Connect with us

Uncategorized

What Tucker Carlson won’t tell you about U.S. military aid to Israel

Tucker Carlson sat across from United States Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee at Israel’s Ben-Gurion Airport and delivered a version of an argument that demagogues have recycled for centuries.

“Our country is not thriving,” Carlson said, “and we’re spending tens and tens of billions of dollars over time defending Israel.” His implication was clear: that same money could be spent fixing things at home. Why are we sending around $3.8 billion a year to a country with universal healthcare when many Americans can’t afford a dentist?

It’s a powerful line. But here’s the math Carlson doesn’t want you to do. The federal government spends roughly $7 trillion a year. We send more than $3.8 billion in annual military aid to Israel; that represents 0.054% of the budget. That’s approximately five cents out of every hundred dollars. The government spends the equivalent of the entire Israel aid package every five hours.

“Fine,” you might say, “but $3.8 billion is still a lot of money.” It is. But if that’s your standard, why single out this line item? After all, the government made $162 billion in improper payments last year — money sent to the wrong people, in the wrong amounts, by accident. That’s 42 times the annual aid to Israel.

If Carlson cared about fiscal responsibility, he’d be screaming about accidental overpayments, not a line item that rounds to zero. But he’s not. Because the money was never the point.

I say this not as a defender of any particular aid package. It’s legitimate for Americans to debate the merits of the U.S. sending military aid to Israel. I say this as an economist who has spent a career watching this exact rhetorical trick be deployed across the political spectrum, by politicians and pundits who know better.

What Carlson is doing is creating what’s known as a false dilemma: presenting two options as if they’re the only possibilities. Either we fund Israel’s military, or we fix our own pressing domestic problems. Pick one.

It sounds intuitive because it maps onto how households think. Each of us is used to making these daily calculations. If, say, I spend $100 going out to dinner, I can’t spend that money on groceries that would keep me fed for much longer.

But a government with a $7 trillion annual budget is not a household. We can easily conceive of how much money $100 is, and how far it will stretch. Almost none of us can readily do the same for $7 trillion.

That vast, vast sum funds thousands of programs simultaneously because it has to. Governments work in “stereo”: They have to fund defense, education, healthcare, foreign policy, disaster relief and food safety, all at once, all the time. And that’s just a fraction of the list.

The idea that we must choose between sending aid to an ally and fixing potholes in Ohio is designed to make you feel like someone is stealing from you. And it works.

Carlson knows that he’s deceiving his audience. He understands that cutting Israel aid to zero would not build a single hospital or hire a single teacher. Instead, it would most likely be redistributed within the State Department’s foreign operations budget, or shave a vanishingly miniscule amount off the huge and ever-growing U.S. budget deficit. Not exactly a game-changer for American healthcare.

He makes the argument anyway, because zero-sum thinking is one of the most powerful instincts in politics.

A recent study by some of my economics colleagues surveyed more than 20,000 Americans and found that people who see the world in zero-sum terms —where one group’s gain must come at another’s loss — are drawn to populist positions across the spectrum. On the left, they favor more economic redistribution; on the right, more immigration restrictions. The cognitive instinct is the same; only the target changes.

Both sides shamelessly overuse this tactic. Sen. Bernie Sanders, for instance, regularly plays it from the left — also, occasionally, regarding Israel. “We need health care for all Americans, not weapons for a war criminal,” he wrote on X this month, in response to a U.S. sale of arms to Israel.

Back in 2016, pro-Brexit campaigners plastered a red bus with the claim that Britain sent 350 million pounds a week to the European Union, money that should go to the National Health Service instead. The number was inflated, the trade-off was false, and Nigel Farage admitted as much the morning after the vote. But it worked: Vote Leave’s own campaign director later conceded that without the NHS claim, Remain would likely have won.

In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez built an entire movement on the premise that oil revenue spent on anything other than social programs was revenue stolen from the poor. He redirected billions from reinvestment in oil production toward social spending, starving the industry that drove the nation’s economy. When oil prices dropped, the productive economy collapsed. The social programs collapsed with it.

The honest version of Carlson’s argument — “I think military aid to Israel is not a good use of American resources, and here’s why” — could be a perfectly legitimate position. We can debate the strategic value of that aid and its humanitarian implications, as well as the proper allocation of the foreign aid budget. But by singling out this one-line item and building an entire narrative around it, Carlson is not making a fiscal argument. He’s constructing a villain. When your obsession with government overreach zeroes in on the half of a tenth of one percent of a $7 trillion budget that goes to Israel, the argument isn’t really about the budget anymore.

“Can you feel the resentment?” Carlson asked Huckabee. “Because it’s real.” He’s right that the resentment is real. Americans are frustrated about healthcare costs, stagnant wages and crumbling infrastructure. Those frustrations deserve serious engagement.

What they don’t deserve is to be exploited. The false dilemma of us or them is shameless manipulation driven by resentment — Carlson’s word — if not something far worse.

The post What Tucker Carlson won’t tell you about U.S. military aid to Israel appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

How a young woman smuggled weapons into the Warsaw Ghetto

This is a revised version of the original article in Yiddish which you can read here.

On Both Sides of the Wall
Vladka Meed and Steven D. Meed
Citadel Press, 448 pages, $29.00.

“But surely by this morning we will learn something.” It was a sentiment that was going around the Warsaw Ghetto, overheard among the groups of Jews huddled on street corners. On occasion someone would muster up some hopeful words: “Jews, have no fear! You will all see. With God’s help, once more we shall survive the evil decree!” It was July 22, 1942: the first day of the Great Deportation. Any optimism was unfounded: On that day, the Germans led roughly 250,000 Jews to the death camps.

Thus begins the opening scene of On Both Sides of the Wall, Vladka Meed’s memoir of her life in Warsaw during World War II. Her story originally appeared in installments in the Forward shortly after her arrival in America, in 1946, under her real name, Feygele Peytel Miedzyrecki. A book-length edition was published by the educational committee of the Workers Circle in 1948.

In 1977, an English translation came out, with an introduction by Elie Wiesel. Now Meed’s memoir is available in an expanded edition, complete with an introduction from the historian Samuel Kassow and a foreword by the translator, Steven (Shloyme) Meed, Vladka’s son.

Vladka Meed takes the reader into the heart of the Warsaw Ghetto, with its charged atmosphere of hope, terror and despair. She summons the cacophony of those last ten, tragic months of the Ghetto; we hear the voices of Jews, Germans and their Ukrainian accomplices.

Fortunately, Vladka managed to avoid the daily aktsyes (deportation campaigns) when the mundir forces (“Jewish police,” in the ghetto vernacular) would capture Jews for deportation. Vladka soon found herself alone: “My mother, brother, and sister have all been taken from me to some unimaginable fate,” she writes. Vladka was lucky to find a job in one of the workshops that served the Germans.

Following the second selektsye (separation of fit and unfit Jewish laborers) in September 1942, the Jews that remained in the ghetto began preparing for an uprising. Vladka remembers their calls: “If we are to die, anyway, let us die with dignity!” “The enemy must pay a heavy price for our lives!”

As a young girl, Vladka was active in the Jewish Labor Bund, an affiliation that helped keep her alive during the Holocaust. She spoke Polish well without a trace of a Yiddish accent, and had “good Aryan looks.” The leadership of the ghetto’s Bundist underground suggested that she become a courier between the ghetto and the Aryan side. That’s how the young Jewish girl, Feygele Peltel, was transformed into a Polish woman by the name of Wladislawa Kowalska, or simply — Vladka.

Step by step, she integrated into “normal life” among Christian Poles. At first she had high hopes. “I had expected to encounter a strong interest among our Polish neighbors about life within the ghetto,” she writes. But she soon realized that her neighbors preferred very much not to know what was happening on the other side of the ghetto wall.

Vladka and her comrades on the Aryan side were charged with obtaining weapons for the ghetto. But their relations with members of the Polish underground army were poor, and little came of their interactions: “As we travel about the city, trying and failing to get arms…we beg them: ‘Help us to obtain weapons. We are willing to pay well for them!’”

Most of their requests fell on deaf ears. Often they’d hand over payment and receive nothing in return — or worse, their Polish contacts would betray them to the Germans. Even when the Jewish ghetto fighters managed to get their hands on a revolver, another challenge remained: smuggling it into the ghetto.

The book is a gripping read. Vladka Meed is a skillful narrator, and she gives a detailed accounting of her dangerous missions. Any day could have been her last: she never knew if she’d live to see the evening. Vladka had many more failures than successes, and in many cases she was saved by a fateful coincidence.

Kassow’s introduction describes the greater historical context of that period, while Steven Meed provides personal details about his mother’s life before the Holocaust, based on her interviews in the American press.

In his translation, Meed includes bracketed phrases that provide brief, helpful contextual notes. He has also chosen to preserve Yiddish words from the so-called “ghetto language”, like aktsye (action), mundirn (police forces), and blokade (blockade). The choice to keep such vocabulary gives the text an authentic feel, even as Meed’s strategy occasionally raises questions. Why, for example, did he ‘translate’ the word kristin (Christian woman) in the Yiddish as “shikse” (an often pejorative term for a gentile girl) in the English? In general, his translations in the book occasionally veer far from the original.

In the United States, Vladka Meed dedicated her life to Holocaust education. This newest edition of her book carries this mission forward, and constitutes a significant addition to the ever-growing library of documents and research on the Warsaw Ghetto.

Unfortunately, the history of Jewish resistance to German occupation still hasn’t been properly integrated into American Holocaust education, even in Jewish day schools. At the University of Michigan, when I discuss the Warsaw Ghetto uprising with students in my course on the history of the Jews in Eastern Europe, I often get this response: “Why didn’t anyone tell us about this in our Holocaust education classes? It’s so important!”

To this day we often view the history of the Holocaust with a focus on mass murder. Vladka Meed’s book, writes Kassow, “demonstrates [that] this battle to stay alive, against all odds, refuted the oft-made claim that Jews went passively to their deaths.”

The post How a young woman smuggled weapons into the Warsaw Ghetto appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

US Senate Vote to Block Arms Sales to Israel Fails — but Raises Questions About Future Democratic Support

US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) speaks to the media following a meeting with US President Joe Biden at the White House in Washington, US, July 17, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein

A failed Senate vote to block US arms sales to Israel has further exposed a deepening divide within the Democratic Party, one increasingly defined by younger voters and liberals whose views on Israel are shifting rapidly.

The Senate on Wednesday rejected two resolutions led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) that would have halted roughly $450 million in weapons transfers to Israel, including bombs and bulldozers. The measures failed, ensuring the sales will move forward. But the margin, and who supported the effort, marked a significant political inflection point.

Of the 47 Senate Democrats, 40 voted in favor of blocking sales of bulldozers and 36 voted in favor of blocking transfers of so-called “dumb” bombs. The failed vote represents the largest show of opposition to military aid for Israel within the party in recent memory. While previous efforts spearheaded by Sanders drew support from a smaller bloc, this vote saw roughly 80 percent of Senate Democrats vote against transferring aid to the Jewish state, signaling a seismic shift in the dynamic between the Democratic Party and Israel.

Further, many traditionally stalwart supporters of Israel, such as Democratic Sens. Elissa Slotkin (MI) and Cory Booker (NJ), voted in favor of Sanders’s resolution, signaling that anti-Israel sentiment has migrated from the far-left fringes of the party into the mainstream. 

That change is closely tied to evolving public opinion, especially among younger Americans.

Recent polling, including newly released data from the Yale Youth Poll, shows that younger voters are far more critical of Israel than older generations. Large shares of voters under 30 now support restricting or even ending US military aid, a position that departs sharply from the long-standing bipartisan consensus in Washington. Polls show that a supermajority of Democrats believe that Israel has committed a so-called “genocide” in Gaza, an assertion which lacks little evidence and has been boosted by foreign entities tied to Iran. 

Data also suggests that increased social media consumption aligns with more skeptical attitudes toward foreign policy regarding Israel. Those who receive their news from social media, especially youth-centric platforms such as TikTok and Instagram, are far more likely to exhibit anti-Israel animus than those who consume traditional broadcast news media. 

The Senate vote reflects the increasing pressure of Democratic lawmakers to stake an aggressive stance against Israel. Several lawmakers who backed the resolutions argued that continued arms transfers should be reconsidered amid the expanding regional conflict involving Iran and mounting humanitarian concerns. They argued that the Trump White House has not sought out appropriate congressional approval for the ongoing war in Iran. Many also criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s conduct, suggesting that he has escalated hostilities in the region rather than acted in self-defense from existential threats. These same voices expressed dismay at civilian casualties in Iran, Lebanon, and Gaza.  

The lawmakers largely framed their votes not as opposition to Israel’s existence, but as a challenge to current policies and the use of US-supplied weapons.

Opponents, including most Republicans, maintained that US military support remains essential to Israel’s security, particularly as tensions with Iran escalate. They warned that blocking arms sales could weaken a key ally in a volatile region.

The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC), an organization dedicated to increasing support for the GOP among Jews, framed the vote as reflective of a broader anti-Israel sentiment within the Democratic Party.

“There is only ONE pro-Israel party, and it is the Republican Party,” RJC wrote on X. 

Meanwhile, Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of the group J Street, endorsed the vote as an “encouraging” sign of progress.

It’s encouraging to see a growing number of senators recognize that unconditional US military support for Israel is no longer tenable in light of the Netanyahu government’s policies. The work now is to translate that shift into action: alleviating the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, stopping violence on the West Bank and pursuing paths to end the ongoing fighting across the region,” Ben-Ami wrote. 

A self-proclaimed “pro-peace, pro-Israel” lobbying organization, J Street has come under fire for allegedly not doing enough to combat antisemitism or anti-Israel narratives within liberal political circles.

Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), one of the most strident defenders of Israel in Congress, criticized his party’s turn against Israel, saying in a new CNN interview that they have “boxed themselves in” by supporting Sanders’s resolution. He dismissed the notion that Democrats would become more likely to support Israel with a change in Israeli leadership.

“When Netanyahu goes, and you’re now on record with this, you’re going to revert back and say that now that he’s gone, I can now start sending offensive weapons?” Moskowitz pondered.

Despite the failure of the resolutions, the size of the Democratic vote in favor underscores how quickly the political landscape is changing ahead of the 2028 presidential election.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Duke University Suspends Students for Justice in Palestine Over Antisemitic Political Cartoon

Aerial view of Duke University on Jan. 6, 2026. Photo: ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect

Duke University has suspended its Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapter and impounded its money for posting an antisemitic political cartoon on social media, The Duke Chronicle reported on Tuesday.

According to the student paper, the illustration depicts a pig labeled “Zionism” hoisting a Star of David as its arm interlocks with another pig, labeled “US Imperialism,” hoisting the Torch of Liberty. The image was created in 1970 by political cartoonist Emory Douglas, a Black Panther party official who harbored hostility toward the US and Israel.

The Chronicle said the image elicited no fewer than 10 formal complaints from Jewish students for showing a blatant antisemitic trope. Historically, depicting Jews as pigs has been done to reduce them to the status of animals and mock the fact that dietary restrictions forbid Jews to eat pork. The Nazis notoriously did so, but the practice reaches back further into history, when medieval Germans proliferated the Judensau drawings which portrayed Jews drinking pig’s milk and excrement.

In a statement to the Chronicle, SJP denied that it intended to endorse the cartoon’s antisemitic messaging, saying it “was never intended to be antisemitic” and that anti-Zionist activism is “not the same as targeting Jewish people.”

This was not the first time that the anti-Zionist group posted antisemitic imagery. In 2024, the Harvard chapter of its faculty spinoff, Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine (FJSP), posted a political cartoon of a Jew lynching an African American and an Arab. In the illustration, a left-hand tattooed with a Star of David and containing a dollar sign at its center dangles a Black man and an Arab man from a noose. In its posterior, an arm belonging to an unknown person of color wields a machete that says, “Liberation Movement.”

Such activity is an integral part of the playbook of anti-Zionist and antisemitic messaging on social media, scholars have found.

From 2013 to 2024, the Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism (ISCA) at Indiana University studied over 76,000 posts created by Students for Justice in Palestine and its affiliates, finding that over half, 54.9 percent, included only a single, evocative image.

“In contrast, Reels (5.3%) and Videos (4.9%) are used far less frequently,” the institute said in a report based on its research. “Based on these descriptions, we see a strong preference among campus-based anti-Israel groups for static visual formats, suggesting that this type of bimodal content represents the highest form of shareability within activists networks.”

To boost their audience and reach, pro-Hamas groups also post together in what ISCA described as “co-authored posts,” of which there were over 20,000 between 2013 and 2024. Their content set off strong emotions in the individual users exposed to them, inciting incidents of antisemitic discrimination, harassment, and violence. Such outrages, it added, increased in proportion to the concentration of anti-Israel groups on a single campus, evidence of “particularly strong” correlation.

ISCAP’s conclusions can be found in the real world, as SJP and its network of student groups have helped fuel a historic wave of antisemitic incidents on college campuses over the past two and a half years — from spitting on Jewish students at the University of California, Berkeley while calling them “Jew” to gang assaulting Jews at Columbia University’s Butler Library.

SJP has also expressed its hope of inciting insurrection in the US and amassing a jihadist army.

In 2024, the national SJP organization proclaimed on X that the anti-Zionist student movement is a weapon for destroying the US, saying that “divestment [from Israel] is not an incrementalist goal” but enacted with the later goal of initiating “the total collapse of the university structure and American empire itself.” On the same day the group issued the statement, Columbia University’s most strident SJP spinoff, created after SJP was suspended, was reported to have distributed literature which called for “popular support for the Palestinian war of national liberation, a war which is waged through armed struggle.”

Sections of the pamphlet were explicitly Islamist, invoking the name of “Allah, the most gracious” and referring to Hamas as the “Islamic Resistance Movement.” Proclaiming, “Glory to Gaza that gave hope to the oppressed, that humiliated the ‘invincible’ Zionist army,” it said its purpose is to build an army of Muslims worldwide.

“We call upon the masses of our Arab and Islamic nations, its scholars, men, institutions, and active forces to come out in roaring crowds tomorrow,” it added, referring to a previous event. “We also renew our invitation to the free people and those with living consciences around the world to continue and escalate their global public movement, rejecting the occupation’s crimes, in solidarity with our people and their just cause and legitimate struggle.”

Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News