germans wish the memory of the Holocaust and its German perpetrators to go away and be forgotten. Young Germans do not wish to carry the burden of guilt for the most heinous crime in modern history.
Monetary reparation paid by the Germans to Holocaust survivors for the stolen properties of European Jews notwithstanding, reality today is that Berlin has not done more than lip service to “solidarity with Israel” and its claims of “Israel’s security being Germany’s raison d’état.”
Germany has been a major contributor to anti-Israel resolutions at the UN General Assembly and other UN agencies.Germany moreover, has aided and abetted the genocidal Islamic Republic of Iran in evading U.S. sanctions. Germany’s non-governmental agencies (NGO’s) supported by the German government fund various anti-Israel groups in the Palestinian Authority and in Israel itself.
According to the Gatestone Institute, Chancellor Angela Merkel has pressured other European Union states to refrain from moving their embassies from Tel Aviv to Israel’s capital – Jerusalem.
Merkel not only rejected the Trump administration’s move to relocate the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, she has authorized the allotment of $100 million to the Palestinian Authority’s allocated budget of $300 million, for payment to Palestinian terrorists to kill Jews.
Frank Muller-Rosentritt, a member of the German Bundestag (parliament) committee on foreign relations, representing the opposition Free Democratic Party (FDP) declared, “We must no longer let Israel down at the UN. It is madness that we are constantly on the side of countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Yemen, against Israel.”
It is not only with UN resolutions that Germany sides with Israel’s enemies. Berlin funds anti-Israel Non-Governmental Agencies (NGO’s). The +972 Magazine of the Heinrich Boll foundation, a think-tank associated with the German Green Party, regularly accuses Israel of “Apartheid.” According to NGO-Monitor, the German government funding is one of the least transparent in Europe.
Still, the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development funds Al-Haq through its program, the Civil Peace Service. Al-Haq, a Palestinian NGO, is the leader in the anti-Israel BDS (Boycotts, Divestments, and Sanctions) movement.
It engages in legal warfare against Israel. Israel’s Supreme Court identified Al-Haq’s Director General Shawan Jabarin to be a senior activist in the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) terrorist group. The PFLP was designated as a terrorist organization by the European Union (EU).
Germany has increased its funding of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which serves as an incubator for Palestinian terrorism.Moreover, Germany is undermining the Trump administration, which recently cut its support for UNRWA because it incites violence against Israel and harbors terrorists and their weapons. UNRWA is nurturing the notion of Palestinian “right of return,” which is incompatible with the idea of the Two-State solution that Germany allegedly supports.
The German police issued a report last August claiming that most of the anti-Semitic attacks in Germany were perpetrated by neo-Nazis. This report was undoubtedly directed by the German Federal government that seeks to hide the increasing jihadist terror attacks committed by many of the one million Muslim immigrants from the Middle East and Africa that Angela Merkel invited into Germany.
This report was disputed by leaders of the German Jewish community who blamed the police for ignoring the vastly numerous anti-Semitic attacks by Muslims.
Another issue that reflects Germany’s hypocrisy is in dealing with Iran. Germany supports the Iranian regime in contravention with the U.S. efforts to isolate the murderous theocratic and oppressive regime. A regime that vows repeatedly to destroy the Jewish state.
Merkel has vowed time after time that “Israel’s security is not negotiable,” and yet, her government supports a regime that not only perpetrates terror worldwide, including Europe and Germany, but is also brutal toward its own people.
Under the so-called “2015 nuclear deal or Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)” Iran is continuing to develop its military nuclear program as well as long range ballistic missiles that threatens Europe, and naturally Israel. Greed, rather than concern for global security, not to mention Israel’s security, motivates the German government.
In the meantime, anti-Semitism in Germany is raging. The Catholic daily La Croix headline (February 18, 2019) read, “Alarming rise of anti-Semitism in Germany.” The sub-heading stated that the “Arrival of thousands of immigrants from the Middle East evoked fears of a new anti-Semitism.”
]In their efforts to assuage their guilt and shake off the “stain on humanity” Nazi Germany committed, some of the younger generation Germans employ these days a shameful moral-equivalency. They are comparing Nazi-Germany’s treatment of Jews with Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. Such a comparison is not only outrageous, it is immoral.
Israel has never gassed or murdered innocent Palestinians, as the Nazis did with Jews. Israeli hospitals do not discriminate against Palestinian-Muslim patients, nor are Palestinians required to wear Yellow Star bands as the Germans forced Jews to do. Israel never had nor will have concentration camps, labor camps, and certainly not death camps as the Nazi Germans did.
Furthermore, Israel has been sensitive to Palestinian poverty, and seeks to elevate Palestinian quality of life. The Israeli government has pursued ways to provide employment for Palestinians. Unfortunately, Palestinian terrorism has undermined this effort to a large extent. It has required Israel to use check-points and a separation wall to save lives. This sort of German moral-equivalency is an insult to Jewish Holocaust survivors in Israel, and to the truth.
With Holocaust Remembrance Day, Israelis might want to consider whether today’s Germany is a friend or foe. One thing is clear, it is time to unmask Germany’s hypocrisy vis-à-vis Israel.
To subscribe to Israel Commentary:Send your email address to email@example.com, Web Page: https://israel-commentary.org“Like” on Facebook @ 1. Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman
(To just keep the record straight, please ignore the usual knee jerk sycophant praise from self-serving, primarily fund raising, power seeking,politically correct Jewish establishment organizations. Need I listAIPAC American Israel Public Affair Committee, American Jewish Committee, World Jewish Congress and Simon Wiesenthal Center and ADL (Anti-Defamation League) for starters.)
(I searched snopes.com for this video, Bush and Hitler, by John Buchanan and there was no negative comment found)
Jerome S. Kaufman
There is no question George H. W. Bush was a great man, a great American, a great soldier, a great leader and a fine President and deserving of the many plaudits. But, let’s for a moment, just stick to his relationship with Jewish Americans and Israel) jsk
George H.W. Bush will go down in Jewish History as the American president who forced Israel into a subservient position and endangered millions of Jews.
By Ariel Natan Pasko, 04/12/18
“Go to hell.” That’s what George W. answered a reporter, when questioned about what he planned to tell the Israelis, as he was about to leave on his 1998 Middle East trip. Was he joking? Let’s remember, George W. previously had said in 1993, “heaven is open only to those who accept Jesus Christ,” while discussing his decision to become “born again,” asr eported in the Houston Post at the time.
And let’s not forget his heavy campaigning in Michigan (home of the largest Arab-American community) before the 2000 election, his family’s oil interests, and deep ties with the Arab community in America and the Middle East. Then, there was George W’s open support for a Palestinian state during his presidency, the first American president to come out of the closet on the issue.
As the saying goes, “The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.”
So, after a cursory look at George W. Bush’s attitudes to Jews, and Israel, let’s look at his recently deceased father, George H.W. Bush, his friends and family.
Well, for starters, there’s the company H.W. kept, for example James Baker who said, “F*** the Jews, they didn’t vote for us anyways.” James Baker was George H.W. Bush’s Secretary of State.
Why didn’t H.W. criticize Baker’s statement?
And H.W. let Baker publicly berate Israeli PM Yitzhak Shamir, “When you’re serious about peace, call us,” giving the number for the White House switchboard. Later, as a friend of the family, he acted as a political advisor to Jeb Bush, when he ran for governor in Florida.
George H.W. Bush will go down in Jewish History as the American president who forced Israel into a subservient position and endangered millions of Jews.
During the 1991 Gulf War, Shamir wanted the communication codes, so that Israeli pilots could contact their American counterparts, and avoid a friendly fire scenario. Bush refused, forcing Shamir’s hand, not to respond to Saddam Hussein’s scud missile fire on Israel. Bush sent patriot missiles, and insisted that Israel let America take care of it. That may be the main turning point, in the Israeli mentality, from “we fight our own wars,” to a growing sense of dependence on Uncle Sam.
As the late Rabbi Meir Kahane quipped, “Once we were people who had faith in the burning bush, and now we depend upon George Bush?”
H.W. also pushed off an Israeli $10 billion aid request for loan guarantees, to help settle the million plus Soviet Jewish refugees flooding Israel, after the fall of the Iron Curtain. He insisted Israel stop building “settlements,” and extorted from Shamir, an agreement that Israel would participate in the 1991 Madrid “peace” Conference. Which led to the Oslo Process, the Palestinian Authority, Arafat’s return, and the Death Machine, Israelis suffer with today. After a more cooperative prime minister was elected in Israel in 1992, Yitzhak Rabin, the loan guarantees went through.
But the George HW’s apple didn’t fall far either…
The accusations against HW’s father, Sen. Prescott Bush, go well beyond dislike for Jews and discriminatory practices that were typical of New England WASP culture back then. It seems his father was involved with Hitler’s financiers in the later 1920s and 1930s.
Prescott Bush was co-founder and a director of at a New York bank, Union Banking Corp. (UBC), where German businessmen who supported the Nazis, stashed away millions. According to documents from the US National Archives made public in 2003, Bush was still a director at the bank, when its assets were frozen under the Trading With the Enemy Act in 1942.
(Stark shades of Nazi lover, Joseph Kennedy and the Jack Fitzgerald Kennedy “Camelot” Mirage)
By the way, for those that pick on the Jews, it is not too good for the pickers. Just look at the terrible tragedies that have befallen these very prominent families. Maybe someone is taking a more in-depth look and acting accordingly?) jsk
It seems, the UBC was not so much a “bank” at all, but a “clearing house” for the many assets and enterprises, of German industrialist Fritz Thyssen, who later admitted to his role, in helping to finance the Third Reich.
The documents also reveal that Prescott Bush worked for, and was later a partner in, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH). By the late 1930s, both BBH, which claimed to be the world’s largest private investment bank, and UBC, had bought and shipped millions of dollars of gold, fuel, steel, coal and US treasury bonds to Nazi Germany, feeding and financing Hitler’s military build-up.
On October 20, 1942, the alien property custodian, seized the assets of the UBC, of which Prescott Bush was a director. After checking their books, further seizures were made against two affiliates, the Holland-American Trading Corporation, and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation. In November, the Silesian-American Company, another of Prescott Bush’s ventures, was also seized.
Bush owned an interest in the Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC), based in mineral rich Silesia on the German-Polish border. During the war, the company made use of Jewish slave labor from the concentration camps, including Auschwitz.
Two former Jewish slave laborers, at Auschwitz, brought a class action petition to The Hague, for damages against the Bush family, “From April 1944 on, the American Air Force could have destroyed the camp with air raids, as well as the railway bridges and railway lines from Hungary to Auschwitz. The murder of about 400,000 Hungarian Holocaust victims could have been prevented.”
Their argument: On January 22, 1944, Pres. Franklin Roosevelt signed an executive order, calling on the government to take all measures to rescue European Jews. The lawyers in the petition claimed the order was ignored, because of pressure brought by a group of large American companies, including BBH, where Prescott Bush was a director. The petition went nowhere.
John Loftus, a former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor in the 70s, who is associated with the Florida Holocaust Museum in St. Petersburg, said that Prescott Bush’s business dealings were similar to what other American and British businessmen were doing at the time.
They bought Nazi stocks.
“This was the mechanism by which Hitler was funded to come to power, this was the mechanism by which the Third Reich’s defense industry was re-armed, this was the mechanism by which Nazi profits were repatriated back to the American owners, this was the mechanism by which investigations into the financial laundering of the Third Reich were blunted. The UBC was a holding company for the Nazis, for Fritz Thyssen,” Loftus explained. Loftus has said that the late senator’s actions, should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
It seems that the money Prescott Bush made from all his business dealings with the Nazis, including benefiting from Jewish slave labor, helped to establish the Bush family fortune, and set up its political dynasty.
Connecting the dots.
You have George H.W. Bush’s father, Prescott, possibly a Nazi sympathizer, in the least, having accumulated a fortune working with them, financially benefiting from Jewish slave labor too. And this, even after the US enters the war against Nazi Germany. Post-war he runs for politics, gets elected senator, and can also set up his kids to run.
Then, H.W., who weakens Israel’s defense posture, by forcing dependence on America. He withholds loan guarantees to help Israel absorb the massive wave of Soviet Jews (said to be the equivalent of America absorbing France). And, he pushes Israel into the false peace process, that began at the Madrid Conference in 1991, endangering Israel.
And HW’s son, George W. Bush, who doesn’t think Jews will get an after-life, and admits that America, Israel’s “ally,” the “even-handed broker,” wants the “peace process” to end with a Palestinian state, further endangering over six million Jews in Israel.
PS John Baker, Bush’s White House Chief of Staff and former US Secretary of State administered an American State Dept. replete with in fact, non-Jewish Jewish principals Dennis Ross and an anti-Israel force in the Senior Bush and Bill Clinton’s State Department including self-hating Jews – Martin Indyk, Aaron Miller, Richard Haase and of course,Madeleine Albright.
President Bush Sr. with the declared “assistance” of these stalwarts allbut brought Israel to its knees with their various “peace plans” that continue to this very day.
President Bush handed a $9 billion deal to sell advanced F-15 fighters to Saudi Arabia wherein their only possible target would be Israel. Israel’s vehement protest supported by AIPAC and the other main establishment organizations failed with Bush cleverly calling his opponents (referring specifically to the Jewish establishment ) “thousands of lobbyists” up against “one little lonely guy.”(Him)
Despite the wide-spread Jewish opposition, Bush prevailed and the F-15 fighter jet deal easily went through.Unfortunately, that was the last time AIPAC and the rest had the courage to oppose Presidential power. Instead they have simply taken the path of least resistance aided and abetted by the usual uninformed, shtetl-mindedAmerican Jews — continuing their primary objective — self-serving fund raising.
Many American Jewsrightfully felt that George H.W. Bush’s statement obviously fed into antisemitic myths of Jewish power. As a result, Bush’s support among American Jews cratered, with 90 percent of them voting for his opponent Bill Clinton in the 1992 election. And, Clinton quickly became the next undeserving, Jewish hero.
Unfortunately, nothing has changed with Jewish hero selection. They voted near 75% for Barack Obama and now are vehemently opposing a true Israel/Jewish supporter — Donald Trump.
Simon Levis Sullam reveals how Italian citizens were actively complicit in the extermination of Jews – and got away with it.
By Janet Levy, November 22, 2018
Contrary to the prevalent view that Italians were primarily among the so-called “righteous gentiles” who saved Jews during the Holocaust, Italy played a significant role in the genocide of its Jewish citizens.
Italians advanced blood libels, instituted persecutory racial laws, and later actively participated in the arrest and deportation of Jews to Auschwitz. In The Italian Executioners: The Genocide of the Jews in Italy, modern history professor Simon Levis Sullam explodes the myth of the “good Italians” promulgated after the war and exposes, for the first time, the cover-up of Italian responsibility.
As early as 1938, under the centralized authority of the Italian Social Republic (RSI), Italy introduced racial laws for its Jewish citizens that limited their economic activities, demonized them as inferior and enemies of the country, and persecuted them in employment, education and property ownership.
The Ministry of Popular Culture set up local centers to study the Jewish problem and crank out antisemitic propaganda for the media. A telling sentiment expressed on Radio Roma was the hope that “the Jews be burnt, one by one, and their ashes scattered in the wind.” All of this ultimately paved the way for Jewish annihilation.
Five years before any roundups began, Levis Sullam reveals, the Italian government conducted a complete census of the Jewish population and established an efficient bureaucracy to surveil and persecute this “disease of humanity.”
False and dehumanizing accusations about Jews, many promulgated by the Roman Catholic Church, were rampant.
Jews were viewed as deserving of segregation and persecution based on race alone. Officers in the Fascist National Republican Guard under Mussolini were well briefed in spiritual and biological racism theories.
From 1943 to 1945, a network of collaborators – police, militia members, customs officials and more – hunted Jews in their homes. They arrested, imprisoned and handed Jews over to the Germans for deportation to death camps. Jewish property and belongings were ransacked and stolen, often with impunity. Audaciously, Jewish victims of theft were charged an administrative fee for this confiscation of their assets, the book recounts.
To illustrate the depth of action undertaken by the complicit Italian population, the author describes the actions and involvement of three prominent community members. He shows how the sentiments of these people of note were representative of the general populace, helped create widespread hatred of Jews in the period leading to World War II and helped facilitate genocide.
Giovanni Preziosi, an RSI legislator, spearheaded the General Inspectorate of Race. He was responsible for identifying “racial status,” studying “racial questions,” disseminating antisemitic propaganda and devising solutions to the Jewish problem with full knowledge of the “final solution” adopted by the Germans. He was a willing and enthusiastic party to the joint Italian-German undertaking to perpetrate genocide. He was responsible for supervising the confiscation of Jewish property and infusing the educational system with antisemitic propaganda.
Giovanni Martelloni, a writer on the “Jewish question” and head of the Office of Jewish Affairs in Florence, joined the Inspectorate of Race in 1944 and carried out arrests and confiscations. An antisemitic writer who defined a “Jewish problem” that had plagued the world for 2,000 years, he was put in charge of coordinating anti-Jewish activities in Florence.
Physician and lecturer Giocondo Protti supported racist legislation and authored articles such as “The Jews as the Disease of Humanity” and “The Tragedy of Israel.” He ranted about the corrosive Jewish effect on society that he claimed was congenital and couldn’t be reversed by conversion.
The Italians proved useful to the Nazis.
They seized half of the country’s Jews and even ran their own concentration camp at Fossoli di Carpi, a way station for transport to Auschwitz. The camp was operated by Italian Fascist militias and strategically located close to a railway line. In his book, Levis Sullam, referring to an official document that called for a search for a second concentration camp, reasons that a network of labor camps likely existed in Italy. Operations against the Jews were carried out in Rome, Milan, Florence, Venice and other regions throughout the country.
The author describes many instances of Italians who served as informers and extracted large sums of money from Jews who wanted to cross the Swiss border.
Along the way, the guides, motivated by financial gain, personal vendettas or political convictions, betrayed the escaping Jews, alerted the authorities and collected a bounty for their capture.
At the close of the war, attempts were undertaken to recast the role of the Italian executioners. Remarkably, no one was ever prosecuted for carrying out Fascism’s antisemitic policies since persecution of the Jews was not considered a crime. By the summer of 1946, approximately 10,000 of the 13,000 people who had been convicted of wartime-related activities were granted amnesty and cleared of guilt and responsibility.
Italians who had engaged in enacting and carrying out racist legislation were fully able to flourish in their postwar careers, with some even going on to serve as judges and in political office.
The author discusses the peculiar “removal” of Italian responsibility and its replacement with historical accounts featuring the “good Italian” and their “tolerance and kindheartedness” toward Jews. Often, to move on with their lives, Jews accepted and supported this fallacious narrative.
Italians were falsely presented as opposing the German extermination policy and doing all they could to save Jews.
With the postwar whitewashing of their Holocaust role, Italians moved from the “era of the witness,” which highlighted the victims’ plight during genocide, to the “era of the savior,” in which Italy celebrates its role as alleged rescuer of Jews. The country has failed to recognize its own complicity in the murder of its Jewish citizens, bypassing the “era of the executioner.” That step would require the country to confront its woeful participation, faithfully described in this trailblazing book. Hopefully, Sullam’s account will begin this process with his uncovering of the Fascist regime’s role as a willing Holocaust perpetrator.
To subscribe to Israel Commentary: Send your email address to
Rome was the place where Church Father “Saint” Augustine’s instructions regarding what to do with the “deicide people” were carried out and became a model for elsewhere.
Unlike another Church Father, “Saint” John Chrysostom—who openly called for their slaughter in his homilies, Augustine wanted Jews kept alive……but in such a lowly condition that, when others looked upon them, they would recognize the deicide people.
The ghetto was the unhealthy iron foundry area, avoided for habitation—but perfect for the alleged G_d-killers. This ghetto came with locks and soon spread far beyond Italy.
Please open the following link to my earlier article about the above two Church Fathers and the Jews…
Right near Rome’s Colosseum stands the towering Arch of Titus. It was built soon after the first major revolt of Judea for freedom (66-73 C.E.). Contemporary Roman historians recorded the mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Jews
during these attempts to regain independence from the conqueror of much of the known world. Scroll down here…
So, unfortunately, the Italians have had a long history of hostility towards Jews which preconditioned them to what Janet Levy writes about in her eye-opening review of this painful new book about Italian active complicity in the Holocaust.
Even Michelangelo placed what most folks will see as Devil’s horns on his famous sculpture of Moses—despite “rays of light”
claims by some folks. Centuries of the Church’s own demonization and dehumanization of the eternal wandering, deicide people had taken its toll on him and most others as well…even after they became atheists.
Thanks Janet and Jerry for all you do for matters dear to all our hearts…
Americans Turned to Trump to Roll Back the Progressive Tide
To understand his appeal, look at the excesses of liberals in recent years. He’s a wall against the wave.
By Joseph Epstein
Wall Street Journal Nov. 20, 2018
At lunch the other day, a friend and strong anti-Trumper wondered aloud what brought all those thousands of people out to Donald Trump’s rallies. “After all,” he said “they’re pretty much the same show.”
Mr. Trump on stage, in his usual bragging mode, attacking the press, settling scores with people he feels have betrayed him, while the audience in their red hats applaud uproariously, yelling approval for 90 or so minutes. “What’s the attraction? I don’t get it.”
Not a bad question, really. As I thought it over, it occurred to me that what genuinely excites Mr. Trump’s crowds and draws them to him is their shared anti-liberalism. By liberalism I do not mean liberalism of the kind that was at the center of our fathers’ Democratic Party—which supported labor unions, civil liberties, racial integration, involvement in international affairs. I refer to the liberalism that through a delusional metamorphosis became the progressivism at the heart of the thinking of such Democrats as Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others.
This is the progressivism that edges(leaps) into socialism, that is said to attract the young, that promises a newer, kinder America—the progressivism that exalts identity politics and has no argument with political correctness.
As one looks upon the people who attend Mr. Trump’s rallies, one sees the faces not of Hillary Clinton’s “deplorables” but of the proletariat out of which Karl Marx’s dictatorship was supposed to derive.
Yet these people, despite the progressives’ promises to them of free Medicare, free college tuition, and the rest, want nothing to do with Senators Warren, Sanders, Booker & Co. Quite the reverse: They loathe them.
The man who attends a Trump rally turns on his television set and that night’s news leads off with a Black Lives Matter protest in his city. If that city is Chicago, he might recall that this year some 2,619 people have been shot, 475 shot and killed, the preponderance of these being black people shot by black youth gangs.
If it is another city, there is a distinct possibility, as fairly often in the past, that the protest will lead to looting of nearby shops. Al Sharpton, nattily turned out, is likely to have flown in for the festivities to remind everyone about the world’s injustice.
Our man changes channels and is greeted by a story of a long and happy lesbian marriage.
He reads in the papers that people are fired from jobs for remarks that, under the reign of political correctness, are interpreted as racist, sexist, you name it;
that students feel unsafe at Yale; that a year’s tuition, room and board at Dartmouth is $74,000.
Doubtless before long he will read a story about an 11-year-old who is suing his parents for not allowing him to transgender himself.
Oh God, he thinks, make America great again, make America straight again, make America anything but what it is becoming. What elected Donald Trump, and what sustains him, is not his rather dubious charisma, his ideas, his obvious jolt to the country’s earlier slow economic growth, and no, not even the wretched campaign run by Hillary Clinton. Mr. Trump was chosen as a rebuke to the progressivism that has made life in America seem chaotic, if not a touch mad, and that now threatens to take over the Democratic Party.
A number of highly intelligent Trump supporters I know are perfectly willing to acknowledge the president’s manifold flaws. They voted for him, and probably will again, because he is not Hillary or Barack Obama or Chuck Schumer. In the old Indian proverb, the enemy of their enemy is their friend; more than friend, he, Donald J. Trump, is happily their president.
After the midterm elections, Nancy Pelosi announced that she is exultant that more than 60% of the Democratic members of Congress are women, or ethic minorities, or LGBT. Some Democrats threaten to investigate President Trump’s personal finances. Others hold out the promise of impeaching Mr. Trump, Brett Kavanaugh or Matthew Whitaker. So the beat of identity politics, and progressivism generally, goes on.
The pull to the left of the Democratic Party is Donald Trump’s greatest hope for re-election, while Mr. Trump’s behavior is the greatest force pulling Democrats still further to the left.
Tariffs, trade agreements, even immigration policy seem slightly beside the point when, as now, not two different parties but two radically different views of the good life dominate public discourse. And so things go, two ends without a middle. The shame is that most Americans find themselves in that missing middle, helpless without a party, hopeless without a leader. Politics has rarely seemed so dismal.
Mr. Epstein is author of “The Ideal of Culture and Other Essays” (Axios Press) and “Charm: The Elusive Enchantment” (Lyons Press).
To subscribe to Israel Commentary: Send your email address to
Legislation to remove Jews from Hebron – the burial place of our forefathers – Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, abandoning to the Arabs
Please send your protest to MKs in Israel and your friends, family there.
By Yehudit Tayar
Official Spokesperson for Judea and Samaria
Bet Horon, North Judea, Israel 90935,
November 21, 2018
Looking up to to blue sky with the fluffy clouds and waiting for the blessed rains that we so need. So many prayers that we direct to the L-rd of Israel and we see miracles so many times despite the challenges, the pain of loss and the continued hatred directed against us.
Today I heard such a moving account that just north of the City of David Jerusalem, a piece of metal was discovered from 3,000 years ago that it turns out was donated as “half a shekel” for the construction of our Holy Temple. It will be shown during Chanukah in the Valley of Zurim.
On the contrary I received notification of a special meeting (because by law they are not allowed to have a conference on the subject) in this conference members of the Knesset of the “mixed or combined party” along with Meretz in the Knesset along with “Breaking the silence, Peace Now, Yesh Din – yes I am serious- in the Knesset -are having to do with what they declare “war crimes” in Judea and Samaria and Gaza. Many Arab residents of Hevron were invited – their attendance is dependent if the Civil Administration gives them permission to enter Israel.
The three members of Knesset who are arranging this”meeting” wrote on the invitation ” Already for 50 years a small group of settlers are in the heart of the “Palestinian ” population in Hebron and are leading the Israeli government to implement a cruel separation, physical and legal on the “Palestinian ” population.HUH!
Hundreds of soldiers are sent to actively implement the separation, an enormous budget is being invested in this tiny group, at the expense of the population in Israel.” (quoted by them)
The bottom line and directive is to uproot the Jewish residents of Hebron from the City of our Forefathers.
You ask yourself how can members of the Israeli Knesset be allowed to direct this treasonous demand ? Actions of this must be prevented and if not they all should be expelled from the Knesset – this is what we pay their salaries for? To try to destroy our heritage?
The time has come for Israel to realize that the final demand will be to uproot all of the Jews from our eternal Homeland – and they will not stop with Hevron, Judea, Samaria Jerusalem – they intend to exile us from our Land.
We must all unite against this plan and do all we can no matter where we live in Israel or abroad to ensure the eternal presence and life of our Nation in our Land forever more.
To subscribe to Israel Commentary: Send your email address to
As the global anti-Semitic tsunami intensifies, most Diaspora Jews seem to have lost the plot. In the past, when an external foe emerged, Jews would put aside their differences and unite in the face of those seeking their destruction. Prior to the establishment of the State of Israel, Jews suffered from persecution, pogroms and murders culminating in the Shoah.
Today, despite a powerful Jewish state that can provide a haven to Jews facing persecution, Diaspora Jews are utterly disunited and many of them seem to have lost their bearings. They are laying the foundations for an unprecedented eruption of violent anti-Semitism.
Despite the tragedy of the brutal slaying of 11 Jews in Pittsburgh, American Jewry remains the most peaceful community in the Diaspora. And even today, despite the election of radical anti-Jewish elements – including self-hating Jews – within the Democratic Party, there are still more pro-Israel elements in Congress after the midterm elections.
Those elections took place in an unprecedented atmosphere of political hysteria.
But despite predictions of defeat, it would seem that President Donald Trump was the overall winner.
In virtually all midterm elections, the ruling party experiences losses. The country is divided. The larger cities lean Democrat and mid-America is overwhelmingly pro-Trump. The concept of respect for a president, which has prevailed over most of America’s history since the Civil War, no longer exists. The nation is divided down the middle with most voters being either passionate lovers or zealous haters of Trump – with Jews at the forefront of the hatred.
While the Republicans lost control of the House of Representatives, they lost fewer seats than the Democrats did when losing the House in the 1994 and 2010 midterms. And more importantly, they held, and perhaps widened, their majority in the Senate (where two races remain undecided).
Thus, while Trump will face ongoing tensions domestically, the Democrats will have to be careful not to be seen as extreme and subsequently generate further backlash. And Trump has a virtual free hand in continuing to direct foreign policy. Even more importantly, he will strengthen conservative elements in the higher and lower courts, undoubtedly altering the liberal mentality that has dominated American courts these past generations.
There is one bizarre aspect to this. The clear majority of Jewish Americans continued the tradition of voting Democratic and have emerged as leaders of the anti-Trump brigade. That many Jews with a liberal tradition oppose Trump’s conservative policies and dislike his aggressive tone is not surprising. But what is incomprehensible is the hysterical abuse they shower on the president and that they do so in a Jewish context. The almost lunatic attacks on a president by such a wide section of the Jewish community, including progressive rabbis, Jewish lay organizations like the Anti-Defamation League and Jewish women’s groups, which had until now avoided partisan politics, is utterly unprecedented.
The venom expressed suggests a dybbuk has instilled a collective madness on a major component of the American Jewish community. Jews even demanded that Trump not be present at the mourning ceremony in the Pittsburgh synagogue.
Some Jewish leaders blamed him for the massacre, alleging that his aggressive political style was responsible for the actions of the lone neo-Nazi anti Semite. Never mind the other shooting rampages perpetrated during previous administrations, for which no president was held responsible. Nobody blamed President Barack Obama for the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting which killed 50 people, nor the other 37 mass shootings during his tenure.
They also alleged that anti-Semitism has escalated since Trump was elected. The media, buttressed by the ADL and other Jewish groups, have repeatedly alleged that today there are massive new waves of white nationalist anti-Semitism. They include in their fake figures internet hoaxes that were not even motivated by Jew-hatred. The facts belie this. Beyond the occasional mad neo-Nazi, the situation has remained constant.
One thing is clear: American Jews do need to employ security services at synagogues, schools and community centers as is the case today in virtually every Diaspora community around the world.
It is noteworthy that the ever-growing influence of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic elements seeking to radicalize the Democratic Party is rarely mentioned by the liberal press or the ADL. In the midterm elections, a number of Democratic candidates hostile to Israel and Jews won seats – some in districts with significant Jewish populations.
Nor have there been serious efforts to restrain burgeoning anti-Semitism from pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel left-wing groups on college campuses.
There were few complaints when Obama treated Israel like a rogue state and related to Israeli self-defense and Palestinian terrorism as morally equivalent. And there are few complaints now, after it was recently revealed that in 2005 Obama met the head of the Nation of Islam, the radical anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, for a photo op.
The allegations that Trump contributed to the current polarization of society by his aggressive rhetoric may be true but that is more than matched by the hysteria from the Democrats.
This is intensified by the dramatic revolution in social media, which – in contrast to only 20 years ago – reaches a massive audience, including extreme hate-mongers. It may well be time to review America’s credo of upholding unlimited freedom of expression. We should assess this in the context of today’s social media which undoubtedly serves as a platform for promoting racism, violence, and above all, anti-Semitism.
By far the most obscene aspect of this mudslinging is the concerted Jewish attempt to portray Trump as tolerating Nazis and being an anti-Semite. This lie has been reproduced so frequently in recent months by progressive rabbis and Jewish lay leaders that it has become imbedded in the minds of many Democratic supporters.
But this reflects the madness in the air. Trump has a daughter who converted to Judaism and is religiously observant; he has always had Jewish friends; some of his key executive officers are Jews; and following the tragedy in Pittsburgh, he made a statement condemning anti-Semitism that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could not have expressed better.
But above all, Trump has proven to be the most pro-Israel president since the state was established. He is the first to have told the Palestinians the truth and reduced funds that were not being used appropriately; he stopped funding UNESCO when that organization admitted Palestine as a full member; he told the Palestinians to forget about their claimed right of return to Israel; he moved the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem despite enormous pressures; he warned the Palestinians that paying salaries to murderers and aid to their families was unacceptable; he was the first to stand up, virtually alone, to promote Israel’s case to the world.
Now American Jews may hate Trump, but to describe this man as pro-Nazi and an anti-Semite qualifies them collectively as crazy.
What is more alarming is that if this psychotic behavior accusing Trump of Nazi sentiments is not quashed, Middle America, which adores Trump and has supported his Israeli policies with far greater enthusiasm than the Jews, could unleash their frustrations against the “ungrateful” Jews and then the ADL predictions about anti-Semitism would be realized.
We live in troubled times. While Israel has never been as well off as it is today, throughout the Diaspora anti-Semitism is rising dramatically and now many American Jews seem to be acting like lemmings on a suicide march.
The tragedy is that Israel, which formerly served as the vital factor maintaining Jewish identity for those with limited Jewish education, has now drifted almost into irrelevancy for large swathes of American Jewry. Unless a massive effort is invested into overcoming Jewish illiteracy, the future seems bleak.
Those concerned with having Jewish grandchildren should now seriously evaluate making aliyah or at least encouraging their children to do so.
Isi Leibler may be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org
To subscribe to Israel Commentary: Send your email address to
Ilhan Omar, one of the first of two Muslim women to be elected to Congress, is a new kind of politician. She’s telegenic. Ideologically progressive. Widely celebrated by a media that’s obsessed with identity politics. She’s the kind of politician who can openly side with Hamas against Israel or spread “Protocols of Zion”-style conspiracies on Twitter, claiming that Jews possess the supernatural ability to hypnotize the world as they unfurl their “evil.”
It’s not surprising, then, that Omar also supports the “boycott, divestment and sanctions” movement (BDS). In a statement to the website Muslim Girl (later confirmed elsewhere), someone on Omar’s staff explains that, yes, “Ilhan believes in and supports the BDS movement, and has fought to make sure people’s right to support it isn’t criminalized. She does however, have reservations on the effectiveness of the movement in accomplishing a lasting solution.”
So, although Omar contends that BDS will be ineffective in getting the sides to “a lasting solution,” she stills “believes in and supports” a movement that smears the Jewish state as a racist endeavor and aims to destroy it economically. It’s a mystery, is it not, why some Jews might find that positioning offensive?
Omar has supported BDS for a while, even though she will now occasionally slip in some platitudes about the peace process. As Scott Johnson of Power Line (who’s been following this story from the beginning) points out, Omar misled Jewish voters in her district, obfuscating about her position and, as she still does, conflating her support for BDS with a bill that would have stopped continued taxpayer funding of the movement. No one is attempting to “criminalize” anti-Israel speech, although it’s heartening to see Omar is a free-speech absolutist. We’ll see if her position on the “criminalization” of speech will remain consistent moving forward, and not reserved for supporters of Hamas.
As far as I know, not even former congressman Keith Ellison, who once accused the shifty Jews of running American foreign policy, openly supported the BDS movement. Not even J-Street, the progressive front for hard-left activists posing as Israel supporters, openly backed BDS. Nor does George Soros, although he has intermittently funded BDS groups in the past and has been active against the Jewish state for years.
Of course, BDS proponents will tell you they are anti-Zionist, not anti-Semitic. But when you’re fixated on the only liberal state in the Middle East, and avoid criticism of any Islamic regimes that deny their own citizens the most basic of human rights, you, at the very least, betray a morally bankrupt position. Even as Hamas rains hundreds of rockets down on civilians—a nihilistic project that always takes precedent over investing in their own people in their own autonomous Palestinian territory—there is criticism from those who only see evil behind Jewish acts of self-defense.
It’s no mistake that Omar insists Israel is an “apartheid regime,” an ugly, simplistic, misleading, and irresponsible accusation. It’s not only the propellant for anti-Semitism on campuses across the country, it’s the foundational accusation of the BDS movement, which is attempting to recreate the campaign against racist South African apartheid in the 1980s.
Israel’s laws, of course, make absolutely no distinctions based on a person’s race. Every person in Israel has the ability to participate in the democratic process, and all have equal standing under the law. Muslims in Israel have more liberal rights than Muslims anywhere in the Arab world do. What we do have is a complex situation involving one-time Jewish land that once again fell under Israeli rule after a bunch of neighboring countries tried to destroy it.
Yet Democrats, who claim to hear anti-Semitism dog whistles from every porch in Red America, rarely see a problem with this kind of rhetoric. The FBI says that Jews were the victims of 60 percent of religiously motivated hate crimes in 2017, although they were just 2 percent of the population. Whatever inherent flaws exist in these self-reporting statistics, the disparity is real. Despite the horrific shooting in Pittsburgh and Jew hatred on the far Right, it’s almost certain that the average American Jew is more likely to encounter an aggressively “anti-Zionist” BDS activist on a campus (or a progressive march) than a white supremacist anywhere.
Just ask Tamika Mallory or Linda Sarsour or Sophie Ellman-Golan as they simultaneously infantilize and radicalize mainstream left-wing politics. Not a single Democratic Party leader has condemned their ugly rhetoric or relationship with hate-mongers or their insistence on singling out the one country that happens to be filled with Jews. Then again, not one Democrat has condemned Omar for comparing the Jewish state to a racist regime.
Put it this way, TV actress-turned activist Alyssa Milano has been more courageous than Sen. Chuck Schumer about standing up against anti-Semitism. Debra Messing is braver than Brian Schatz, Bernie Sanders, Dianne Feinstein, and Richard Blumenthal. Fortunately, not everyone is consumed by sheer political expediency.
If the state controls the economy, competition is replaced by rivalries among politicians.
By Stephen Miller
Doctors speak about good cholesterol and bad cholesterol. Some people say there’s a good kind of socialism, democratic socialism, that is different from the bad kind, the Marxist-Leninist variety. There’s an obvious problem with this claim: There never has been a socialist country that has been democratic. The Democratic Socialists of America admit it: “No country has fully instituted democratic socialism,” the organization says on its website.
Democratic socialism is not only an unrealized dream. It is a contradiction in terms. (One might call it an oxymoron)
The DSA argues that democratic socialism is possible: “We can learn from the comprehensive welfare state maintained by the Swedes.” DSA also mentions government programs in France, Canada and Nicaragua that smack of socialism.
But Sweden, France and Canada are not socialist countries, and Nicaragua is not democratic. “Sweden allows property and profits,” notes economic historian Deirdre McCloskey. “It allocates most goods by unregulated prices.” The U.S. bailed out General Motors, but Sweden didn’t rescue Volvo or Saab.
What would be the defining characteristics of a democratic socialist country? In “The Poverty of Socialist Thought,” a 1976 Commentary article, I argued that “socialism is nothing more than a vague moral commitment to social justice.”
I was wrong. Contemporary democratic socialists have a concrete agenda: They want to eliminate capitalism. The DSA says: “In the short term we can’t eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under greater democratic control.” Meagan Day, a DSA member who works for Jacobin magazine, writes for Vox: “In the long run, democratic socialists want to end capitalism.”
In “The New Socialists,” a New York Times article, political scientist Corey Robin argues that capitalism should be abolished because “it makes us unfree.” He complains that “under capitalism, we’re forced to enter the market just to live.” Well, yes. Would Mr. Robin want the state to be the sole employer? Would he prefer to buy goods at state-owned stores and eat at state-owned restaurants?
Mr. Robin, like all socialists, is hazy on the details of a socialist economy. The first step he proposes is “state ownership of certain industries.” He doesn’t say which ones. Democratically elected workers, he imagines, would decide what to make and what prices to charge. “The trouble with socialism,” Oscar Wilde is reported to have said, “is that it would take too many evenings.”
If democratic socialists looked more closely at the world, they would see that a strong market economy is a necessary condition for freedom, though not a sufficient one. The World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index lists 10 countries as having the most competitive economies: the U.S., Singapore, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, the Netherlands, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, Sweden and Denmark. Only two, Singapore and Hong Kong, are not fully democratic.
If democratic socialism is a fantasy, socialist economic proposals are recipes for economic stagnation. “Competitive economies,” the forum says, “are those that are most likely to be able to grow more sustainably and inclusively, meaning more likelihood that everyone in society will benefit from the fruits of economic growth.” If the state owns corporations, there is no competition, only rivalries among people with political power.
To argue in favor of competitive economies is not to endorse libertarianism or laissez-faire economics. Adam Smith understood that markets need to be regulated. The nature and extent of market regulation will always be a matter of debate, but the more the government interferes in the market, the less competitive an economy will be.
Democratic socialists would do well to ponder Yeats’s lines: “We had fed the heart on fantasies, / The heart’s grown brutal from the fare.”
(I still like former UK Prime Minister’s line the best:
The only problem with socialism is that you run out of other people’s money.) jsk
Mr. Miller’s latest book is “Walking New York: Reflections of American Writers from Walt Whitman to Teju Cole.”
To subscribe to Israel Commentary: Send your email address to
With malice aforethought, painting Israel up against a black propaganda exercise inverting truth and lies, unfortunately, with devastating effect.
BY MELANIE PHILLIPS
The Jerusalem Post
SEPTEMBER 14, 2018
If there’s one refrain which gets me chewing the carpet, it’s the plaintive question, “Why is Israel unable to get its message across?”
The naivety behind this question is itself a large part of the answer. It’s not just the fact that – as has now become all too obvious – the demonization and delegitimization of Israel is inextricably linked to the ineradicable poison of anti-semitism.
More pertinently, Israel has been up against a black propaganda exercise which has inverted truth and lies with devastating effect. Its only equivalent in scale, skill and evil intent is the manipulative mind control practiced by totalitarian regimes.
No coincidence: This strategy of psychological warfare deployed by the Palestinians was devised by Yasser Arafat in cahoots with the Soviets, who knew a thing or two about subverting the values of an entire culture. And the war against the Jews is part of the broader war against the free world and the core tenets of Western civilization.
The attempt to counter this by Israel’s defenders has been woefully misjudged. There’s the defensive-crouch response (“Hey guys, why are you dumping on us – can’t you see we’re the victims here?”) which, by responding on the enemy’s own distorted grounds of purported Israeli aggression, is itself halfway to conceding defeat.
Or there’s the attempt to persuade the world of Israel’s elevated standards of ethical behavior (“Hey guys, look at all the Palestinians we’re treating in our hospitals, even including the ones who’ve just tried to murder us!”)
Since the one thing the Western world does not want to hear is the perceived moral superiority of the Jews – of which it is pathologically, irredeemably and sometimes murderously jealous – this particular approach turns abject stupidity into an art form.
Given that the demonization of Israel is the key strategy in the war of extermination being waged against it, “getting Israel’s message across” is the equivalent to using a leaky bucket to ward off a tsunami.
The essence of such psychological warfare is as simple as it is seismic. It is the manipulation of language.
Words have been hijacked so that they come to be understood as the opposite of what they really signify. The importance of this tactic can hardly be overstated.
Many people know little or nothing about the Middle East and have even less interest in finding out. For them, it’s just background noise. But if the language which forms that background noise is hijacked, then the story of the Middle East is hijacked too.
Key concepts have been presented as if in mirror writing so that Israel, the victim of aggression, has been turned falsely into the aggressor while its would-be exterminators are transformed into its victims.
And that’s been achieved not just by telling lies about what’s going on today or happened in the past. Crucially, those falsehoods have been framed by language which conditions the listener to accept them because the language itself has been turned into a lie.
Consider, for example, the word “colonialism.” In left-wing ideology, colonialism is the crime of crimes that defines Western iniquity: the subjection of indigenous peoples in the developing world by white-skinned westerners who occupied their lands and ruled, enslaved and oppressed them.
Left-wingers believe that white, Western Israel has occupied the lands of the indigenous Palestinians whom it is proceeding to rule, enslave and oppress.
EVERY ELEMENT of this is demonstrably false. Israel is neither predominantly white nor Western. More than three quarters of its population, Jews as well as Arabs, are brown-skinned and originally hailed from the Middle East.
Crucially, the Jews are the only extant indigenous people of the land which today comprises Israel, the “West Bank” and Gaza. The Arabs merely formed one of the many waves of conquerors, including Romans, Persians, Greeks, Christians and Turks, who first drove out the Jews and then colonized their rightful and historic home.
It is therefore not the Jews who are colonizing, and thus enslaving or oppressing, anyone at all. It is the “Palestinians” who are would-be colonizers threatening again to dispossess the indigenous Jewish people of the land.
So Israel and its defenders should talk routinely about “Palestinians” as colonialists.
Many other words which have been turned into weapons of war against Israel need similarly to be reclaimed from their hijackers and restored to their true meaning.
Israel and its defenders should replace the term “peace process” with “appeasement process.” The “occupation” of the disputed territories should be replaced with “liberation.”
Because of its lethal attacks against Israeli civilians, as well as the abuse of their own civilians as human shields, Hamas should routinely be termed “Palestinian war criminals.”
Similarly, Mahmoud Abbas should always be tagged not just as a “Holocaust denier” because of his infamous doctoral thesis. On account of his continued hero-worship of Haj Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem who was Hitler’s chief ally in the Middle East and planned to exterminate the Jews of the entire region in Auschwitz-style crematoria, Abbas should be described as a “neo-Nazi sympathizer”.
Some may say this is merely to hijack the language in the opposite direction. Not so. This is using it to express truths backed by evidence rather than lies. To claim the Israelis are Nazis is an obscene lie; but Abbas really is a sympathizer with the would-be leader of the Nazi extermination program in the Middle East.
And truth and evidence cannot ever be said to be hijacking the language.
As a result, background verbal noise composed of truth would begin to permeate the collective Western brain in place of the current background verbal noise of lies.
The consequence would be that the verbal conditioning which is so essential to influencing the collective mind would produce a very different outcome. The falsehoods and distortions about Israel would begin to jar badly against the story implicitly understood by the term “Palestinian colonialists.”
Totalitarian regimes understand the connection between language and thinking. The Soviet communists repeated formulaic slogans over and over again.
In his book The Language of the Third Reich, Victor Klemperer wrote that the Nazis used language to indoctrinate virtually the entire population. Through their repeated use of particular words in propaganda, speeches and publications, they changed their meaning and context to serve their purposes.
Exactly the same tactics of language control and the hijacking of meaning are being used by today’s “progressive” cultural totalitarians against both Israel and the West – where words and phrases such as “liberal,” “social justice” or “equality” have been turned into their precise opposite.
Language and thinking are linked. The issue is whether that link is to be used to service truth or lies.
Words are being used to twist and enslave the Western mind and to empower the destroyers of the innocent. Language has to be reclaimed from its hijackers and restored to its real meaning if truth, justice and collective sanity are to be restored.
The writer is a columnist for The Times (UK). Her novel The Legacy and her memoir Guardian Angel are available from Amazon.com. Follow her blog and articles at melaniephillips.com, on Facebook at MelanieLatest and on Twitter @MelanieLatest.
To subscribe to Israel Commentary: Send your email address to