RSS
New York Times Opinion Piece Paved Way for Oscar Night Comparison of Israel to Nazis
On Oscar night, British director Jonathan Glazer used his movie about the Holocaust to condemn Israel’s “ongoing attack on Gaza” as an example of the same “dehumanization” that characterized the Nazis’ genocide against the Jewish people.
Glazer was widely — and appropriately — condemned by Jewish leaders, thinkers, and organizations who found his remarks while accepting the Oscar for Best International Feature Film at the 96th Academy Awards in Los Angeles on Sunday repugnant.
Less noticed, but just as outrageous, was a New York Times op-ed published on Saturday previewing Glazer’s argument.
The opinion article came from David Klion, a writer whose views are so loathsome that I have long had him blocked on X/Twitter.
Klion writes about Glazer’s The Zone of Interest, contending that it “finds something new and profoundly unsettling to say about the Holocaust” and “also accomplishes something more relevant to the present, forcing viewers to confront difficult questions about our own proximity to atrocity, and succeeding as a bracing reminder of how art can alert and sensitize us to the historical moment we inhabit.”
Klion writes that the movie “depicts the life of Rudolf Höss, the commandant of Auschwitz, and his family at their handsome estate just outside the walls of the death camp.”
He continues: “Watching The Zone of Interest as US-made bombs rained down on civilian neighborhoods in Gaza, I couldn’t help but dwell on the banal acceptance of these mass civilian casualties that I’ve witnessed closer to home.”
The op-ed goes on to complain about “Israel’s military siege against the Palestinians.”
It goes on further: “For Jews like myself, who publicly oppose Israel’s actions in Gaza, one of the hardest realities to confront is the fact that plenty of people in our communities are aware that the Israeli offensive is killing tens of thousands of Palestinians, many of whom are children. But in the wake of the gruesome Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israelis that touched off the war, many people we are close to are not just incurious about Israel’s assault on Gaza but are willing to justify it without apology.”
In case anyone missed the point, Klion spiked the football about his piece in a March 9 post on X: “Proud that my first print appearance in NYT is, among other things, an argument that what Israel is doing in Gaza amounts to a genocide.”
The widely adopted International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism includes as an example “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” That practice — also known as “Holocaust inversion” —is deeply problematic.
As the World Jewish Congress (WJC) has explained, “Any alleged wrongdoings on Israel’s part cannot be compared to Nazi crimes during the Holocaust. The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is a territorial and political one, whereas the Holocaust was the attempt to systematically annihilate European Jewry. Despite the unfortunate outbreak of violence during the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, the Palestinian population has grown by all metrics, and is projected to continue doing so. To compare this to the murder of millions of Jews during the Holocaust is preposterous and diminishes the pain of those who have suffered during the conflict.”
The WJC also quotes Deborah Lipstadt, now the State Department’s special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism: those who accuse Israel of genocide and other such crimes “are making a false comparison which elevates by a factor of a zillion any wrongdoings Israel might have done, and lessens by a factor of a zillion what the Germans did.”
It should be obvious that the Nazi-perpetrated Holocaust and Israel’s just war of self-defense against Hamas are nothing like one another. In the Holocaust, the Nazis intentionally set out to kill all the Jews, who had done nothing wrong. In the Gaza war, the Israelis are being careful to minimize civilian casualties in an operation aimed at uprooting an evil terrorist militia that is dedicated to killing the Jews and wiping Israel off the map. If there’s a parallel to be made with the Nazis, the parallel is with Hamas, not with Israel.
Glazer’s comments generated substantial pushback. Klion’s New York Times piece, on the other hand, published on the Jewish sabbath, went widely unremarked upon in the mainstream Jewish community. Perhaps the Times opinion pages have gone so far off the anti-Israel deep end that they’ve lost their capacity to shock anyone. Or perhaps all the pro-Israel readers have already canceled their subscriptions. Whatever the reason, Klion and whatever Times editor made the bad decision to publish his article deserve a place with Glazer among the “Jews like myself, who publicly oppose Israel’s actions in Gaza.” I guess it’s better to know who these people are than to have them lurking unidentified in our midst. May they come to realize their errors, speedily and in our days.
Ira Stoll was managing editor of The Forward and North American editor of The Jerusalem Post. His media critique, a regular Algemeiner feature, can be found here.
The post New York Times Opinion Piece Paved Way for Oscar Night Comparison of Israel to Nazis first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Under US Pressure to Expel Hamas, Qatar Keeps Double-Dealing
JNS.org – The United States is pressuring Qatar to expel Hamas leaders from its territory due to the terrorist organization’s refusal to consider even a short ceasefire and new suggestions for a hostage release deal with Israel.
According to international media reports, Qatar is under American comply with an ultimatum to expel the senior Palestinian terrorists.
While Qatar has confirmed that it is stalling its mediation efforts in the indirect hostages-for-terrorists exchange talks between Israel and Hamas, it has not confirmed that it is ousting Hamas members.
Jonathan Schanzer, senior vice president for research at the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said, “This is pressure from Senate Republicans, amplified by Trump’s electoral victory. The Biden team appears to be trying to take credit for something that was spurred by others.
“The regime in Doha is trying to simultaneously confirm and deny the news. This is consistent with Qatar’s double-dealing. The goal right now should be to squeeze the regime to jettison Hamas,” he added.
While it is “unclear how Trump’s arrival will change any of this,” Schanzer assessed, the fear of a shift in American policy “is undeniably pushing Doha to make these moves and announcements.”
Meanwhile, “the Qataris are going to continue to buy up assets in the United States, regardless of who is president. This is their way of gaining leverage over our leaders in politics and business,” said Schanzer. “I believe that the next administration needs to conduct a careful and thorough review of these sovereign investments. The amount of money that Qatar has invested in this country is staggering. But it has not yet been made clear why it has invested so much—especially in sectors like education that do not yield a financial return.”
The Biden administration’s ‘last card’
Brandon Friedman, director of research at Tel Aviv University’s Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies, told JNS that US pressure on Qatar is the Biden administration’s “last card to play. How effective it will be depends on how Hamas—and Qatar—perceive the Trump administration. My guess is that the Qataris suspect the Trump administration will ask them to expel Hamas, so there is no harm in playing this card now and preemptively dealing with a potential source of tension with the new administration.”
According to Friedman, “The Qataris use their relations with various Islamist and jihadi groups as foreign policy tools to advance and protect their interests. Even if they expel Hamas, they will continue to host factions of the Muslim Brotherhood and let Al Jazeera be used to promote the Brotherhood’s ideology. It is also unclear whether the US asked Qatar to end its role as financial backer and conduit for Hamas’s extensive regional network of businesses and charities, which funded its terror infrastructure.”
(Hamas began as the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.)
Qatar, Friedman said, “was traumatized by the Saudi-led June 2017 blockade that lasted until the end of the Trump presidency. The blockade was imposed shortly after Trump’s visit to the Saudi kingdom. The Qataris are likely to make every effort to earn the good favor of the Trump administration.”
Asked to address the American military’s ongoing use of Qatar’s Al Udeid Airbase, which Doha spent a very large some of money to build and develop, Freidman said, “I don’t view the US as dependent on Al Udeid. I see it as a source of leverage for the US in dealing with Qatar. It is a symbol of US protection.
“If the US withdrew from Al Udeid, Qatar would feel unprotected. In fact, one might argue it is not a coincidence that the US quietly renewed its lease of Al Udeid for another 10 years after the Qataris brokered the November [2023] deal for the hostages. It was almost as if it was a reward for good behavior or a service provided.”
Addressing Doha’s global investments, Friedman said that “Qatar can use its immense wealth to purchase US arms, which would likely be viewed favorably by Trump. It can also invest its energy wealth in the US economy, which is one of the ways Saudi Arabia won favor with the first Trump administration. It is worth noting that Qatar has been substantially increasing its activities in both of these areas—US weapons purchases [$1 billion in 2022] and investments in the US economy over the past five to 10 years.”
‘No longer serves its purpose’
On Nov. 9, Reuters reported that Qatar is stalling its Gaza ceasefire mediation. Doha informed Hamas and Israel it will “stall its efforts to mediate a Gaza ceasefire and hostage release deal until they show ‘willingness and seriousness’ to resume talks,” the news agency stated on Saturday, citing the Qatari Foreign Ministry.
“The Gulf country has been working alongside the United States and Egypt for months on fruitless talks between the warring sides in Gaza,” said the report.
“The Qatari ministry also said press reports on the future of the Hamas political office in Doha were inaccurate without specifying how,” it added. On Friday, Reuters cited a US official as confirming that Washington asked Doha to expel Hamas, and that the Qataris had “passed this message on to Hamas.”
Reuters also cited an unnamed official briefed on the matter as stating on Saturday that “Qatar had concluded that with its mediation efforts paused, Hamas’ political office there ‘no longer serves its purpose.’”
Hamas has denied being told to leave the Gulf state, which has hosted it since 2012.
The post Under US Pressure to Expel Hamas, Qatar Keeps Double-Dealing first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Who Is Testing Us?
JNS.org – On Shabbat, we will read the Torah portion Vayera and the poignant drama of the akeidah, the binding of Isaac, which is the 10th, and most difficult, test of faith that our father Abraham had to face in life. Would he be prepared to sacrifice his beloved son Yitzchak, Isaac, on the altar of God, especially since he waited so many years for this son to be born to his wife, our matriarch, Sarah?
Why is this famous act of near-martyrdom so special? What makes Abraham and Isaac so unique? Haven’t there been many millions of Jewish martyrs throughout our long and torturous history? Only one generation ago, 6 million martyrs, including more than 1 million innocent children, were killed. And one year ago, 1,200 of our finest—young and old—were martyred by Hamas.
So why, I ask, is the near martyrdom of Abraham and Isaac so special?
There are many famous answers to this question, but I would like to share with you an unconventional answer that I believe speaks to us today and has a very relevant and personal message to us all.
This section in the Torah begins with these words: “And it came to pass after these things, and God tested Abraham.”
That’s it. I just gave you the answer. Did you get it? No? You missed it? OK, let me repeat it. “And God tested Abraham.” Did you hear the emphasis this time? God himself was testing Abraham.
What is my point? Tragically, we Jews are all too accustomed to martyrdom. We are used to giving up our lives and our children’s lives when we are threatened and attacked by our enemies, by antisemites and by the vicious villains of history. We understand that life is a battle between good and evil. In this epic confrontation, we have all too often given our very lives for our faith, for our principles, and for God so that the forces of light would vanquish the forces of darkness and evil.
So for Abraham to be called upon to give his life, or his son’s life, in a battle against, say, the mighty King Nimrod would be understandable. But here, Abraham was not being tested by Nimrod or Hitler or Hamas. Here, Abraham is facing off against God. God Himself was testing Abraham!
That the antisemite wants to take your child’s life is a reality we are, sadly, all too familiar with. But God? God is threatening my child’s life? This, we cannot come to terms with so easily.
But Abraham said nothing. Not a word. He got up early the next morning and went on this mission with total faith in God. He did not demand any answers to the many questions he could have asked.
The unique test of Abraham was whether he would become disillusioned by the clear contradiction in God’s own words.
“Hey God! One minute, you tell me you are giving me a crown prince and that he will be my heir and the next link in the founding fathers of the Jewish people, and the next minute, you’re telling me to sacrifice him? And he hasn’t yet married or fathered any children. I don’t get it, God.”
Abraham could have said that, but he didn’t. He never wavered. Not for a moment. And that is part of his immortality. That is why his sacrifice remains unique, even after millions and millions of heroic acts of Jewish martyrdom throughout the generations.
God was testing Abraham. Not the antisemite. Not Hamas. God. And Abraham passed the test with flying colors.
Disillusionment is a very big test in life, especially if it comes from an unexpected source—like God.
We are often faced with tests of disillusionment, and not only for the big events, like the Holocaust or Oct. 7.
I can understand why my competitor is hurting my sales. He wants to. But why is God allowing this to happen to my business? I’ve been good. I come to shul. I give tzedakah. Didn’t God promise in the Bible that if we are good to Him, He would be good to us? Why is He killing my whole business?
That is a big test. Will we allow ourselves to wallow in disillusion?
Furthermore, the word “Elokim” doesn’t only mean God, it can also mean the godly. The godly, too, can sometimes cause us to be tested.
Like the rabbi! The rabbi is supposed to be a man of God. “Well, he didn’t say good morning to me or Shabbat Shalom or wish me a chag sameach. He didn’t visit me when I was in hospital or when I had the flu.” If the rabbi did not live up to one’s expectations of a spiritual leader—to the high standards people expect of a man of God—then one can become disillusioned. Many people worldwide have left synagogues because they became disillusioned with their man of God, their rabbi.
That, too, is a test.
And then there is the most common test of all. I must have heard this one at least a thousand times!
“Rabbi, I know a guy who goes to shul 10 times a day. He prays, he shukels (shakes) up a storm, and he makes it like he is the holiest guy in town. And when it comes to business, he is a rip-off artist! A gonif (thief)! If he represents religion, I don’t want to have anything to do with it!”
You know what? Personally, I can understand people having that reaction when they see such blatant cases of shameful hypocrisy. The so-called “godly” people may be testing us again.
But to tell you the truth, I’m tired of all those old stories about religious rip-off artists. Let’s assume you are right, and that fellow is indeed a pious swindler. Good in shul and terrible at work. So what? What does that have to do with you? Just because someone else failed his tests in life, why should you fail yours?
Whether we become disillusioned by the so-called “godly” among us, who behave unethically, may well be a test of our own faith.
Every one of us has a direct relationship with God. Jews don’t need intermediaries. If so and so is a crook, that’s his problem, not mine. And if Mr. X is a hypocrite, is God not God? Is Torah, not Torah? Is Judaism, not Judaism?
Why should someone else’s behavior weaken my relationship with God? Does that release me from my obligations and responsibilities?
A Jew’s connection to God is holy, inviolate and non-negotiable, irrespective of the behavior of others, even the “godly” among us. The seeming inconsistencies in the behavior of a rabbi, chazzan, rebbetzin, gabbai or some crook who happens to dress “religious” are entirely irrelevant.
Let me end with a story. At the end of World War II, after the U.S. Army liberated the Mauthausen concentration camp, Rabbi Eliezer Silver, a well-known leader of the American rabbinate, went to help the survivors. He arranged a prayer service with all the inmates where they said Kaddish for their fallen family members and thanked God for their survival. The rabbi noticed one survivor turned his back on the prayers and wouldn’t participate, so he went over to him and invited him to join them. The man told the rabbi why he wasn’t going to pray.
“In our camp, one Jew had managed to sneak a siddur into the camp. Whenever it was safe, Jews would get in line for a chance to hold the siddur in their hands and offer a prayer. At first, I respected him greatly for that noble act of courage and sacrifice. But then I saw that the fellow with the siddur was charging for it! He would take a quarter of the people’s daily food rations as payment for his siddur. How despicable! It was then that I lost my faith and decided never to pray again. How could a Jew do such a thing?!”
The wise rabbi put his arm around the survivor and said: “So, let me ask you a question. Why do you look only at the one shameful Jew who charged his poor brothers for his siddur? Why do you not look at the dozens of holy Jews who were prepared to give up a quarter of their meager rations and risk their lives just for a moment of prayer with the siddur? Why don’t you look at them and be inspired by them?”
The survivor acknowledged that the rabbi had a point. To his credit, he turned around and joined the rabbi in the prayers. That survivor was none other than the famous Nazi hunter Simon Wiesenthal.
Whether our fellow Jews, even supposedly “godly” Jews, behave correctly or not, let’s make sure we still do the right thing.
The post Who Is Testing Us? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
IAEA Chief Tours Key Iranian Nuclear Sites
i24 News – The United Nations (UN) nuclear chief Rafael Grossi visited two of Iran’s key nuclear sites on Friday as Iran signaled readiness to restart negotiations over its disputed program in an effort to ease sanctions.
Grossi toured the Natanz complex as well as the Fordow enrichment site, a fortified facility located about 100 kilometers (62 miles) south of the capital Tehran. Following the visit, Seyed Abbas Araghchi reiterated Tehran’s readiness to engage in the talks, saying on X: “Iran has never left the negotiation table on its peaceful nuclear program.”
“The ball is in the EU/E3 court. Willing to negotiate based on our national interest & our inalienable rights, but NOT ready to negotiate under pressure and intimidation,” added Araghchi. Commitment to peaceful negotiations was backed by President Masoud Pezeshkian.
Meanwhile, Mohammad Eslami, head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, warned that any resolution by the IAEA’s Board of Governors criticizing Iran’s nuclear program would prompt immediate retaliatory actions. “We will not allow pressure to dictate the course of our peaceful nuclear activities,” stated Eslami during a joint press conference with Grossi.
According to Iran International, the Iranian state media reported on the tour in a positive manner, demonstrating a shift in tone after just a year ago Tehran barred nearly one-third of the IAEA’s monitoring team, a move Grossi described at the time as a severe impediment to oversight.
The post IAEA Chief Tours Key Iranian Nuclear Sites first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login