JNS.org – In the arsenal of the antisemite, denial is a key weapon. Six million Jews were exterminated during the Holocaust? Didn’t happen. The Soviet Union persecuted its Jewish population in the name of anti-Zionism? Zionist propaganda. Rape and mutilation were rampant during the massacre in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023? What a smear upon the noble resistance of Hamas. And so on.

No surprise, then, that the left-wing mayor of Amsterdam, Femke Halsema, is now publicly regretting her use of the word “pogrom” in her summation of the shocking antisemitic violence unleashed by Arab and Muslim gangs in the Dutch city in the wake of the soccer match between local giants Ajax and visitors Maccabi Tel Aviv two weeks ago.

One day after the violence, Halsema noted that “boys on scooters crisscrossed the city in search of Israeli football fans, it was a hit and run. I understand very well that this brings back the memory of pogroms.” She could have also mentioned (but didn’t) that the Dutch authorities ignored warnings from Israel that the violence was being stoked in advance in private threads on social-media platforms, resulting in a massive policing failure; that Ajax supporters were not involved in the attacks, undermining claims that what happened was merely another episode in the long history of inter-fan violence at soccer matches; and that the “boys” engaged in the assaults were overwhelmingly youths of Moroccan or other Middle Eastern or North African backgrounds, who gleefully told their victims that their actions were motivated by the desire to “free Palestine.” But at least Halsema grasped the nature of the violence. Or so we thought.

A few days later, she rolled back her initial comments. “I must say that in the following days, I saw how the word ‘pogrom’ became very political and actually became propaganda,” she stated in an interview with Dutch media. “The Israeli government, talking about a Palestinian pogrom in the streets of Amsterdam. In The Hague, the word pogrom is mainly used to discriminate against Moroccan Amsterdammers, Muslims. I didn’t mean it that way. And I didn’t want it that way.”

On the left, the enemy is “Jewish privilege,” and on the right, it is “Jewish supremacism.”

Halsema’s discomfort does not, of course, mean that what happened in Amsterdam was not a pogrom. Nor does she speak for the entirety of the Dutch political class. Both the center-right VVD Party and the further-right PVV Party, for example, continue to describe the violence as a pogrom and have suggested strong measures for countering further outrages targeting local Jews and visiting Israelis. Both parties have urged a clampdown on mosque funding from countries promoting Islamism, such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and have called on the Netherlands to follow Germany’s example in denying or removing citizenship from those convicted of antisemitism.

But the mayor’s 180-degree turn speaks volumes about how the left in Europe enables antisemitism by denying that it is a serious problem. To begin with, there is a refusal to situate each incident in its historical context, which makes it all the easier to portray violent explosions as an anomaly. Listening to Halsema, you would never know that the Amsterdam pogrom was preceded in March by a violent demonstration at the opening of the National Holocaust Museum, where pro-Hamas protestors masked with keffiyehs and brandishing Palestinian flags—this century’s equivalent of a brown shirt and a Nazi armband—lobbed fireworks and eggs in protest at the presence of Israeli President Isaac Herzog. What you will realize, however, is that Halsema is terrified of being labeled “Islamophobic.” That explains her pleas for understanding for a bunch of Moroccan thugs who express contempt not just for Israel but for the country that has provided them a sanctuary with housing, education and many other benefits.

Not only are Jews expected to take all this abuse lying down; they are then told by non-Jewish leftist politicians—often aided by Jewish “anti-Zionist” lackeys—that they have no right to situate the violence directed against them within the continuum of Jewish persecution over the centuries. What happened in Amsterdam, we are badgered into believing, was different because it wasn’t motivated by hatred of Jews but a righteous rejection of Israeli policy.

That’s why the behavior of some of the Maccabi fans is brought into the equation. Video showing fans descending into a subway as they chanted “F**k the Arabs” spread like wildfire on social-media platforms, along with reports that Palestinian flags adorning some private homes had been torn down. I am not going to endorse these actions, even if, as a Jew, I can understand and empathize with the feelings that motivated them, but I also consider them essentially irrelevant to this case. The advance planning of the pogrom, coupled with the wretched record of pro-Hamas demonstrations around the Netherlands in the previous year, proves that the Maccabi fans would have been hounded and attacked even if their behavior had been impeccable. Moreover, legally and morally, violent assaults are in a different league than acts of petty vandalism or the singing of distasteful songs. There can be no comparison, and nor should there be.

What the Amsterdam pogrom underlines is that the extremes of the left and the unreconstructed elements of the nationalist right are now at one in their attitudes towards Jews. On the left, the enemy is “Jewish privilege,” and on the right, it is “Jewish supremacism.” Both terms carry the same meaning, but are expressed in language designed to appeal the prejudices of their respective supporters. For the left, claims of antisemitism are dismissed as expressions of Jews exercising their “privilege,” dishonestly seeking victim status at the same time as the “colonial” state they identify with is persecuting the “indigenous” inhabitants. For the right, claims of antisemitism are a tactic to shield the contention that Jews are superior to everyone else. Translated, both communicate the same message: The violence you experience is violence you bring upon yourselves.

To her eternal shame, Halsema is now trafficking in this noxious idea while presiding over a city in which no Jew can now feel safe, less than a century after their ancestors were rounded up and deported by the German occupiers. She should resign.

The post Amsterdamned: The Shame of Femke Halsema first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

JNS.org – On a site named “Slow Factory,” which serves as a resource for college pro-Palestine activists, its FAQ page poses the question: “Is ‘Free Palestine’ Antisemitic?” The answer, of course, is no. Why is that supposed to be a correct response? As they explain,

“First, antisemitism is a distinctly European cultural trait that has no historical equivalent in the Levant. … The movement does not single out or attack Judaism as a religion or people. … It hopes to create a truly democratic state in which self-determination and human rights are available for everyone.”

Before treating the claptrap quoted, we need to note that Slow Factory defines itself as “an environmental and social justice nonprofit organization” that works “at the intersections of climate and culture” to “redesign socially & environmentally harmful systems.” This is accomplished through “narrative change and regenerative design.” In short, mind control is supported by progressive funding. Influence Watch makes it clear that they are extremely anti-Zionist.

To return to the above-quoted excerpt, it is patently apparent that Slow Factory is presenting a false narrative. There is antisemitism in the Levant. While some of it could be traced to the influence of Christian missionaries, much of it is rooted in the Quran and accompanying Islamic literature. There are attacks on Jews by Muslims chanting itbah al-Yahud (“slaughter the Jews”) from Baghdad’s Farhud in 1941 to the massacre by Hamas in the Western Negev in 2023. Moreover, 31 years following the signing of the Oslo Accords, no democracy has developed in the Palestinian Authority; instead, it is a continuation and deepening of an authoritarian societal rule.

The “movement” indeed singles out Jews. It prevents them from crossing encampment lines. It attacks Jewish objects—whether people, institutions, places of business or customers at cafes. It seeks out the doors of Jewish students in dormitories. It lays siege to synagogues, hospitals named “Jewish” and Jewish schools. As for their vision of a democratic state, it is a movement that heralds the most undemocratic societies, whether in Gaza or Ramallah, Hebron or Shechem.

*    *    *

As explained by Austrian-born essayist Jean Améry, already in 1969, the left on campuses has been captured by pro-Palestine rhetoric and framework referencing that aligned itself with, first extreme left-wing and then, in its eventual progressive mutation, melding with Islamist antisemitism. Améry (born Hanns Chaim Mayer) realized that Israel would be demonized since nothing could ultimately satisfy the eliminationist demands of anti-Zionists. Anti-Zionism was fashioned to be the new “honorable antisemitism.”

For those opposed to Zionism, Israel is a symbol of capitalism, imperialism and colonialism—the core evils leftists exist to oppose. This is the underlying layer of today’s debasement of anything pro-Israel, its pillars sunk into a feeling of intense and even depraved degradation of Jews and all things Jewish, especially an independent and successful Jewish state.

What has evolved is epitomized at Villanova University outside Philadelphia, where a director of counseling services can present antisemitic views at an international conference, describing Zionism as a “disease” that requires psychotherapy. FBI-style “Wanted” posters targeted Jewish faculty and staff members at the University of Rochester. The sheriff’s office in Walla Walla, Wash., was required to respond to a pro-Palestine student protest outside a Whitman Board of Trustees dinner at a winery forcing the college to relocate its dinner venue.

At De Paul University, supporting Israel landed one Jewish student in the hospital while a second student was lightly injured. At Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, the campus flagpole had a Hamas flag hoisted.

The deeper invasive connection between academia and anti-Zionism, however, is not in protests but in the educational content, or rather the indoctrination, that a student undergoes. For example, the University of California, Berkeley has announced that it is offering a course this coming spring semester describing Hamas as a “revolutionary resistance force fighting settler colonialism.” More invidious, the course description reads as if a primer for a revolutionary underground:

“With the U.S.-backed and -funded genocide being carried out against Indigenous Palestinians by the Israeli Occupying Force, many have found it difficult to envision a reality beyond the one we are living in today.”

A second example is the Massachusetts Institute of Technology seminar taught by linguistics professor Michel DeGraff. The course deals with “language and linguistics for decolonization and liberation and for peace and community-building.”

His position is that Jews have no connection to Israel and that Israeli textbooks “weaponize trauma of the Holocaust.” Israeli youth, he further asserts, grow up “with this trauma that made them fear that their existence is in threat.” That may be a fair observation, but he adds that the threat comes from “anyone who doesn’t believe in the superior position of the Jewish people in Israel.”

If you perceive some racism and black supremacist theory in this explanation, you are probably correct.

This is but one sphere of influence crushing on a student. In too many cases, his/her lecturers and advisors are those who sign pro-Palestine petitions, marshal the demonstrations and sit-ins, and provide support for campus groups when they are disciplined—or more correctly, when administrations attempt to do so.

The Capital Research Center has published a study titled “Marching Towards Violence” that investigated militant left-wing antisemitism on the campuses of U.S. colleges and universities. It has identified more than 150 campus groups that explicitly support terrorism or, at the least, emphasize violent anti-Israel rhetoric.

David Bernstein, founder of the Jewish Institute for Liberal Values and author of Woke Antisemitism: How a Progressive Ideology Harms Jews, sums up the situation:

“Anti-Israel forces focused on U.S. college campuses have transformed the American university into a vector for their activist agenda … playing the long game—what activists call “the long march through institutions”—in inculcating a stark ideological worldview that portrays anyone with power or success … as oppressors.”

Is there an antidote? One is the Deborah Project, which defends the civil rights of Jews facing discrimination in educational settings. Its aim is “to use legal skills and tools to uncover, publicize and dismantle antisemitic abuses in educational systems.” Other groups and individuals work on many levels of engagement; still, if the monied Jewish establishment institutions do not get behind this, then the anarchy, irrationality and hate will at some point come to overwhelm Diaspora Jewry.

The post On Academic Indoctrination in American Universities first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

JNS.org – The final two months of the Biden administration may see diplomatic actions taken against Israel, although the White House has neither confirmed nor denied assessments on the issue.

One scenario could see the administration consider approving a United Nations Security Council resolution that would target Israel’s presence in Judea and Samaria, reminiscent of Resolution 2334 passed in 2016 during the Obama administration’s transition period.

A report by Israel Hayom on Tuesday cited an American source close to the Biden administration as stating that the United States intends to endorse such a resolution, adding that the proposed resolution aims to assert that Israel’s presence in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem, including the Old City, violates international law.

The source emphasized the parallels to Resolution 2334, which the Security Council approved during the transition period between the Obama and Trump administrations in December 2016. “Many of Obama’s advisers back then are also serving in Biden’s outgoing administration,” the report said, citing the source as stating, “I know that such a decision is brewing in the [U.S.] National Security Council.”

In response to inquiries, a senior Israeli official said Jerusalem currently has “no information” about an American intention to pass a resolution against Israel at the U.N., according to the report, which added, however, that “according to the assessment, eventually, such a decision will likely come.”

Adding to the concerns, Professor Eytan Gilboa, an expert on US-Israeli relations at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan and a senior fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, discussed possible scenarios on Tuesday. Gilboa recalled the unusual step taken by President Barack Obama when he allowed the passage of Resolution 2334.

“Obama broke the tradition where an outgoing president doesn’t initiate significant new policies during the transition,” Gilboa told JNS. “He knew Trump’s position on settlements but still submitted the proposal to the Security Council.”

Gilboa added that “if Biden goes through with this, it’s essentially a repeat of Obama’s move. It might be aimed at negating [former Secretary of State] Mike Pompeo’s declaration in November 2019, which nullified Obama’s policy on settlements.”

The professor highlighted possible motivations behind such a move, it could be an attempt by Biden to leave a legacy opposing Trump’s stance on Judea and Samaria.

Gilboa questioned the rationale behind introducing a resolution now, adding, “If they do this, they’ll face severe criticism from Trump and the Republican-led Congress. It would be an unusual step during a transition period.”

Gilboa added that “this administration has previously imposed personal sanctions on individuals, including hilltop youths. They even considered sanctioning [Israeli Ministers Betzalel] Smotrich and [Itamar] Ben-Gvir. As such, I would not be surprised if they are considering such a step. If it goes ahead, it would appear to be some sort of punishment.”

Looking ahead, Gilboa suggested that Israel needs to engage in proactive diplomacy. “Israel should argue that such moves will only hinder any potential peace arrangements, like the Abraham Accords. It’s like putting a stoke in the wheel. If Biden proceeds with this, it will backfire.”

In such a scenario, he added, Israel would likely turn to the incoming Trump administration, which would issue an opposite declaration, similar to the declaration made by Pompeo in November 2019, who stated at the time a change in Washington’s policy on settlements. “Calling the establishment of civilian settlements inconsistent with international law hasn’t worked. It hasn’t advanced the cause of peace,” Pompeo said.

Certain arms transfers

Meanwhile, indications continue to surface of ongoing punitive measures that have been underway in the form of withholding or delaying weapons deliveries. The Washington-based Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) released an update on Tuesday concerning U.S. military assistance to Israel since Oct. 7, 2023. It notes that “eight platforms have either been slowed, suspended or left unanswered.

“Recent US decisions to withhold certain arms transfers to Israel, resume others, and the inconsistent reporting around those decisions highlight the challenges of accounting for vital resupplies to help Israel wage an unexpected, prolonged, multifront, munitions-intensive conflict,” JINSA reported.

JINSA has produced an infographic detailing US military assistance to Israel since Oct. 7, including withheld supplies. “The information presented is based on public reporting and JINSA discussions with officials knowledgeable of the arms transfers. Because arms deliveries are not publicly disclosed, it is difficult to assess exactly which supplies the United States agreed to send since October 7, versus sales that were contracted before that date and delivered afterward—nor is this list likely to be exhaustive, given backlogged and incomplete reporting of agreed arms transfers by the Pentagon,” it stated.

Under the “transfer reportedly slowed” category, the infographic mentioned Hellfire missiles and precision guided munitions, D9 armored bulldozers and tank ammunition.

At the same time, the US has provided at least $17.9 billion in support of Israeli military operations against Hamas since the Oct. 7, 2023, mass murder attacks, according to research released last month by Brown University. This includes deliveries of artillery shells, air defense munitions, precision-guided munitions and heavy bombs.

On Nov. 17, Marc Dubowitz, chief executive of the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and Eugene Kontorovich, a professor of law at George Mason University in Virginia, stated in a joint op-ed in the New York Post, “Under pressure from Israel-bashing critics, including scores of congressional Democrats, a president who stood firmly behind Israel after the Oct. 7 massacre seems to have lost his moral compass. And just as President Barack Obama in his last months in office allowed the UN Security Council to pass a resolution slamming Israel, Biden may use sanctions to further turn the screws on the Jewish state in his lame-duck stretch.”

They highlighted that in 2022, the US Treasury Department “determined that the Foundation for Global Political Exchange, a U.S.-based nonprofit, would violate sanctions laws by inviting Hamas and Hezbollah to a conference it was planning in Beirut. Last week, however, the Biden administration did an about-face and gave the group a green light for the meeting.”

Dubowitz and Kontorovich added, “Yet at the same time, the Biden administration has created the first sanctions program” designed to target citizens of Israel.

In the broader context, the reported actions reflect internal pressures within the Democratic Party and the Biden administration’s attempts to navigate between progressive elements and traditional foreign policy stances. Gilboa observed, “Perhaps this is Biden’s way of appeasing the progressive wing after facing criticism for his support of Israel during the recent conflict.”

The post Will Biden Act Against Israel During the Lame-Duck Period? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.