RSS
The Line from Jonathan Glazer to the Columbia and National Encampments
Director Jonathan Glazer, of the United Kingdom, poses with the Oscar for Best International Feature Film for “The Zone of Interest” in the Oscars photo room at the 96th Academy Awards in Hollywood, Los Angeles, California, US, March 10, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Carlos Barria
A week after Jonathan Glazer’s now infamous Oscar speech, a letter appeared in the Hollywood trade publication Variety that refuted his statement. That letter was signed by approximately 450 Hollywood professionals at the time of its initial publication. The number of signers would climb to more than 1,330 in the following days. I was among the 1,330 who signed the letter.
It was bad enough that Glazer drew, in the words of the letter, “a moral equivalence between a Nazi regime that sought to exterminate a race of people, and an Israeli nation that seeks to avert its own extermination.” But he also blamed the war on Israel’s occupation — “an occupation which has led to conflict,” as he put it.
An occupation of what, I wondered.
Israel hasn’t occupied Gaza since 2005, so that can’t be the cause of the current conflict. Many, even many Jews and Israelis, find Israel’s settlements on the West Bank problematic, but I’ve yet to see anyone make the case that this West Bank “occupation” was what led Hamas to attack on October 7.
That only leaves “occupation” in the sense that Israel’s enemies use the term — to describe the very existence of the state of Israel. That is precisely the meaning of “From the River to the Sea,” a geographic area that encompasses all of Israel.
So if Glazer is suggesting that Israel’s very existence is the cause of the conflict, what, I wondered, would he suggest as the solution?
Of course, an anti-Israel polemic like Glazer’s speech is hardly unusual or surprising — not before October 7, and even less so since. What upset me more than the speech itself was the applause it received from the audience that night, and the absence of any dissenting voices during the Oscar broadcast.
I can’t speak for everyone who signed the letter, but I thought it was important, essential even, that Glazer’s claims not go unchallenged in the general culture.
My father spent his working life as a professor of cultural anthropology. As such, he had a very specific lens through which he viewed various laws and policies in terms of how they impacted the culture beyond the more narrow realms to which they applied.
For example, he spoke about capital punishment not just in terms of its function in the criminal justice system, but also in terms of the message it sent throughout the larger culture regarding the value (or lack of value) our society places upon human life. And before the liberals who are reading this begin nodding too vigorously in agreement, he made the same point about abortion. Not that he opposed either abortion or capital punishment. But he saw the costs in terms of messages sent through culture and the impact those messages have upon the society at large.
And so, when Glazer stood upon one of the most prominent stages of our culture and sent his message, seeming to suggest that Israel caused the war by its very existence and is comparable to Nazi Germany, it had — and has — an impact.
I am not going to argue that Glazer’s speech directly led to the student encampments at Columbia and NYU and many other colleges. Nor will I argue that his speech resulted in the intensification of the rhetoric of those protestors, who have continued to praise Hamas, support the October 7 massacre, and oppose any Jewish state in the Middle East. I think it’s unlikely, given the demographics of the Oscars’ audience, that many of the student protestors saw the Oscars. But messages permeate culture like a cup of dye diffusing throughout a gallon of water.
The message Glazer sent has been doing just that.
Glazer’s not the only one, of course. In Hollywood, he’s in the company of Susan Sarandon, Cynthia Nixon, and Mark Ruffalo, among many others. Hundreds of Jewish professionals signed a competing letter endorsing Glazer’s views.
When President Biden erroneously states that Israel has been “indiscriminately bombing civilians,” when our UN delegation refuses to veto a resolution calling for a ceasefire without conditioning it on the release of the hostages, when various US officials call on Israel to “be more careful” not to kill civilians (as though they are not already being more careful than any other military force in history, including ours), it all sends a clear message — that Israel is the villain in the current conflict.
I’ve heard from some pro-Israel Democrats who excuse this rhetoric: so what if Biden has to criticize Israel to appease his left flank politically, they say, as long as he keeps sending arms and aid? And yes, the arms and aid are important. But so is the rhetoric. According to a recent Pew Research poll, only 36% of Americans currently favor sending military aid to Israel. Is this shockingly low number due to all the anti-Israel rhetoric? How long before the negative rhetoric drives public opinion to the point where the continuation of aid is politically untenable? The rhetoric moves the culture, and our culture is definitely moving against Israel, and against all Jews.
When Hitler came to power in 1933, he did not immediately begin sending Jews to concentration camps. It would be seven years until Auschwitz would open in 1940. A lot would happen in those seven years to lay the groundwork for Auschwitz, to prepare the culture with policies that demonized and dehumanized. In 1933, Jews were barred from the Civil Service and university positions. In 1935, the Nuremberg Laws denied Jews German citizenship. In 1936, Jewish doctors were barred from practicing medicine. 1938 brought Kristallnacht, the expulsion of all Jewish pupils from German schools, and the forced transfer of all Jewish retail businesses to Aryans. And through all of this, there were mass anti-Jewish protests at German universities that might feel eerily familiar in light of recent news. This is a well known story to those who have studied the history of the period.
I don’t mean to suggest that governmental laws of discrimination and persecution in Nazi Germany are the equivalent of antisemitic chants and harassment on American campuses, but our culture is moving in a very disturbing direction. The rabid vitriol of the “mostly peaceful” campus protests certainly seems like an escalation — as we hear of students calling for “a final solution,” the destruction of Tel Aviv, 10,000 more October 7ths, and so on. This escalation has not come about because the death and destruction in Gaza has recently escalated. Quite the contrary, the fighting has largely paused. I would guess that the warming weather and approaching end of the school year partly explains the students’ timing. But so do the cumulative effects of the messages permeating the culture.
So are we now seven years away from our own Auschwitz? I’m not nearly pessimistic enough to believe that’s where we are headed. But groundwork is being laid and the culture is being changed. The preconditions for the Holocaust included the German national humiliation of World War I and an economic collapse the likes of which none of us have ever known. What would happen in this country if we suffered a humiliating defeat to, say, China, coupled with a Weimar-level economic catastrophe? Would it be possible for a demagogue to rise in need of scapegoats? Would the groundwork that is being laid now in our culture, demonizing the Jews, come into play?
So what do we do? We push back against the negative messages going out in the culture. We refute Jonathan Glazer’s Oscar speech. We let President Biden know, as the Muslims in Michigan have done, that no, he cannot just count on our votes regardless of what he and his underlings say. We let our alma maters know, as Robert Kraft has done, that they no longer have our support or our money if they can’t protect their Jewish students. And we make sure that Israel thrives and remains secure, so that, just in case the worst should happen some day, we have a place to go this time.
The post The Line from Jonathan Glazer to the Columbia and National Encampments first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Wikipedia’s Serious Problem: Bias Against Israel
An aerial view shows the bodies of victims of an attack following a mass infiltration by Hamas gunmen from the Gaza Strip lying on the ground in Kibbutz Kfar Aza, in southern Israel, Oct. 10, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Ilan Rosenberg
The report that Wikipedia’s volunteer editors are labeling the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) as an unreliable source of information on certain topics — including antisemitism related to Israel and Zionism — is a much more serious problem than an attack on a particular institution. Instead, it speaks to how much the bias against Israel and the indifference to antisemitism has spread to other organizations and informational platforms in this country.
There are those in the Jewish community who go so far as to claim that any criticism of Israel is really a cover for antisemitism. This is absurd. Israel is a country like any other, and its policies are subject to criticism, and even condemnation, as we see taking place within the country itself. Serious people, including those at ADL, reject outright the idea that Israel is beyond criticism, and that when criticism of Israel appears, it is a manifestation of antisemitism.
On the other hand, equally absurd — but much more dangerous because it is accepted in certain mainstream institutions — is the notion that any form of criticism of Israel can never be classified as antisemitism. This is a dangerous and misinformed idea, which underlies the spread of hate that we have witnessed since October 7. The most extreme manifestation of this was the rationalization or outright denial of the barbaric Hamas massacre of October 7. This attack — the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust — was supposedly framed in terms of legitimate resistance to Israeli policies. In other words, nothing Israel could do to defend itself is defensible.
While the distortion embodied in these justifications for the murder of 1,200 Israelis, the rape of scores of women, the taking of more than 200 hostages is so obvious, it wasn’t the most perilous form. Even a person with hostile views toward the Jewish State could see through the immorality of justifying one of the worst acts of terrorism since 9/11.
Far more dangerous, because of its respectability, is the concept that no criticism of Israel can ever be antisemitism. This is often expressed with phrases like, “we don’t hate Jews, we hate Zionism.” And those sources — such as the ADL — which identify areas where hostility toward Israel can be a form of antisemitism and a generator of antisemitic incidents, are treated as biased and unreliable by Wikipedia and other groups and publications.
In fact, the manifestations of anti-Israel activity and the explosion of anti-Jewish behavior in a multitude of areas of society cannot be separated from classical antisemitism.
Jews were demonized for centuries — from being accused as “Christ killers,” to charges of blood libels and murders of children for ritual purposes, to sinister conspiracy theories as embodied in the fraudulent Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion document, which accuses Jewish leaders of plotting to take over the world.
All of this deeply embedded hatred culminated in the Holocaust, the Nazis’ systematic murder of two-thirds of the Jews of Europe.
After the horrors of the Nazi extermination of the Jewish people, outright Jew-hatred was stigmatized — but millennia of prejudice against the Jewish people did not suddenly disappear. Over time, it transformed itself into something more legitimate: hatred of the only Jewish state in the world.
To those who cared, like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., it was obvious that delegitimizing the Jewish State was merely a post-Holocaust form of antisemitism.
While these ideas existed for decades, it was October 7 that gave them new life. Beyond the rationalization of the Hamas terrorism itself, the anti-Israel protests on campuses were characterized by classic demonization and delegitimization of the Jewish State and its Jewish supporters.
Denial of the fundamental right of the Jewish state to exist — as embodied in the popular protest phrase, “From the river to the sea” — is along the historic lines of delegitimizing Jews through conspiracy theories.
Demonization of the Jewish State through denying what Hamas did, or justifying or labeling Israel’s struggle to defend itself after the worst day since the Holocaust as genocide — or accusing Israel of deliberately targeting children, in the spirit of blood libel charges — are only some of the ways in which expressions have not been mere criticism of Israel.
And the effect of all this — the attacks on Jews on campuses and elsewhere — was highly predictable. Hate speech, whether from the right, the left, or Islamist, inevitably leads to hate incidents.
In deeming ADL reporting as “unreliable,” this subset of Wikipedia’s editors has ignored all these forms of antisemitism that have emerged over the last eight months. For us, we will continue to do our work, always recognizing the distinction between free speech and criticism of Israeli policies and the demonization and delegitimization of the Jewish state, which fits into the pattern of historic antisemitism.
It is important that leaders in society make clear that they know what’s going on here — that it’s exactly this kind of thinking that has produced the opportunity for antisemitism to openly raise its ugly head in a way that we haven’t seen for decades. If people don’t confront the reality, this hatred — legitimized by mainstream sources — will spread and create even greater dangers for American Jews and American society.
The first step in standing up against this spreading support for hate is to express support for the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s Working Definition of Antisemitism, which articulates when legitimate criticism of Israel becomes antisemitism.
Ken Jacobson is Associate National Director of ADL.
The post Wikipedia’s Serious Problem: Bias Against Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Members of Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah Party Say Jews Cannot Live in Israel
People hold Fatah flags during a protest in support of the people of Gaza, as the conflict between Israel and Hamas continues, in Hebron, in the West Bank, Oct. 27, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Mussa Qawasma
Whoever thinks the current war is an isolated conflict in the Gaza Strip — think again. The war is being cheered by members of Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas’ political party, Fatah, as leading to a “return to Acre, Jaffa, and Haifa.”
In other words, “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.”
One Fatah member stated recently what Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) has documented for decades — that the conflict with Israel is not over land, but much more. It is “existential, not just a conflict over borders.”
Fatah Revolutionary Council member Muhammad Al-Lahham: “This is my opinion as [a member of] Fatah: That my conflict against this occupation [i.e., Israel] is an existential conflict, not just a conflict over borders. It’s either me or him on this land.”
[Al-Arabiya TV (Saudi Arabia), Facebook page, June 15, 2024]
Another top member and official of Fatah, Nablus Branch Secretary Muhammad Hamdan, said that Palestinians dying in the war in Gaza serve as “fuel” for the Palestinian “return,” and taking over of all of Israel. As he put it, Israel is “transient”:
Fatah Nablus Branch Secretary Muhammad Hamdan: “We say to the entire world that this blood that is being shed will be the fuel for our return to Acre, Jaffa, and Haifa, and certainly the Israeli occupation is transient and indeed the State of Palestine will be established, whether the occupation [i.e., Israel] and this world want it or not. All this national and mass activity emphasizes that we are returning, whether the occupation wants it or not.”
[Official PA TV, May 15, 2024]
The Palestinian Authority’s Ministry of Education showed a map and worded it as explicitly as possible on its Facebook page: “Palestine — the entire land is ours, from the [Mediterranean] Sea to the [Jordan] River”
Facebook, PA Ministry of Education, Nov. 16, 2021
This echoes many similar statements before it by other top Fatah and PA officials, such as Fatah Revolutionary Council Secretary Majed Al-Fatiani, who said that all the “transients” who came to “Palestine” must return “to where they came from,” and that only the Palestinians will have “sovereignty” over the land:
Fatah Revolutionary Council Secretary Majed Al-Fatiani: “There will be no sovereignty over this land except for the Palestinians … even if there is a foreign and transient case as the transients who came in the history of Palestine and returned to where they came from… [The Israelis] must understand that Palestine between the [Mediterranean] Sea and the [Jordan] River – every Palestinian man and woman has a right to it, and we will pursue them to take this right … Every year a generation arises among us that says: My home is in Jaffa, my home is in Tantura, my home is in the Upper Galilee, in Al-Bassa, in Lod, my home is in Ramle, Umm Al-Rashrash [i.e., Eilat; all the places are in Israel], and everywhere.”
[Fatah-run Awdah TV, Special Coverage, May 29, 2022]
The idea of Israel as a colonial “implant” and “a temporary ruler” is expressed in the following video, which was broadcast by official PA TV hundreds of times for almost a decade. It shows the rise and defeat of different rulers in “Palestine” over time. It ends with Israel’s defeat and the arrival of a “new” Muslim conqueror, Saladin, who defeated the Crusaders, thus representing the coming Muslim savior who will “liberate Palestine” from Jewish-Israeli rule:
The author is a senior analyst at Palestinian Media Watch, where a version of this article was originally published.
The post Members of Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah Party Say Jews Cannot Live in Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Did Jamaal Bowman Primary Bring AOC & Nick Fuentes Together?
US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) speaks during a press conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on March 21, 2024. Photo: Craig Hudson/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
Far-right white supremacist Nick Fuentes recently found common ground with progressive New York Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), taunting her with their political and ideological “similarities.” And the Internet caught fire.
What started as Ocasio-Cortez’s distaste for “big money” election spending ended with an exchange that Fuentes created to match her with anti-Israel rhetoric.
While it is evident that both Fuentes and Ocasio-Cortez are clearly anti-Israel, one accepted definition of antisemitism would also indicate that their rhetoric and their actions in turn make them both antisemitic.
AOC is more America First than 99% of Republicans. https://t.co/VDgdMZr4N6
— Nicholas J. Fuentes (@NickJFuentes) June 19, 2024
No matter how hard she tries, AOC cannot separate herself from being associated with Jew-haters. Her standpoint appears to be mainly made of ignorance, angelic naïveté, and her alliance with two of the most antisemitic Congresswomen, Ilan Omar (D-MN) and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI).
Now, Fuentes has managed to rile her up in one tweet and expose their similarities. Fuentes, of course, is an open antisemite and white supremacist.
You are a white supremacist and I want nothing to do with you nor the world you imagine. I believe in a multiracial democracy, one of economic rights, civil liberties, and that affirms the working class and the rights of women and LGBTQ+ people.
These are not small differences.…
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) June 20, 2024
But that is exactly the point, polar-opposites of the spectrum are supposedly adversaries in their values. Yet extremes on either side are like a horseshoe spectrum — they meet at the bottom where the ends almost touch.
As for the “most expensive primary” that AOC criticized, Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) suffered a resounding defeat. He also did so in a way that singled out the Jewish community. And despite critics’ claims, the results also proved what HonestReporting wrote: this primary race was about more than “the Benjamins.”
A beloved county-executive and more moderate Democrat, George Latimer won 58.6% of the vote, and his voters were motivated by many issues. However, The New York Times put out a disturbing headline, later changing it amid criticism.
Actually, @nytimes, there was far more to it than “the Benjamins,” as we made clear the day before Bowman’s defeat. https://t.co/rhyGHVDv94 https://t.co/sTdLl8aWNT
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) June 26, 2024
Hmmm seems @nytimes thought better of their headline placing the blame for Bowman’s loss on the Jews, oops I mean “pro-Israel money.” https://t.co/k5PvLFrvwi pic.twitter.com/DB4sc2YVGy
— Dr. Laura Shaw Frank (@shawfrank) June 26, 2024
Of course, the Jewish people will be blamed for this “upset.” And not just by AOC.
Many allies of Fuentes and KKK leader David Duke also blamed the result on Jews. One former UFC fighter took to X to blame “Israel” for meddling in elections. He made the mistake of retweeting a post referencing Jewish people.
Once again, we often see that anti-Zionism is antisemitism.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
The post Did Jamaal Bowman Primary Bring AOC & Nick Fuentes Together? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.