Menachem Begin To Joe Biden: I Am Not A Jew With Trembling Knees

By: Ronn Torossian

Published: April 3rd, 2015 Jewish Press

While the Obama Administration continues their pressure on Israel, for at least Vice President Joe Biden, it would not be the first time that there has been personal animosity with an Israeli leader. The reality is that while some of the names change, this conflict is about Israel’s refusal to surrender to a Palestinian Arab enemy who seeks to destroy them. The United States is wrong to pressure Israel – yet, this too shall pass.

History often repeats itself.

On June 22 1982, Joe Biden was a Senator from Delaware and confronted then Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin during his Senate Foreign Relations committee testimony, threatening to cut off aid to Israel. Begin forcefully responded, “Don’t threaten us with cutting off your aid. It will not work. I am not a Jew with trembling knees. I am a proud Jew with 3,700 years of civilized history. Nobody came to our aid when we were dying in the gas chambers and ovens. Nobody came to our aid when we were striving to create our country. We paid for it. We fought for it. We died for it. We will stand by our principles. We will defend them. And, when necessary, we will die for them again, with or without your aid.”

As media reports that the United States Government continues to pressure Israel, the reality is that America must respect the will of the Israeli public, whom overwhelmingly re-elected a Netanyahu government. As a senior Israeli elected official noted, “Settlement building will be one of the basic guidelines of the next government and just as I don’t interfere in America if they build in Florida or California, they don’t need to interfere in building in Judea or Samaria.”

Senator Biden reportedly banged the table with his fist, and Begin retorted, “This desk is designed for writing, not for fists. Don’t threaten us with slashing aid. Do you think that because the US lends us money it is entitled to impose on us what we must do? We are grateful for the assistance we have received, but we are not to be threatened. I am a proud Jew. Three thousand years of culture are behind me, and you will not frighten me with threats. Take note: we do not want a single soldier of yours to die for us.”

After the meeting, Sen. Moynihan approached Begin and praised him for his cutting reply. To which Begin answered with thanks, defining his stand against threats.

Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the leader of the Revisionist movement, which both Begin & Netanyahu emanate from noted in 1940 that, “We hold that Zionism is moral and just. And since it is moral and just, justice must be done, no matter whether Joseph or Simon or Ivan or Achmed agree with it or not.”

World leaders would be apt to remember these words and times.

Obama’s final, most shameful, legacy moment



By Charles Krauthammer Opinion writer December 29 at 7:53 PM

“When the chips are down, I have Israel’s back.”

— Barack Obama, AIPAC
conference, March 4, 2012

The audience — overwhelmingly Jewish, passionately pro-Israel and supremely gullible — applauded wildly. Four years later — his last election behind him, with a month to go in office and with no need to fool Jew or gentile again — Obama took the measure of Israel’s back and slid a knife into it.

People don’t quite understand the damage done to Israel by the U.S. abstention that permitted passage of a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israel over settlements. The administration pretends this is nothing but a restatement of long-standing U.S. opposition to settlements.

Nonsense. For the past 35 years, every administration, including a reelection-seeking Obama himself in 2011, has protected Israel with the U.S. veto because such a Security Council resolution gives immense legal ammunition to every boycotter, anti-Semite and zealous European prosecutor to penalize and punish Israelis.

An ordinary Israeli who lives or works in the Old City of Jerusalem becomes an international pariah, a potential outlaw. To say nothing of the soldiers of Israel’s citizen army. “Every pilot and every officer and every soldier,” said a confidant of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, “we are waiting for him at The Hague,” i.e. the International Criminal Court.

Moreover, the resolution undermines the very foundation of a half-century of American Middle East policy. What becomes of “land for peace” if the territories that Israel was to have traded for peace are, in advance, declared to be Palestinian land to which Israel has no claim?

The peace parameters enunciated so ostentatiously by Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday are nearly identical to the Clinton parameters that Yasser Arafat was offered and rejected in 2000 and that Abbas was offered by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008. Abbas, too, walked away.

Kerry mentioned none of this because it undermines his blame-Israel narrative. Yet Palestinian rejectionism works. The Security Council just declared the territories legally Palestinian — without the Palestinians having to concede anything, let alone peace. What incentive do the Palestinians have to negotiate when they can get the terms — and territory — they seek handed to them for free if they hold out long enough?

The administration claims a kind of passive innocence on the text of the resolution, as if it had come upon it at the last moment. We are to believe that the ostensible sponsors — New Zealand, Senegal, Malaysia and a Venezuela that cannot provide its own people with toilet paper, let alone food — had for months been sweating the details of Jewish housing in East Jerusalem.

Nothing new here, protests deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes: “When we see the facts on the ground, again, deep into the West Bank beyond the separation barrier, we feel compelled to speak up against those actions.”

This is a deception. Everyone knows that remote outposts are not the issue. Under any peace, they will be swept away. Even right-wing Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who lives in one of these West Bank settlements, has stated publicly that “I even agree to vacate my settlement if there really will be a two-state solution.” Where’s the obstacle to peace?

A second category of settlement is the close-in blocs that border 1967 Israel. Here, too, we know in advance how these will be disposed of: They’ll become Israeli territory and, in exchange, Israel will swap over some of its land to a Palestinian state. Where’s the obstacle to peace here?

It’s the third category of “settlement” that is the most contentious and that Security Council Resolution 2334 explicitly condemns: East Jerusalem. This is not just scandalous; it’s absurd. America acquiesces to a declaration that, as a matter of international law, the Jewish state has no claim on the Western Wall, the Temple Mount, indeed the entire Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem. They belong to Palestine.

The Temple Mount is the most sacred site in all of Judaism. That it should be declared foreign to the Jewish people is as if the Security Council declared Mecca and Medina to be territory to which Islam has no claim. Such is the Orwellian universe Israel inhabits.

At the very least, Obama should have insisted that any reference to East Jerusalem be dropped from the resolution or face a U.S. veto. Why did he not? It’s incomprehensible — except as a parting shot of personal revenge on Benjamin Netanyahu. Or perhaps as a revelation of a deep-seated antipathy to Israel that simply awaited a safe political interval for public expression.

Another legacy moment for Barack Obama. And his most shameful.


In the final analysis, I believe that John Kerry is mentally ill with a disease best described as "Obsessive/Compulsive Jew Derangement Syndrome". 

OCJDS is a neurosis characterized by a fixation on Jews and the Jewish State (J/JS) to the near exclusion of any other cognitive input or actual state of the world. It most often takes an exclusively critical orientation. No fault is too small to ignore if it can be associated with J/JS . 

It is NOT antisemitism or Jew-hatred. Indeed, sufferers of OCJDS actually believe that they are philo-semites to an unusual degree. Their neurotic compulsion is to criticize with the objective of "perfecting" J/JS. Their constant frustration is that the object of their compulsion does not completely and immediately comply with their demands.



Recently there have appeared in a number of newspapers throughout the United States articles detailing the appalling anti-Semitism that exists currently on many American college campuses. American Jewish youth attend colleges and universities in greater proportion to their population than any other segment of the American public. It can be maintained that theoretically and proportionately speaking, these Jewish students are more subject to hate speech and abuse than any other segment of the American student population.

This comes as a distinct shock to American Jewry which somehow believes that institutionalized anti-Semitism in American education is a thing of the past. Since there are no longer quotas on Jewish enrollment in American higher educational institutions and active discrimination against Jewish students by faculty, administration or other students, prejudice it seemed was a fast disappearing relic of the darker past.

However this rosy picture of Jewish attainment and acceptance is no longer true. From the upper echelons of the Ivy League schools to the almost unknown community colleges, the ugly truth is that anti-Semitism on the college campus is not only present but is accepted and sometimes even glorified.

The disease of anti-Semitism defies any known cure or palliative. It is unreasoning and unreasonable, destructive of all civilized norms and eventually leads to terrible political and social consequences. Any reasoned view of the history of anti- Jewish speech and behavior will reveal the dire consequences that eventually engulfed all of the societies that tolerated such hate and bigotry. One could expect that the intellectual bastions of society – its colleges and universities – would be the places least likely for anti-Semitism to flourish. Sadly, that is not the case at all.

There are numerous reasons advanced to help explain why this troubling and dangerous phenomenon exists today. Some say that it is fueled by the Israel – Arab confrontation and the natural sympathy of the intellect to side with the poor underdog no matter who that underdog may be. Others have pointed out that there is a strong undercurrent of jealousy, especially amongst other minority groups, at the success, wealth, achievement and influence that the Jewish community has acquired in the United States today.

Envy is a very strong emotion that often leads to hatred and violence. And college campuses, traditionally, are the hotbeds of envy - intellectually, professorially and otherwise. All of this creates an environment where the age-old scourge of anti-Semitism can thrive and grow.

Another factor that is often mentioned is that colleges and universities always attract people who yearn for utopian ideals. But, since not one of these ideals has ever been realized in practice, there is always an active search for the scapegoats who somehow prevent the utopia from arriving. It is what the Soviet Union glorified as being “wreckers” and “saboteurs.”

The Gulag was filled with millions of these hapless victims of the failure of Marxism to bring forth the brave new world that it had promised. In the eyes of many intellectuals today, for some unknown reason the Jews remain the obstacle to world peace, the eradication of poverty and misery for all and the great new world of the future.

It is the state of Israel, not North Korea, Iran, Venezuela or any of the other nations of the world, which is the reason why the world does not live in peace and harmony yet. And unfortunately on most college campuses, this nonsense is expressed, taught, validated and accepted. Is there any wonder therefore why anti-Semitism is so strong and virulent on college campuses?

 The American Jewish community, if not American society generally, is awakening to the depths of this problem. It is beginning to realize that anti-Semitism hiding behind the right of free expression is an existential threat to the American Jewish community and therefore indirectly to American society itself.

Student campuses today are unruly places with the presence of all sorts of fringe organizations and wacky causes. Jews have obtained rights and stature on those campuses that previous generations of American Jews never dreamt of even asking for. Yet Jewish uncertainty and insecurity on American college campuses is real and palpable. Young Jews have earned the right to wear a kippah on college campuses and in their classrooms but today many feel that they do so at their own peril. Jews have hunkered down and assumed a low profile attempting to avoid the confrontations with the militant campus organizations that promote and advance anti-Semitism. Whether or not this tactic is the correct one, and will prove successful in the long run, remains yet to be seen.

Shabbat shalom

Berel Wein

Subscribe to our blog via email or RSS to get more posts like this one.

Dec 20, 2016 European meltdown threatens Jews by Isi Leibler

Dec 20, 2016

European meltdown threatens Jews

Today, Diaspora Jewish communities are suffering severe trauma as they experience erosion of the acceptance and security they enjoyed over the past half century. Whether it be Paris, Johannesburg, New York, Melbourne or any city with a Jewish community, the anti-Semitism expressed as feverish hatred of the Jewish state — incubated over the past decade by a witches’ brew of Muslim, far-left and traditional anti-Semitism — is again transforming many Jews into pariahs.

However, the epicenter is undoubtedly Europe where the situation has been aggravated over the past year as a consequence of the immigration of huge numbers of migrants from Syria and North Africa, enabled by the open-door policy of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Many are not refugees but able-bodied young Muslims seeking to improve their standard of living and include supporters and, in some cases, activists of global jihad. They are dramatically destabilizing the social cohesion and security of countries harboring them.

In past decades, most Middle Eastern immigrants to the West were drawn to democracy and sought to integrate with their new surroundings. But many who are coming now display no inclination to integrate, regard democracy with contempt and have been indoctrinated with vile anti-Semitic prejudice. Indeed, moderate Muslims are intimidated, silenced and some even murdered while others who are second-generation offspring of law-abiding immigrants, including university graduates, have been radicalized into perpetrating terror.

Setting aside the 1,750 European jihadists who, according to an EU report, have returned from Syria with orders to engage in terror in their own countries, the aggressive demands, violence and criminal activities of the “refugees” have already impacted in every community in which they reside. Regrettably, in a futile effort to minimize tensions, governments and the media understate and even cover up the extent of their damage to the social fabric.

With the indigenous population shrinking and the Muslim birthrate alarmingly high, unless the flow of migrants is stemmed, there is every possibility that by the end of the century the foundations of European civilization will be destroyed.

Syria and other Middle Eastern countries have returned to the Dark Ages with their excessive barbarism. The plight of butchered civilians in Syria and elsewhere is a heartbreaking humanitarian disaster, but the solution is for the international community to forcefully intervene to stabilize the situation rather than open the gates to an emigration that could undermine democratic societies.

It is the Jews who are the primary targets for terrorists and proportionately suffer the greatest number of casualties.

Yet, ironically, many liberal Jews are at the forefront of campaigns to open the door to widespread immigration of Muslim “refugees” and even make ridiculous bleeding-heart analogies to the plight of Jews during the Holocaust. In so doing, they are facilitating the entry into their communities of hordes of embittered anti-Semites who have been brought up to consider Jews as the “offspring of apes and pigs.”

They also enrage many of their neighbors who loathe these “refugees” and fear that this flood of immigration will destroy their way of life. Many Europeans are not merely outraged by the accelerating crime levels but deeply resent the government censorship imposed in the futile efforts to avert Islamist violence by acts of appeasement. Any critique of Muslim behavior is automatically condemned as Islamophobia and it is now effectively illegal to criticize Islam, as exemplified by the spurious Dutch court conviction of Party for Freedom leader Geert Wilders for the “crime” of “hate speech”.

The response has been the meteoric rise of radical right-wing movements in all European countries — Jobbik in Hungary and the Golden Dawn in Greece are outright anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi movements.

In France, Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Front (the largest political party in France today) has vigorously condemned and dissociated her party from its former anti-Semitism and even expelled her father because of his anti-Jewish and Holocaust-denying remarks.

The right-wing U.K. Independence Party, which spearheaded the Brexit campaign, has sought to purge anti-Semites from its ranks.

The Austrian Freedom Party, whose candidate was narrowly defeated in the presidential election, is seeking to distance itself from its former Nazi past.

Throughout Europe, extreme right-wing and anti-Muslim political parties are on the ascendancy. All, except the Hungarian and Greek neo-Nazis, even support Israel but many of their rank and file are unreconstructed traditional anti-Semites.

The anticipated appointments in Trump’s administration combined with horrific examples of criminal behavior among immigrants (including gang rapes and murders) will undoubtedly polarize the situation and further strengthen populist forces in Europe. The bureaucrats who have arrogantly presided over the European Union have good reason to fear collapse of the entire EU structure.

In France and Germany, Shariah courts are bypassing the state legal system and polygamy and child marriage proliferate. To placate public outrage, many governments are now toughening their stance towards the migrants in efforts to stem the flow of their support toward the radical right-wing parties. Even Chancellor Merkel is proposing to ban bourkas.

Under such circumstances in which the anti-Israeli Left is in decline and most radical right-wing groups – other than in Hungary and Greece — are seeking to distance themselves from anti-Semitism and concentrating on the Islamic fundamentalist threat, it could be suggested that Jews have less grounds for concern.

However, in this utterly chaotic climate in which populism and instability reign supreme, historical precedents point to the scapegoating of Jews. The growing prejudice directed against Muslims and the efforts of the radical right-wing political parties to distance themselves from anti-Semitism will not lessen hatred for Jews, even if they try to conceal it.

Nor will it stem the growing anti-Semitism spearheaded by “progressives” and “liberals” who in the 1930s were the strongest opponents of anti-Semitism. Alas, the reality is that anti-Israelism, morphing into direct anti-Semitism, has now become indispensable to the political DNA of anyone purporting to be “progressive,” even including Jews.

Moreover, Muslims have far greater power in numbers which will enable them to intensify their anti-Semitism with their leftist allies.

The situation for Jews is therefore only likely to deteriorate. As it is, they live in societies where horrific terrorist attacks against their schools, synagogues, museums and supermarkets have necessitated military or armed guards to provide security. Jews in some areas avoid wearing kippot and feel obliged to adopt a low profile to avoid being assaulted; many children attend Jewish schools in record numbers not because of the Jewish education but because of the anti-Semitism they encounter in public schools; students at universities are under continuous attack.

Public opinion is in general more hostile to Jews than most governments which augurs ill for the future. There was one small ray of sunshine recently when the British government adopted a realistic definition of anti-Semitism that could well serve as a model for other countries to emulate. But this has to be balanced by the fact that, for the first time, the opposition Labour Party in the U.K. could be headed by shamelessly open anti-Semites.

There are probably in the vicinity of 1.4 million Jews in Europe. What sort of life as Jews can they expect for their children and grandchildren when they live under such conditions and all indicators suggest an increase in anti-Semitism? While many are likely to remain, their communities are likely to shrink dramatically.

Those who wish for their children to maintain pride in their heritage and not be brought up in an atmosphere where they are under social pressure to conceal their Jewish identity or turn against their own people would be well-advised to consider emigrating. If they are unable to do so, they should encourage their children to leave.

They are fortunate that today they do not need to beg for entry visas; the Jewish state provides a haven for all Jews.

Whereas in Israel their Jewish future is almost assured, sadly, many decide to emigrate to other Diaspora Jewish communities where there is no guarantee that they will maintain their Jewish identity.

One of the main reasons for this is that the Israeli government and the Jewish Agency have failed to provide adequate facilities for middle-class and professional immigrants. Israel has one of the most successful economies in the world and failure to make maximum efforts to absorb more of these immigrants will be recorded as a tragic lost opportunity. Rectifying this situation must become a top priority for the government.

Alas, the European situation for Jews is dismal and we must hope that many will leave and join us in Israel and participate in the historic renaissance of our people. 

Isi Leibler may be contacted at

An Existential Battle for the Demographic Future of Syria

December 21, 2016

An Existential Battle for the Demographic Future of Syria

Dr. Harold Rhode

  • The Syrian government, Russia, and Iran are trying the change the demographic makeup of Syria, aiming to depopulate the country of Sunni Arabs. All three see themselves in an existential battle against radical Sunnis and are now moving to repopulate formerly Sunni areas of Syria with Shiites - mostly from Iraq.
  • The places which the Russians have been attacking are the traditional strongholds of the Sunnis, including Aleppo. At the same time, they have refrained from attacking the Christians, Sunni Kurds, and Druze throughout the country. The overwhelming number of Syrian refugees are Arab Sunnis from the Damascus-Aleppo corridor.
  • When the Arab Spring took hold in Syria, the Arab Sunnis revolted against the Alawite regime. They were aided in their efforts by fellow Sunnis in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other Sunni powers, which provided arms and funding.
  • Syria's Arab Sunnis never recognized the Alawite rulers as Muslims. The Sunnis acquiesced to Alawite rule because of their inability to forcefully remove the Assad family from power. For these Sunnis, it is an offense against Allah that these non-Muslim Alawites were ruling Syria.
  • The Middle East is a rough neighborhood, and people nurse grudges and perceived insults to their honor until they have the opportunity to avenge perceived "wrongs." Nothing is ever forgotten; nothing is ever forgiven.
  • Though America naively spent large sums trying to train and arm some Sunnis, many of America's "friends" in Syria turned over their weaponry to the myriad of Sunni fundamentalist groups fighting in Syria. For example, American-supplied TOW missiles to these Sunnis later ended up in the hands of al-Qaeda.

Click here to read the full article.

Dr. Harold Rhode served for 28 years as an advisor on the Islamic world in the Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense.

Knesset’s “Legalization” Bill vs. International Law: Mosaic Magazine

In response to the current crisis over the West Bank village of Amona—built on land to which Palestinian individuals have legal claim—the Knesset is currently considering a so-called legalization bill that would permit its residents to remain (their evacuation has been ordered by Israel’s supreme court) and would compensate the original owners. The bill has been condemned for various reasons, including for being in violation of international law. Eugene Kontorovich argues that the situation is not nearly so clear-cut:

The bill seeks to solve a situation in which, over several decades, more than 1,000 Israeli homes in West Bank settlements have been built in open areas to which Palestinians subsequently asserted property claims, typically based on broad giveaways of state land by the king of Jordan during the Hashemite occupation (1949-67). The homes are in communities built with some level of [Israeli] government involvement. Thus the bill provides that the government would compensate the landowners 125 percent of the value of the land, in order to allow the communities there to remain.

The plots are generally open, uncultivated fields. The frequently used characterization of “private Palestinian lands” is misleading. In the overwhelming majority of cases, no individual Palestinians have come forward to claim the lands. Indeed, in most cases, no property claimants asserted their interests for decades after houses were built, a situation that in common law would certainly warrant the application of adverse-possession doctrines, under which long-term possession of property unprotested by owners can change legal title, exactly to prevent these kinds of conflict between long-term users and owners who slept on their rights. Under Jordanian law, rules of prescription, which would turn the land over to its existing inhabitants, would apply. . . .

The central international-law argument against the bill is that it exceeds the powers of an occupying power over private property. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the law of belligerent occupation applies to Israel’s settlements in the West Bank, the central question becomes whether that body of law prohibits eminent domain and similar land-use regulation by the occupying power. This argument has focused on Article 46 of the Hague Convention, which states that “private property cannot be confiscated.” Critics of the Israeli bill have broadly declared that Article 46 of the Hague Conventions absolutely prohibits any action involving private real property absent military necessity. This is not the established law, however, but rather one view of a longstanding debate.

Put simply, the ban on “confiscation” of real property does not mean a ban on expropriation, that is, a taking subject to just compensation. “Confiscation” in the Hague Regulations is a narrow term that refers only to certain uncompensated taking, which of course is the kind occupying powers may be particularly wont to make. To put it differently, “confiscation” does not cover all kinds of property taking or regulation, as is made clear in numerous military manuals that refer to an entire taxonomy of regulation, from confiscation to expropriation to requisition. The U.S. Defense Department’s Law of War Manualprovides for compensation for takings of private real property, and refers to this as “appropriation” not “confiscation.”

Iran’s Ethnic Cleansing of Syria

Last week, Tehran undermined a Russian-Turkish deal to allow residents of Aleppo to flee the ruins of their city, so that it could use them as leverage in its plans to create a swath of Syria—stretching from Damascus to the Lebanese border—that will be free of Sunnis. Michael Chulov explains:

Aleppo is a crossroads in Iran’s project to build a land corridor to the Mediterranean coast. It is also likely to be a new center of Tehran’s geopolitical projection, which has been on open display elsewhere in the conflict.

Iranian officials have directly negotiated with the opposition militia, Ahrar al-Sham, about the fate of the battered opposition-held town of Zabadani, west of Damascus. Iran proposed a swap of the town’s Sunnis, who would be sent to Idlib province, for the residents of [the Shiite villages of] Fua and Kefraya, [located north of Aleppo], who would in turn be relocated to Zabadani. . . .

In the Damascus suburb of Darayya, where opposition communities surrendered in August and accepted being flown to Idlib, 300 Shiite families from Iraq have moved in. Further to the west, near the Zainab shrine, Iran has bought substantial numbers of properties, and also sponsored the arrival of Shiite families, securing the area as a bridgehead before Zabadani.

Securing corridors of influence with Shiite communities marks, potentially, Iran’s most assertive moment since the Islamic revolution of 1979, after which Tehran’s proxies have gradually projected its influence, through Hizballah, through [its allies in Iraq], and now through the chaos of Syria.

Read more at Guardian

More about: IranPolitics & Current AffairsShiitesSyrian civil war

Anti-Colonialists Hate Israel Because It Proves Them Wrong


In an essay celebrating the 99th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, the British politician Michael Gove writes (free registration required):

It is to [Britain’s] eternal credit that we rejected centuries of prejudice 100 years ago and pledged to extend to the Jewish people the rights enjoyed by Germans and Italians, Japanese and Mexicans—the right to a land they could call their own. The Balfour Declaration in 1917 was followed in 1948 with the creation of the state of Israel. Since then, that state’s success has been near miraculous.

Surrounded by enemies who sought to strangle it at birth, continually threatened by war and constantly under terrorist attack, a nation scarcely the size of Wales with no natural resources, half of whose territory is desert, has become a flourishing democracy, a center of scientific innovation, one of the world’s major providers of international humanitarian relief and the only state from Casablanca to Kabul with a free press, free judiciary, a flourishing free-enterprise economy and freedom for people of every sexual orientation to live and love as they wish.

And that is the reason it attracts such hostility. Not because of what Israel does. But because of what it is.

For those on the left addicted to guilt-tripping and grievance-mongering, who believe that poverty is a consequence of Western exploitation and that bourgeois ethics lead to oppression, the existence of a political entity that is a runaway success precisely because it is a bourgeois-minded, capitalism-fueled, Western-oriented nation state is just too much to bear. Their ideological prejudices have collided with a stubborn, undeniable, fact.

So what do they do? Keep the prejudices, of course, and try to get rid of the fact.

Gove concludes with a suggestion to British government:

Israel is the only state where we don’t locate our embassy in the nation’s capital and the only ally the Foreign Office has refused to let the queen visit. So let’s celebrate the centenary of the Balfour Declaration by moving our embassy to Jerusalem next year and inviting Her Majesty to open it. What are we afraid of? Earning the enmity of those who hate Israel? To my mind, there could be no greater compliment.

Read more at Times of London

More about: Anti-SemitismBalfour DeclarationIsrael & ZionismUnited Kingdom

Conservative Synagogue in New York Against Israel


Ronn Torossian

Right-minded Americans stand with Israel – as well as the Israel Defense Forces, a stalwart against radical terrorism.

Today in Israel there is a handful of NGOs representing “progressive” ideals that are largely funded by foreign governments. These NGOs are also funded by The Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Secretariat (“Secretariat”), a Palestinian foundation that fiercely pushes an anti-Israel agenda. Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, and the Netherlands also help fund some of these NGOs through the Secretariat, and encourage those who engage in legal warfare against Israeli officials and companies that do business with Israel, promote BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) campaigns, advance a “1948 agenda,” exploit the false “apartheid” analogy to demonize Israel, and more.

Among these groups is Rabbis for Human Rights (RHR), which by any cursory examination appears to be just a progressive NGO supporting Israel, but from a left-leaning platform. When you look just under the surface, however, you see something more nefarious. It would seem that the human rights it supports are those only of Palestinians, and RHR’s work is primarily focused in Judea and Samaria, looking for Jewish acts against Arabs.

Rabbi Arik Ascherman, the head of RHR, recentlytried to mobilize people to participate in Palestinian provocations against the IDF and Israel. He wrote that he was looking for “volunteers willing to put themselves in dangerous situations.” RHR removed the Twitter post and their website call shortly after, but it remains cached on the Internet. Ascherman has previously been accused of raising funds for the PLO. The New Israel Fund has supported him with $1,206,361 between 2008 and 2014. Ascherman was convicted of interfering with the work of a police officer while resisting the destruction of a terrorist’s house. RHR also produced a film in 2013, Fiddler with no Roof, using the Jewish actor who played Tevye in The Fiddler on the Roof, Theodore Bikel, to compare Israel’s plan to resettle unrecognized Bedouin villages in the Negev to the expulsion of Jews by czarist Russia. They removed that video too

In 2010, the group accused Israel of “foul and discriminatory policies against Palestinians,” and of “forcing Palestinians to live in a completely separate universe where time has stood still, and prevents them from properly planning their most basic needs and infrastructure.”

Jewish Home Knesset member Zevulun Kalfa accused RHR of distributing anti-Semitic material, and has requested that group's abilities be limited on grounds of anti-Semitism. Kalfa argued that that the "comparison of the deportation and murder of Jews at the beginning of the century with the legal regulation of Bedouin settlement is an outrageous comparison, which is inappropriate and tainted by anti-Semitism."

Despite this work, Rabbi Gordon Tucker of the Temple Israel Center of White Plains, one of the largest conservative synagogues in America supports them. When it was previously revealed that this Rabbi offered discretionary funds from his synagogue to the New Israel Fund, he was telling only part of the story. Looking deeper into RHR’s funding, we know now that he also gave directly to Rabbis for Human Rights. He has been a member and fan of the group for awhile, has spoken out in support of the group, and has donated money.

Those who stand against Israel must be opposed.

The Palestinian Jihads against Israel


by Khaled Abu Toameh  •  December 13, 2016 at 5:00 am

  • "We will not recognize Israel because it will inevitably go away. And we will not backtrack on the option of armed struggle until the liberation of all Palestine." — Khalil Al-Haya, Hamas senior official.

  • The abandonment of Gaza by Israel in 2005 drove the Palestinian vote for Hamas the next year. It also explains why many Palestinians continue to support Hamas -- because they still believe that violence is the way to defeat Israel.

  • Hamas believes that Israel does not have the right to defend itself against rockets and terror attacks. It even considers Israel's self-defense as an "act of terror."

  • In yet another sign that exposes Hamas's ongoing preparations to attack Israel, the movement last week held a drill with live ammunition in the northern Gaza Strip.

  • "What has been achieved so far is a small jihad, and the big jihad is still awaiting us." — Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas is convinced that his "diplomatic jihad" against Israel is no less effective than Hamas's jihad of terrorism.

  • Yet even if Abbas manages to achieve reconciliation with Hamas, this move should not be seen as sign of pragmatism on the part of the Islamist movement. Under no circumstances will Hamas relinquish its policy of the destruction of Israel and its replacement with an Islamist state.

  • From Abbas's point of view, Hamas's terrorism will only increase the pressure on Israel to capitulate. Here Abbas has an ally in Hamas: to multiply jihads to force Israel to its knees.

Last October, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas met in Qatar with Khaled Mashaal and another Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh, as part of his rapprochement with the Islamist movement. Pictured above: Abbas (right) meets with Khaled Mashaal in Qatar on July 20, 2014, in a previous reconciliation attempt. (Image source: Handout from the PA President's Office/Thaer Ghanem)

The Palestinian Islamist movement, Hamas, which is currently celebrating the 29th anniversary of its founding, misses no opportunity to broadcast its stated reason for being: to wage jihad (holy war) in order to achieve its goal of destroying Israel. Those who allege that Hamas is moving toward pragmatism and moderation might take note.

Last week, tens of thousands of Palestinians took to the streets of the Gaza Strip to participate in rallies marking the anniversary of the founding of Hamas. As in previous years, the rallies were held under the motto of jihad and "armed resistance" until the liberation of all Palestine, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Another message that emerged loud and clear from the rallies: Hamas will never recognize Israel's right to exist.

Continue Reading Article

I am a forgotten Jew.

The Times of Israel and The Huffington Post
November 29, 2016

I am a forgotten Jew. 

My roots are nearly 2,600 years old, my ancestors made landmark contributions to world civilization, and my presence was felt from North Africa to the Fertile Crescent — but I barely exist today. You see, I am a Jew from the Arab world. No, that’s not entirely accurate. I’ve fallen into a semantic trap. I predated the Arab conquest in just about every country in which I lived. When Arab invaders conquered North Africa, for example, I had already been present there for more than six centuries. 

Today, you cannot find a trace of me in most of this vast region. 

Try seeking me out in Iraq. 

Remember the Babylonian exile from ancient Judea, following the destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE? Remember the vibrant Jewish community that emerged there and produced the Babylonian Talmud? 

Do you know that in the ninth century, under Muslim rule, we Jews in Iraq were forced to wear a distinctive yellow patch on our clothing — a precursor of the infamous Nazi yellow badge — and faced other discriminatory measures? Or that in the eleventh and fourteenth centuries, we faced onerous taxes, the destruction of several synagogues, and severe repression? 

And I wonder if you have ever heard of the Farhud, the breakdown of law and order, in Baghdad in June 1941. As an AJC specialist, George Gruen, reported

“In a spasm of uncontrolled violence, between 170 and 180 Jews were killed, more than 900 were wounded, and 14,500 Jews sustained material losses through the looting or destruction of their stores and homes. Although the government eventually restored order... Jews were squeezed out of government employment, limited in schools, and subjected to imprisonment, heavy fines, or sequestration of their property on the flimsiest of charges of being connected to either or both of the two banned movements. Indeed, Communism and Zionism were frequently equated in the statutes. In Iraq the mere receipt of a letter from a Jew in Palestine [pre-1948] was sufficient to bring about arrest and loss of property.” 

At our peak, we were 135,000 Jews in 1948, and we were a vitally important factor in virtually every aspect of Iraqi society. To illustrate our role, here is what the Encyclopedia Judaica wrote about Iraqi Jewry: “During the 20th century, Jewish intellectuals, authors, and poets made an important contribution to the Arabic language and literature by writing books and numerous essays.” 

By 1950 other Iraqi Jews and I were faced with the revocation of citizenship, seizure of assets, and, most ominously, public hangings. A year earlier, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Sa’id had told the British ambassador in Amman of a plan to expel the entire Jewish community and place us at Jordan’s doorstep. The ambassador later recounted the episode in a memoir entitled From the Wings: Amman Memoirs, 1947-1951. 

Miraculously, in 1951 about 100,000 of us got out, thanks to the extraordinary help of Israel, but with little more than the clothes on our backs. The Israelis dubbed the rescue Operation Ezra and Nehemiah. 

Those of us who stayed lived in perpetual fear — fear of violence and more public hangings, as occurred on January 27, 1969, when nine Jews were hanged in the center of Baghdad on trumped-up charges, while hundreds of thousands of Iraqis wildly cheered the executions. The rest of us got out one way or another, including friends of mine who found safety in Iran when it was ruled by the Shah. 

Now there are no Jews left to speak of, nor are there monuments, museums, or other reminders of our presence on Iraqi soil for twenty-six centuries. 

Do the textbooks used in Iraqi schools today refer to our one-time presence, to our positive contribution to the evolution of Iraqi society and culture? Not a chance. 2,600 years are erased, wiped out, as if they never happened. Can you put yourself in my shoes and feel the excruciating pain of loss and invisibility? 

I am a forgotten Jew. 

I was first settled in what is present-day Libya by the Egyptian ruler Ptolemy Lagos (323-282 BCE), according to the first-century Jewish historian Josephus. My forefathers and foremothers lived continuously on this soil for more than two millennia, our numbers bolstered by Berbers who converted to Judaism, Spanish and Portuguese Jews fleeing the Inquisition, and Italian Jews crossing the Mediterranean. 

I was confronted with the anti-Jewish legislation of the occupying Italian Fascists. I endured the incarceration of 2,600 fellow Jews in an Axis-run camp in 1942. I survived the deportation of 200 fellow Jews to Italy the same year. I coped with forced labor in Libya during the war. I witnessed Muslim rioting in 1945 and 1948 that left nearly 150 Libyan Jews dead, hundreds injured, and thousands homeless. 

I watched with uncertainty as Libya became an independent country in 1951. I wondered what would happen to those 6,000 of us still there, the remnant of the 39,000 Jews who had formed this once-proud community — that is, until the rioting sent people packing, many headed for the newly established State of Israel. 

The good news was that there were constitutional protections for minority groups in the newly established Libyan nation. The bad news was that they were completely ignored. 

Within ten years of my native country’s independence, I could not vote, hold public office, serve in the army, obtain a passport, purchase new property, acquire majority ownership in any new business, or participate in the supervision of our community’s affairs. 

By June 1967 the die was cast. Those of us who had remained, hoping against hope that things would improve in a land to which we were deeply attached and which, at times, had been good to us, had no choice but to flee. The Six-Day War created an explosive atmosphere in the streets. Eighteen Jews were killed, and Jewish-owned homes and shops were burned to the ground. 

I and 4,000 other Jews left however we could, most of us with no more than a suitcase and the equivalent of a few dollars. 

I was never allowed to return. I never recovered the assets I had left behind in Libya, despite promises by the government. In effect, it was all stolen — the homes, furniture, shops, communal institutions, you name it. Still worse, I was never able to visit the grave sites of my relatives. That hurt especially deeply. In fact, I was told that, under Colonel Qaddhafi, who seized power in 1969, the Jewish cemeteries were bulldozed and the headstones used for road building. 

I am a forgotten Jew. 

My experience — the good and the bad — lives on in my memory, and I’ll do my best to transmit it to my children and grandchildren, but how much can they absorb? How much can they identify with a culture that seems like a relic of a distant past that appears increasingly remote and intangible? True, a few books and articles on my history have been written, but— and here I’m being generous — they are far from best-sellers. 

In any case, can these books compete with the systematic attempt by Libyan leaders to expunge any trace of my presence over two millennia? Can these books compete with a world that paid virtually no attention to the end of my existence? 

Take a look at The New York Times index for 1967, and you’ll see for yourself how the newspaper of record covered the tragic demise of an ancient community. I can save you the trouble of looking — just a few paltry lines were all the story got. 

I am a forgotten Jew. 

I am one of hundreds of thousands of Jews who once lived in countries like Iraq and Libya. All told, we numbered close to 900,000 in 1948. Today we are fewer than 5,000, mostly concentrated in two moderate countries—Morocco and Tunisia. 

We were once vibrant communities in Aden, Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and other nations, with roots dating back literally 2,000 years and more. Now we are next to none. 

Why does no one speak of us and our story? Why does the world relentlessly, obsessively speak of the Palestinian refugees from the 1948 and 1967 wars in the Middle East — who, not unimportantly, were displaced by wars launched by their own Arab brethren — but totally ignore the Jewish refugees from the 1948 and 1967 wars? 

Why is the world left with the impression that there’s only one refugee population from the Arab-Israeli conflict, or, more precisely, the Arab conflict with Israel, when, in fact, there are two refugee populations, and our numbers were somewhat larger than the Palestinians? 

I’ve spent many sleepless nights trying to understand this injustice. 

Should I blame myself? 

Perhaps we Jews from Arab countries accepted our fate too passively. Perhaps we failed to seize the opportunity to tell our story. Look at the Jews of Europe. They turned to articles, books, poems, plays, paintings, and film to recount their story. They depicted the periods of joy and the periods of tragedy, and they did it in a way that captured the imagination of many non-Jews. Perhaps I was too fatalistic, too shell-shocked, too uncertain of my artistic or literary talents. 

But that can’t be the only reason for my unsought status as a forgotten Jew. It’s not that I haven’t tried to make at least some noise; I have. I’ve organized gatherings and petitions, arranged exhibitions, appealed to the United Nations, and met with officials from just about every Western government. But somehow it all seems to add up to less than the sum of its parts. No, that’s still being too kind. The truth is, it has pretty much fallen on deaf ears. 

You know that acronym — MEGO? It means “My eyes glazed over.” That’s the impression I often have when I’ve tried raising the subject of the Jews from Arab lands with diplomats, elected officials, and journalists — their eyes glaze over (TEGO). 

No, I shouldn’t be blaming myself, though I could always be doing more for the sake of history and justice. 

There’s actually a far more important explanatory factor. 

We Jews from the Arab world picked up the pieces of our shattered lives after our hurried departures — in the wake of intimidation, violence, and discrimination — and moved on. 

Most of us went to Israel, where we were welcomed. The years following our arrival weren’t always easy — we started at the bottom and had to work our way up. We came with varying levels of education and little in the way of tangible assets. But we had something more to sustain us through the difficult process of adjustment and acculturation: our immeasurable pride as Jews, our deeply rooted faith, our cherished rabbis and customs, and our commitment to Israel’s survival and well-being. 

Some of us — somewhere between one-fourth and one-third of the total — chose to go elsewhere. 

Jews from the French-speaking Arab countries gravitated toward France and Quebec. Jews from Libya created communities in Rome and Milan. Egyptian and Lebanese Jews were sprinkled throughout Europe and North America, and a few resettled in Brazil. Syrian Jews immigrated to the United States, especially New York, as well as to Mexico City and Panama City. And on it went. 

Wherever we settled, we put our shoulder to the wheel and created new lives. We learned the local language if we didn’t already know it, found jobs, sent our children to school, and, as soon as we could, built our own congregations to preserve the rites and rituals that were distinctive to our tradition. 

I would never underestimate the difficulties or overlook those who, for reasons of age or ill health or poverty, couldn’t make it, but, by and large, in a short time we have taken giant steps, whether in Israel or elsewhere. 

I may be a forgotten Jew, but my voice will not remain silent. It cannot, for if it does, it becomes an accomplice to historical denial and revisionism. 

I will speak out because I will not allow the Arab conflict with Israel to be defined unfairly through the prism of one refugee population only, the Palestinian. 

I will speak out because what happened to me is now being done, with eerie familiarity, to another minority group in the region, the Christians, and once again I see the world averting its eyes, as if denial ever solved anything. 

I will speak out because I refuse to be a forgotten Jew.

The Alt Right, Anti-Semitism in the US and Trump

by Naomi Ragen on November 22nd, 2016

People are sending me information about Richard Spencer’s National Policy Institute conference in Washington D.C. They are neo-Nazis. They raise their hands in a Nazi salute and say Sieg Heil. They say they love Trump.

You know what? Maybe in their warped minds they think he’ll be good for them. Yeah, that’s what the Left, some of whom really do support Muslim-Nazi terrorists, would love you to think. They are idiots- the Sieg Heilers- and dead wrong.

So, for the record, this is the current narrative that the mainstream media is using to attack Mr. Trump over these Nazi losers.

Reporter Sarah Posner, a left-wing darling who writes articles about how the war in Gaza was started by Israel to win the Israeli election for the right (!), who works for the anti-Semitic Guardian, Al Jazeera and Mother Jones, told that publication that Steve Bannon – CEO of Breitbart Friends– said thatBreitbart is “the platform for theAlt Right.”

Alt Right is an amorphous term that is an umbrella for many anti-establishment groups, some of them like the National Policy Institute, who are white supremacists and viciously anti-Semitic. Bannon, now senior advisor to President-elect Trump, has vigorously denied that Breitbart supports any racist or anti-Semitic group.

It’s not only his word. I’ve been subscribing to Breitbart for many years. Breitbart is the most pro-Israel, pro-Jewish website on the internet, founded by a Jew who loved Israel and decided on a trip to Jerusalem to counter the anti-Israel mainstream media propaganda against her.

I have never seen anything remotely racist or anti-Semitic on Breitbart.

That is not to say that Alt Right neo-Nazis aren’t posting on the internet. They are. Just not on Breitbart.

Where you can find them with no problem, though, is on, founded by billionaire Evan Williams, who said to Bloomberg: “I am firmly against Trump” and donated generously to the Democrats. Check out the stomach-turning Traditio on, a Holocaust denying, sickeningly anti-Semitic website. When I asked to take it down, they wrote me back that they don’t believe in censorship.

The Leftists – Obama-lovers-best-deal-possible-with-Iran – will use any tactic to bring down a democratically elected government opposed to their idiocies and malevolence. They call anyone they don’t agree with a Nazi, but guess what? There are actually real Nazis out there. They just don’t have anything to do with Breitbart, or Trump. My God, the man has Orthodox Jewish grandchildren! Does he sound like Hitler to you?

If you are interested in understanding what is really going on in America, please read the astounding book by the late, great Andrew Breitbart: Righteous Indignation.

You’ll finally understand why Trump is hands down the best thing to happen to America, Israel and the Jews in a long, long time.

'Hail Trump!': White Nationalists Salute the President Elect

Video of an alt-right conference in Washington, D.C., where Trump’s victory was met with cheers and Nazi salutes.

The Atlantic

Subscribe to The Atlantic’s Politics & Policy Daily, a roundup of ideas and events in American politics.

“Hail Trump, hail our people, hail victory!”

That’s how Richard B. Spencer saluted more than 200 attendees on Saturday, gathered at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, D.C., for the annual conference of the National Policy Institute, which describes itself as “an independent organization dedicated to the heritage, identity, and future of  people of European descent in the United States, and around the world.”

Spencer has popularized the term “alt-right” to describe the movement he leads. Spencer has said his dream is “a new society, an ethno-state that would be a gathering point for all Europeans,” and has called for “peaceful ethnic cleansing.”

For most of the day, a parade of speakers discussed their ideology in relatively anodyne terms, putting a presentable face on their agenda. But after dinner, when most journalists had already departed, Spencer rose and delivered a speech to his followers dripping with anti-Semitism, and leaving no doubt as to what he actually seeks. He referred to the mainstream media as “Lügenpresse,” a term he said he was borrowing from “the original German”; the Nazis used the word to attack their critics in the press.

“America was until this past generation a white country designed for ourselves and our posterity,” Spencer said. “It is our creation, it is our inheritance, and it belongs to us.”   

The audience offered cheers, applause, and enthusiastic Nazi salutes.


Anti-Semitism Isn’t Back. It Never Went Away.

Nov. 22 2016

Responding to the commonly heard refrain that Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and election have led to a surge of anti-Semitic incidents, Mordechai Lightstone, a ḥasidic Jew, comments:

I have a full beard, a black hat, and a dark suit. Yet even in Brooklyn, people have always said nasty things to me and to other people who look like me. I’ve had kids yell “Heil Hitler” at me on Eastern Parkway and teens throw glass bottles at me on Bedford Avenue. On the eve of Yom Kippur, anti-kapparot protesters . . . gathered in Crown Heights, brandishing signs that compared [Ḥasidim engaged in the ritual slaughter of chickens] to Hitler. They screamed obscenities, hit men with signs, and told small children that their parents were going to die.

Last week I took a picture of a swastika spray-painted onto a Crown Heights sidewalk and posted it on Twitter. It was instantly retweeted, quoted, and written about by media pundits across the country. Buzzfeed added it to a list of “28 Reported Racist and Violent Incidents after Donald Trump’s Victory.” The [New York City] mayor’s office tweeted a condemnation of the swastika. All of this is great, at least as great as one can call a response to a swastika, but I wonder what’s changed now.

Two-and-a-half years ago, I was walking with my kids on Shabbat morning and saw swastikas sprayed on a Crown Heights wall along with [a vulgar anti-Semitic message]. It made local news, but the mayor’s office didn’t retweet that picture. I didn’t see condemnations coming in from San Francisco, Phoenix, or Moscow, the way I did this week.

So it’s nice that the Anti-Defamation League has taken a stand against [right-wing anti-Semitism on social media]. But I still think about how rioters in 1991 threw rocks at [the headquarters of the Chabad-Lubavitch Ḥasidim], smashed windows of Jewish homes, and shouted “Heil Hitler” in Crown Heights—at that time, the ADL called it a “local issue.”



The Ellison Challenge

Friday, November 18th, 2016

The Democratic Party stands at a crossroads today. And so do the Jewish Democrats.

Out of power in the White House and both houses of Congress, the Democrats must decide what sort of party they will be in the post-Obama world.

They have two basic options.

They can move to the center and try to rebuild their blue collar voter base that President-elect Donald Trump captivated with his populist message. To do so they will need to loosen the reins of the political correctness and weaken their racialism, their radical environmentalism and their support for open borders.

This is the sort of moderate posture that Bill Clinton led with. It is the sort of posture that Clinton tried but failed to convince his wife to adopt in this year’s campaign.

The second option is to go still further along the leftist trajectory that President Barack Obama set the party off on eight years ago. This is the favored option of the Bernie Sanders’ wing of the party. Sanders’ supporters refer to this option as the populist course. It is being played out today on the ground by the anti-Trump protesters who refuse to come to terms with the Trump victory and insistently defame Trump as a Nazi or Hitler and his advisors as Goebbels.

For the Democrats, such a populist course will require them to become more racialist, more authoritarian in their political correctness, angrier and more doctrinaire.

It will also require them to become an anti-Semitic party.

Anti-Semitism, like hatred of police and Christians are necessary components of Democratic populism. This is true first and foremost because they will need scapegoats to blame for all the bad things you can’t solve by demonizing and silencing your political opponents.

Jews, and particularly the Jewish state, along with evangelical Christians and cops are the only groups that you are allowed to hate, discriminate against and scapegoat in the authoritarian PC universe.

From the party’s initial post-election moves, it appears that the Democrats have decided to take the latter path.

Congressman Keith Ellison from Minneapolis is now poised to be selected as the next leader of the Democratic National Committee. This position is a powerful one. The DNC chairman, like his Republican counterpart, is the party’s chief fundraiser. When a party is out of power, the party chairman is treated like its formal leader, and most active spokesman.

Ellison is the head of the Democrats’ Progressive caucus. His candidacy is supported by incoming Senate minority leader Senator Chuck Schumer and outgoing Senate minority leader Harry Reid. Obama has indicated his support for Ellison. Senator Bernie Sanders is enthusiastically supporting him.

Ellison made history in 2006 when he was elected to serve as the first Muslim member of Congress. As the representative of an overwhelmingly Democratic district, once he won the Democratic primary in 2006, he was all but guaranteed that he could serve in Congress for as long as he wishes.

As Scott Johnson, a prominent conservative writer who runs the popular Powerlineblog website reported extensively in 2006, Ellison is an anti-Semite. He also defends cop killers.

As Johnson reported, Ellison was a long standing member of the anti-Semitic Nation of Islam. During his 2006 Congressional campaign, the local media gave next to no coverage to this association. But when it did come up, Ellison soothed concerns of Minneapolis’s Jewish community by sending a letter to the local Jewish Community Relations Committee.

In the letter Ellison claimed that he had only been briefly associated with Louis Farrakhan’s outfit, that he was unfamiliar with its anti-Semitism, and that he had never personally expressed such views.

The local media and the Jewish community were happy to take him at his word.

But as Johnson documented, his was lying on all counts.

Ellison’s association with the Nation of Islam dated back at least since 1989 and stretched at least until 1998. During that period, he not only knew about the Nation of Islam’s Jew hatred, he engaged in it himself.

As Johnson noted, in 1998, Ellison appeared at a public forum as a spokesman for the Nation of Islam. He was there to defend a woman who was under fire for allegedly referring to Jews as “among the most racist white people.”

Whereas the woman herself denied she had made the statement, Ellison defended and justified her alleged statement. Referring to her slander of Jews he said, “We stand by the truth contained in [the woman’s] remarks…Also it is absolutely true that merchants in Black areas generally treat Black customers badly.”

As Johnson reported, aside from engaging in anti-Jewish propaganda and actively promoting anti-Semitic messages and leaders, decades before the Black Lives Matter was formed, Ellison was a prominent defender of murderers of policemen.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, Ellison likened the attacks to the Reichstag fire in 1933, intimating that the al Qaeda strike was an inside job. He then agreed with an audience member who said that “the Jews” gained the most from the attacks.

As a member of Congress, Ellison has been among the most hostile US lawmakers towards Israel. He has close relations with Muslim Brotherhood related groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Islamic Society of North America. Both groups were unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation terror funding trial, implicated in funding Hamas and al Qaida.

And now, Sens. Schumer, Sanders and Reid and President Obama along with the Democratic grassroots activists and other party leaders are supporting Ellison’s bid to serve as chairman of the DNC.

As Ellison’s statement about “merchants” makes clear, the Democrats’ Jew hatred may not be of the “Jews are the sons of apes and pigs,” variety. In all likelihood, it will be propagated through angry rhetoric about “bankers” and “financiers,” and “the rich.”

Ellison, a supporter of the anti-Semitic BDS movement, has libeled Israel by likening the Jewish state to apartheid South Africa. Under his leadership, we can expect for Democratic politicians to veer even further away from Israel and to embrace the slander that Zionism is racism.

The populist Sanders’ route seems more attractive to the Democrats than Bill Clinton’s moderate path because the notion is taking hold that Sanders would have been a stronger candidate in the general election than Clinton was.

This view is hard to accept. Most Americans reject socialism, and populist or not, it is difficult to see how Sanders would have sold his radical positions to an uninterested public.

The other problem with the “Sanders would have won,” argument is that it misses the distinction between Trump’s populism and Democratic populism.

Trump’s populism stemmed from his willingness to say things that other politicians and authority figures more generally wouldn’t dare to say. Trump’s allegation that the political system is rigged, for instance, empowered Americans who feel threatened by the authoritarianism of the politically correct Left.

Trump’s opponents insist that his populism empowered white power bigots. But that was a bug in his ointment. It wasn’t the ointment itself. Trump’s willingness to seemingly say anything, and certainly to say things that were beyond the narrow confines of the politically correct discourse, empowered tens of millions of voters. It also empowered white bigots at the fringes of the Right

Whereas empowering white bigots was a side effect of Trump’s populism, empowering bigots is a central feature of leftist populism. And this is where it gets dicey for Jews.

As Obama – and Ellison – have shown, when Democrats channel populism, they use it to demonize their opponents as evil. They are “fat cats on Wall Street.” They are “racists,” and other deplorables.

There are scattered voices on the Left that are calling for their fellow leftists to revisit their authoritarian practice of labelling everyone who doesn’t walk lockstep behind them as racists and otherwise unacceptable. But for the most part, the populists are winning the argument by essentially demanding more ideological radicalism and more rigidity.

This policy is completely irrational from a political perspective. It’s hard to see the constituencies that will be swayed to support an angry, hateful party.

But this brings us to the Jews, who voted 3:1 for the Democrats, and to the American Jewish leadership whose support for Clinton was near unanimous.

When anti-Semitic, populist voices like Ellison’s began taking over Britain’s Labour Party, British Jews began heading for the exits. When push came to shove they preferred their individual rights and their communal rights as Jews above their partisan loyalties.

So far, this doesn’t appear to be the case among Jewish Democrats.

Consider the Anti-Defamation League’s unhinged onslaught against Trump’s chief strategist, former Breitbart CEO Steve Bannon.

While ignoring Ellison’s record of anti-Semitism and support for Israel’s enemies, as well as his ties to unindicted co-conspirators in funding Hamas, the ADL launched a scathing assault on Bannon accusing him of being an anti-Semite.

The ADL’s assault on Bannon follows its absurd claim in the final days of the campaign that Trump’s ad criticizing George Soros was anti-Semitic. It also follows the group’s bizarre condemnation of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s recent video clip in which he stated the plain fact that the Palestinian demand that Jews be ethnically cleansed from the territory they wish to take control over is an anti-Semitic demand.

As many prominent US Jews on both sides of the partisan divide have made clear, the accusation that Bannon, whose Breitbart website is one of the most pro-Israel websites in the US, is anti-Semitic is appalling on its face. The allegation is simply unsubstantiated.

So why do it? Why allege that a friend of the Jews is a Jew hater while ignoring the actual anti-Semitism of another man

The answer is depressingly easy to discern.

The ADL appears to be trying to give cover to the rising forces of anti-Semitism in the Democratic Party. By falsely accusing Bannon and through him Trump of anti-Semitism, the ADL defuses the real problem of Democratic anti-Semitism. And if the ADL doesn’t think there is a problem with Ellison taking over the DNC, but alleges that Republicans hate them, then rank in file Jews will stay put.

The ADL of course isn’t alone in sending this message.

Following the election, Conservative and Reform congregations in major cities throughout the US organized communal “shivas,” to mourn Clinton’s defeat as if it was a death in the family. Such actions, along with characterizations of Trump and his advisors as Nazis or Hitler or white supremacists work to bind Jews to a party that is inhospitable to their communal interests while blinding them to the fact that Republicans do not hate Jews or the Jewish state.

For decades, American Jews have been at the forefront of every major social movement on in the US. But the Democratic Party’s move towards anti-Semitism, a move made apparent through Ellison’s rise, is one movement the Jews mustn’t lead.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post. 

The Boston Fatwa

November 6, 2016

By Janet Tassel

When Rabbi Jonathan Hausman arranged for an event called "National Security Chaos" a few days ago at his synagogue in Stoughton, Massachusetts, he didn't expect to become the target of a fatwa.

The evening's speakers included Rep. Michele Bachmann; Frank Gaffney, Assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration, and now head of the Center for Security Policy; and retired General Jerry Boykin. These folks did not meet the lofty standards of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which issued an encyclical to that effect, which in turn resulted in a petition circulated by The Islamic Society of Boston and printed in the Boston Globe.  Among the delusional piffle we read the all-too-familiar PC hymns to the gods of birkstockian heaven.

As Boston-area religious and cultural leaders, we are committed to building a community that embraces people of different beliefs and practices, including our Muslim neighbors and friends….It is for this reason that we are deeply concerned to learn of an event…featuring three speakers whom the Southern Poverty Law Center has identified as anti-Muslim extremists or hate group leaders….As clergy and organizational leaders seeking to cultivate a shared ethos of interreligious and cross-cultural cooperation, we the undersigned reach out and call on Congregation Ahavath Torah to revoke their invitation to these individuals, all known purveyors of vitriol and acrimony. [One day before the event!]

This fatwa was signed by "nearly 100 interfaith leaders…condemning Islamophobic speakers in MA." As always, "interfaith" means larded with rabbis, some thirty of them, who apparently have no problem lining up with well-known antisemites in an auto-da-fe against another rabbi -- the very definition of dhimmitude. Specifically, the petition targets the "three prominent anti-Muslim hate group leaders," referring to Master of Ceremonies Tom Trento, Boykin, and Gaffney.

Gaffney has even been honored by the SPLC with a slot on its latest blacklist, his Center for Security Policy identified as a "hate group" along with the Ku Klux Klan. This blacklist also includes Daniel Pipes, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, David Horowitz, attorney Robert Muise, activist Pamela Geller, and Muslim reformists Walid Shoebat and Maajif Nawaz. As the editors at National Review write,

Some of those on the SPLC list are Muslims, former Muslims, and lifelong students of Islam.  What they mostly have in common is that they are, broadly speaking, conservatives, or writers and activists admired by conservatives. The SPLC is so drunk on its own poisonous ideological brew that it has simply come to conflate conservatism with violent or potentially violent extremism.

Eventhe Left has awakened. As noted by Austin Ruse at,

Writing in the left-wing website Counterpunch, Alexander Coburn called SPLC founder Morris Dees "king of the hate business." Coburn wrote, "Ever since 1971, U.S. Postal Service mailbags have bulged with Dees' fundraising letters, scaring dollars out of the pockets of trembling liberals aghast at his lurid depictions of hate-sodden America, in dire need of legal confrontation by the SPLC."

Further: "Writing at the Harper's Magazine blog in 2007, Ken Silverstein said, 'What [the SPLC] does best…is to raise obscene amounts of money by hyping fears about the power of [right-wing fringe] groups; hence the SPLC has become the nation's richest 'civil rights' organization."

Now, a word about The Islamic Society of Boston. According to two organizations, Americans for Peace and Tolerance and Muslims Facing Tomorrow, The Islamic Society of Boston

...was established as a key component of the U.S Muslim Brotherhood. Its founder, Abdulrahman Alamoudi, has been named by the federal government as a key Al Qaeda operative and imprisoned for almost two decades. [Its] trustees have included senior Muslim Brotherhood leaders who have repeatedly used anti-democratic, pro-terror and anti-Semitic rhetoric.

One of its original trustees was spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood Yusuf Al Qaradawi. Its illustrious congregants include the Boston marathon bombers, the Tsarnaev brothers; Aafia Siddiqui, now in prison, but earlier involved in plans to carry out large-scale attacks on New York; Tarek Mehanna, also in prison for terror-related charges, and other congregants, staff and donors who are now in prison, deported, killed, or on the run.

And speaking of "trembling liberals," they were on display in a group of about forty mostly polite protesters outside the synagogue Wednesday night, many holding signs reading "Stop Profiling Muslims" or "We Welcome Refugees." Elsa, a local middle-aged Jewish woman belonging to the pro-Palestinian Jewish Voice for Peace, said she was there to "protest the three gentlemen representing hate groups that SPLC identified." And two rabbinical students from Hebrew College, Salem and Benjamin, came to object, according to Salem, to a "house of worship hosting people the SPLC had classified as hate groups, like Frank Gaffney's, whose objective here is to ignite the people." Benjamin, who wore a kippah, was "worried about having these hate-speakers, like Gaffney, a week before the election." Their rhetoric, he said, reminds him of Trump, and the date of November 2 is "provocative."

Among the Muslims was the personable John Robbins, local director of CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, organizer of the protest, who begged everyone to eat the donuts he had brought. CAIR, according to federal prosecutors, is part of a radical Islamist network including Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, while, according to the Anti-Defamation League, CAIR's "public statements cast Jews and Israelis as corrupt agents who control both foreign and domestic U.S. policy and are responsible for the persecution of Muslims in the U.S." But Robbins was indeed personable.

Also personable was the young Imam of the mosque in nearby Sharon, Abdul Rahman Ahmad, nattily turned out in the traditional hat known as thekofi and the gown, or thoub. Ahmad, a devoted practitioner of shari'a law, said he came out to "meet and greet," and to show that Muslims are "just like other people."  He too is disturbed by Gaffney because of Gaffney's attacks on shari'a.  He once saw a video….Lisa, a thin, mournful Muslim, said that people say that Muslims "smell funny."  She certainly did not. And there was also the elderly gentleman, Suleiman, who has three sons in the armed services, and another local Muslim, Sara, who said she was afraid that the speakers inside were "hateful" and "divisive," and like others, expressed her dismay that the event was held this close to the election.

Here indeed was a vexing problem: The message they carried was misguided, mistaken, dangerous and completely false, but many of the protesters, however misinformed, were in fact quite likable. (That quality must have seduced all those rabbis out in left field.) It was time to hurry inside, past a phalanx of Stoughton police, to hear the "hate speech," also known as the truth.

The crowd inside was sizeable and enthusiastic, as Rabbi Hausman's audiences tend to be. MC Trento immediately disabused us of our expectation of hate speech. "We're hear to talk about security, because we love," he said. "We love our people. It's the Islamists who hate, none of whom would even come in here to debate."

Michele Bachmann too spoke of love -- her love of Israel. But she also spoke of the terrible dangers to Israel of Obama's Iran deal. And she spoke of prescience, how Frank Gaffney came her six years ago to talk about Huma Abedin: How in the world did Huma get a security clearance? Relatedly, Bachmann filed a bill designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist entity. For this she was destroyed by her own party, led by John McCain.

Gen. Boykin took up the refrain: "A World War Two saying went, "A soldier does not fight because he hates the enemy in front of him. He fights because he loves those behind him." The thrust of Gen. Boykin's message was the poor shape of our military. He is appalled by the "social experiments and diversity training" that are devastating our military. Indeed, Boykin said he has been working with Trump; "I told him we must bring up genuine warriors, and get rid of the entire "grossly incompetent" top echelon.

Then Frank Gaffney took the stage, his ears no doubt ringing. "There is, for example outside, a problem that makes this conversation very important." He compared what he and the others were doing to Paul Revere riding to Lexington and Concord crying, "The enemy is coming!" "We are the patriots, and anyone who calls us haters is enabling the enemy."

"Who is the enemy? Something called 'violent extremism?' Something called 'terrorism?' "Shari'a," he continued "is a totalitarian ideology, for 1300 years the definition of a doctrine to achieve Islamic triumph, the body of law designed to control everyone's life until they submit. He spoke of the Islamic injunction to migrate, to colonize, which goes back to Mohammed. "The SPLC says we are making all that up, but just look at Europe."

He spoke of the shari'a-compliant tax, a trillion-dollar industry. And finally, he said, "If the people outside can keep people away from this synagogue, they will have succeeded, and we will not survive."

Read more: 
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook