Anti-Israel demonstrators protest, on the day of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to a joint meeting of the US Congress, on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, July 24, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Seth Herald

JNS.org – Ever since political Zionism emerged at the end of the 19th century as a movement to create and sustain a Jewish state in the historic Land of Israel, it has encountered Jewish opposition to its goals. Some of these opponents were decently motivated but proven tragically wrong by history; some were driven by broader political beliefs and loyalties that they regarded as incompatible with Zionism; while some, particularly in the current generation, are just plain reprehensible, expressing a pathology that seeks the adoration of strangers by hatefully dissociating from their own community.

Jewish antagonism towards Zionism is not homogeneous. Particularly before the emergence of the independent State of Israel in 1948, there were bourgeois Jewish anti-Zionists who worried that Zionism would jeopardize their social position and encourage non-Jews to regard them as innately disloyal to their countries of citizenship. There were also proletarian Jewish anti-Zionists, wedded to a vision of socialism in which Jews would have, at best, “cultural autonomy.” Among American Jews, there was a section of the community that regarded the United States as the Promised Land, viewing the repeated references to “Zion” in Jewish liturgy as a purely spiritual aspiration, rather than as a part of the argument for the restitution of the biblical Land of Israel. Among many Haredi groups, Zionism was seen as a secular heresy.

Yet polling these days repeatedly shows that the vast majority of Jews, religious and secular, identify with and support Israel, and many of them are even more inclined to identify as “Zionists” in the wake of the October 7, 2023 Hamas atrocities. Those trends I outlined above have largely faded among Jews around the world, with a new consensus forming following World War II that the Jews, like other peoples and nations, can live happily in a world that contains both a Jewish state and vibrant Jewish communities outside Israel’s borders.

But Jewish opposition to Zionism has not disappeared. As the number of Jews identifying as anti-Zionists has dwindled, the output of those who declare themselves anti-Zionists has become all the more venomous. Among pro-Israel Jews, it’s common to denounce such people as “self-haters” or as “useful idiots,” a phrase incorrectly attributed to Lenin to denote those Western liberals in thrall to the Soviet Union who played a “useful” role in advancing Moscow’s propaganda. But how “useful” are the Jewish anti-Zionists?

After 1945, Jewish anti-Zionism was largely the preserve of the left. Inside the Jewish state, its main proponents were found in the Israeli Communist Party (whose Jewish leader, Meir Wilner, signed the Declaration of Independence) which became militantly anti-Zionist as the Soviet Union increasingly aligned itself with the Arab states in their quest to annihilate Israel. However, at a time when anti-Zionists were much keener than they are now to deflect accusations of antisemitism, the Jewish anti-Zionists certainly had a useful role. “We as a party are … against the ideology and practice of Zionism, though you have to ask the question how to best fight against it,” Wilner told the East German Communist dictator Erich Honecker when they met in 1979. “This is about leading the struggle from the clear perspective of socialism and progress, and thus convincing the Jewish masses that the fight against Zionism is in their national interest. This is about making clear and convincing that anti-Zionism is not directed against the Jews.”

The idea that Jews of any social class in Israel would abandon their own state to become a minority in an Arab-dominated, Soviet-controlled republic was always outlandish. But for the Israeli Communists—and even the handful of Israelis further to the left, such as the Matzpen group that actively identified with Palestinian terrorist groups—the abiding belief was that Jews would be a welcome presence in the socialist Palestinian state that would replace Israel.

It is on this last point that the current crop of Jewish anti-Zionists has shifted. However ridiculous all the old slogans about a “joint struggle” with the Arabs against Zionism were, and however shameful the political alliances these beliefs nurtured, all this was preferable to what we have now. This generation of anti-Zionists fervently believes that Jews have no rightful place in the Middle East at all, regardless of who governs them.

In the last 20 years, social media has dramatically amplified the voices of the miniscule number of Jews who hold this position. Some readers might remember Israel Shamir, a Russian-Israeli writer who converted to Christianity and whom many were convinced was an agent of the Russian secret services, and Gilad Atzmon, an Israeli jazz musician who relocated to London, both of whom delighted in baiting other Jews with antisemitic tropes and who spoke and wrote about Israel in demonic terms, particularly during the wars in Gaza in 2008-09 and 2014. A decade on, Shamir and Atzmon have become pretty much invisible, but their inheritors are out there.

The best, and therefore the worst, current example of what I’m talking about is an individual I’d never heard of before the Hamas atrocities in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. His name is Alon Mizrahi, and from what I can tell from his social-media presence, he is a former Israeli who quite literally sees his homeland as the root of all the evil in the world. In a sane environment, someone like this would have only a handful of followers, but Mizrahi has close to 100,000. His imbecilic posts are lauded by Hamas supporters and attract the ire of Jews. Even the identity he adopts—an “Arab Jew” because his family are Mizrahim—is scorned by other Jews of Mizrahi and Sephardi origin, me among them.

What distinguishes Mizrahi is the unvarnished pathology he displays. Whereas Meir Wilner was guilty of holding the ludicrous belief that the promise of the Soviet Union could sway the Jews away from Zionism, Mizrahi is guilty of spitting uncontrolled bile in their direction. In one post, he said the claim that the Nazis were driven by antisemitism is rooted in Jewish “narcissism.” In another post after last week’s release of three female Israeli hostages, he viciously mocked concerns about sexual abuse in captivity, in turn, sparked by the ordeals of the Israeli women raped and violated on Oct. 7. “Deep sense of disappointment in Israel: None of the returning hostages is pregnant,” he wrote.

The question persists: How useful is this latest iteration of “useful idiocy”? Not that useful. Unlike the PLO, Hamas doesn’t care whether it has Jewish cheerleaders since its goal is to eradicate Jews from the face of the earth. The millions across the globe who have attended pro-Hamas demonstrations similarly don’t care whether they are joined by dissenting Jews because theirs is the Palestinian cause, and Jews are simply in the way. There’s no need, anymore, for people on the left to protest that some of their best friends are Jews because in these circles, Jews are not a historically persecuted minority but the most affluent white community out there. Therefore, the function of someone like Alon Mizrahi is to entertain Hamas supporters when he trolls Jews and Jewish concerns, but nothing more than that. He may think of himself in heroic terms, but he is actually one of the clowns in the circus of the left.

If history is any guide, there will be other Jews and Israelis tempted to follow in the footsteps of Mizrahi and his forebears. At one time, I might have said that solid, informed political argument was the best way to win them over. But now, I would advise those friends and family members who love them to get them in front of a therapist. Because what today’s Jewish anti-Zionism shows us is it is no longer political. It is a mental disorder that traffics in antisemitic hate to win the respect and admiration of non-Jews. Don’t be that guy.

The post Just How Useful are the ‘Useful Idiots’? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

US Special Envoy for Iran Robert Malley speaks to VOA Persian at the State Department in Washington. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

By Eric Levine

JNS.org – With just minutes left in his administration, former President Joe Biden pardoned five family members. In so doing, he may not have clinched the title of worst president of all time, but he did win the gold medal for being the most cynical and dishonest.

Clearly, Biden did not want his successor, President Donald Trump, to do to his family and friends what the US Department of Justice during his administration attempted to do to Trump, his family and his allies—weaponize the criminal justice system and attack political enemies for political gain.

In one respect, Biden is doing Trump a favor. By not spending time settling scores as some in his inner circle would like, the 47th president can stay focused on “making America great again” by implementing the policies he was elected to enact.

However, there is one pardon Biden did not issue and whose conduct cannot be glossed over or condoned—that of Biden’s special envoy to Iran, Robert Malley. As a May 6 letter to then-US Secretary of State Antony Blinken by Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) and Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho)—former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and current chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, respectively—makes clear, Malley left government under a cloud warranting having his security clearance revoked.

“[W]e understand that Mr. Malley’s security clearance was suspended because he allegedly transferred classified documents to his personal email account and downloaded these documents to his personal cell phone,” they wrote. “It is unclear to whom he intended to provide these documents, but it is believed that a hostile cyber actor was able to gain access to his email and/or phone and obtain the downloaded information.”

Many believe that the “hostile cyber actor” in this case is Iran and that Malley downloaded the classified information to his phone so that it could be transmitted to the Islamic Republic. It is also believed that the information downloaded pertained to US and/or Israeli intelligence regarding Iran’s nuclear program. In light of the Biden administration’s policy of weakness and appeasement toward Iran, Malley’s conduct must have been incredibly egregious for him to have lost his security clearance.

His conduct is even more outrageous in the wake of the Hamas-led terrorist attacks in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and Iran’s role in it. How many Americans and Israelis may have died because of his perfidy may never be known for sure. However, it appears that at a minimum, he was instrumental in putting the lives of Americans and the national security of the United States at risk.

Yet, Malley goes unpunished. To date, his punishment has taken the form of being appointed to the faculty of Princeton University.

As the McCaul/Risch letter highlights, the Biden White House obstructed Congress’s oversight responsibilities and its efforts to learn more about why Malley lost his clearance.

With the change in presidential administration, it is time to reinvigorate the investigation into Malley’s conduct. Equal justice under the law demands that he be investigated. If it is found that he has committed treason, then he must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Investigating and prosecuting treason is not settling scores. It is keeping the country safe. If Trump has sworn to do anything, it is to do just that.

The post Trump Must Investigate Robert Malley for Treason first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

The blowing of the shofar, traditionally done on Rosh Hashanah. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

JNS.org – Shofar, an interdisciplinary journal of Jewish studies whose editors are committed “to publishing a diversity of beliefs, ideas and opinions,” is a project of cooperation with Purdue University. The academic institution was beset, as were many campuses, last year with pro-Palestine rallies and demonstrations, and even set up a “Liberation Zone,” although it would seem none for any Israeli hostages. I have no information that those events had a direct influence on the publication of an issue dedicated to anti-Zionism, but it exists.

Shaul Magid of Dartmouth College led that Shofar special issue, which was devoted to “Zionism and Its Jewish Critics.” He claimed that “while some scholars argue that the concept [of Zionism] has biblical origins, most acknowledge that it is a modern Jewish iteration of Western European nationalism that emerged in the mid-nineteenth century.” Who are these “most” scholars who champion perverse purposeful ignorance? What is their academic weight? Are these the instructors properly suited to lecture university students, Jewish and non-Jewish?

Magid and fellow travelers would have us believe that the many dozens of Torah commandments, hundreds of verses of Tanach, thousands of Midrashic, Talmudic and Second Temple literature pieces, as well as thousands of rabbinic dicta and responsa spanning some 2,500 years of Jewish core religion, culture and ritual revolving around Zion, Jerusalem, the Land of Israel and a Jew’s obligations to the same are to be erased and ignored. Similarly, the constant presence of Jews residing in the Land of Israel—immigrating and traveling to it, and sending charitable dollars to those living there all during the 1,800 years of our Exile, not to mention the Return to Zion during the sixth-century BCE—is to be disregarded.

In a follow-up response, Lior Sternfeld of Penn State University addresses the topic of “Settler Colonialism, From the River to the Sea, and the Israeli Case After October 7.” He intends “to offer a way to unpack some of the volatile concepts often used to analyze the Israel-Palestine conflict.” Nevertheless, he promptly engages in a volatile position and, as if objectively, observes that “well-meaning scholars and activists have sought to rehabilitate the concept of Zionism.”

And what is the need for that? Sternfeld knows and suggests that “Zionism, at least in its twenty-first-century form, negates the very existence of Palestinian identity and Palestinian nationalism. As such, the peaceful existence of the two peoples, enjoying freedom, independence, and self-determination, could never be achieved.” All the fault of the Jews. Sorry, the Zionists. For what is Zionism if not, according to Sternfeld, “settler-colonialism”?

As Sternfeld asserts—and we could assume teaches his students—the nakba (Arabic for “catastrophe”) that refers to the creation of the modern-day State of Israel in May 1948 was an “attempt … to eliminate the native people.” The next stage of his paradigm came with the influx of immigrants—Holocaust survivors from Europe and Jews who came from the Middle East, North Africa and many other locations. As he puts it, these “settlers became indigenous.” The next stage followed the Six-Day War in June 1967, when “the definition of colonial power became much more apt.”

Israel after 1967, Sternfeld insists, “became a colonial state.”

Why, supposedly, did it become such a state? His reasoning is that “Israel sought to control the land by sending settlers and exploiting the indigenous population and the resources to the benefit of Israel proper.” Moreover, the “native population did not get citizenship, any political rights, or equal legal status.” If one starts out without knowing the basics, like Sternfeld, then it will be no surprise that his conclusions and assertions are not only erroneous but dangerous.

Israel sent no one post-1967 to Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Yes, there were soldiers and even Nachal units, but it was the “settlers”—those of Gush Emunim and other groups, some not at all religiously motivated—who forced upon the government an extensive civilian Jewish residential presence there. Moreover, there was no exploitation of the population (and as for being “indigenous,” that requires another article altogether). Why should a group of people demanding to be separated from Israel deserve, in Sternfeld’s mind, to gain Israeli citizenship or political rights such as voting for Knesset representation?

What truly irks Sternfeld is the criticism voiced to the slogan chanted by pro-“Palestine” protestors that that presumed country should extend “from the river to the sea.” He ignores its eliminationist purpose in doing away with Israel altogether and probably a majority of its Jewish residents, preferring to highlight a parallel Israeli version of that slogan, an overlooked Israeli map covering the land “from the river to the sea,” unlike the pro-Palestine one “has political practice and military power.” That is an irrational presentation.

First of all, the Palestinian Authority maintains a political practice as well as military power. In addition, its educational system and media propaganda arms inculcate its population much better than Israel’s government does regarding territorial and legal heritage not to mention that in the P.A. area, there are no parallel Peace Now/B’Tselem groups that argue against land expansionism.

More importantly, historically speaking, the area of the “river to the sea” possesses an international Jewish legal status in that the League of Nations Palestine Mandate decision, Article 25, specifically awards that area for a reconstituted Jewish state. In addition, that was the territory left over after a fictitious “Transjordan” was created for a Saudi ruler expelled from his own country and received all of what was to be eastern Palestine—an Arab state. Does not Sternfeld know basic Zionist history, not to mention post-Oslo Accords diplomatic history?

One other of Sternfeld’s nonsensical arguments is that “the left must stop collaborating with the blame game of the right wing and stop seeking approval (that would never come) for disavowing any kind of resistance, especially the nonviolent one.” Especially? As that word means “more than usual; more than other people or things,” are we to understand that Sternfeld could permit a non-blaming of a less than non-violent resistance? Or is it just that his writing is obtuse at this point?

Sternfeld has a vision. It is one of a “time to move beyond Zionism into Israelism … to build a thriving Israeli society for the entirety of its population, next to an equally thriving society of dependent Palestine.” I admit to harboring a suspicion that Sternfeld’s grasp of the Israel-Arab conflict requires rehabilitation.

The post ‘Shofar’s Call to ‘Rehabilitate’ Zionism first appeared on Algemeiner.com.