RSS
The Washington Post Continuous Its Venomous Campaign Against Jews and Israel
The “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” at Columbia University, located in the Manhattan borough of New York City, on April 25, 2024. Photo: Reuters Connect
One of the central tenets of antisemitism is the idea that Jews are responsible for all the evil in the world. Der Sturmer, the Nazi Party rag, summed this idea up: “the Jews are our misfortune.” Today, that idea has been revamped for a more liberal era and more polite company.
Now it is the Jewish State that is responsible for all the world’s ills. And The Washington Post, once a bastion of liberal thought and investigative journalism, is here to tell you why.
The lack of democracy in the Middle East? Well, that problem can be laid at the footsteps of the Jewish State and the United States, according to Post columnist Shadi Hamid (“How Israel and the United States suppress democracy in the Middle East,” May 13, 2024). The United States supports “repressive regimes, backed and armed with billions of dollars of U.S. economic and military aid.”
Why do they do this? For Israel (of course).
Israel, Hamid writes, “stands at the center of the region that the United States helped form.” And “the decision to elevate Israel’s security interests above almost everything else, however well-intentioned, has distorted American policy.” The Jewish State “might be the region’s only established democracy, [but] Israel is a staunch opponent of democracy in the rest of the Middle East.”
According to Hamid, Arab populations tend to be anti-Israel, so it follows that both Washington and Jerusalem have to back repressive authoritarian governments — “American client states” as he calls them — to prevent them from having a say. He adds: “That Israel prefers autocrats over democrats has been a source of tension with the United States.” Hamid states that “most of the more than 20 senior George W. Bush and Obama administration officials that I interviewed for my book ‘The Problem of Democracy’ recounted Israeli officials’ irritation whenever the United States would flirt with taking a more forthright pro-democracy stance in the region.”
One example that Hamid offers is the Egyptian regime of Gen. Abdel Fatah El-Sisi. And, for reasons that will be explained shortly, this is a very telling example for the Post columnist to give.
But the gist of his argument is clear: the Jewish State is responsible for the lack of democracy in the Middle East. This is a common, if old and tired, argument for anti-Israel activists to make. The problem with it is simple: it overlooks the entire history of the Middle East. And it overstates Israel’s role and impact in the region. Other than that, it’s fine.
Israel was founded in 1948. It was, and is, a democracy. Prior to Israel’s founding, there were no major democracies in the region. Egypt, ruled by King Farouk, and, before him, other descendants of Muhammad Ali, wasn’t a democracy. Nor was the Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, known today as Jordan. Ditto for Iraq, then ruled by Hashemites, as well. And ditto for Syria, Lebanon, and various states in the Gulf and northern Africa.
The modern nation of Turkey, founded by Kemal Atatürk and ruled at the time by his associates, was arguably the most Western-leaning and liberal Middle Eastern nation at the time. Yet, it too was repressive, imprisoning, and torturing dissidents and persecuting religious minorities. All these countries were ruled by dictatorships long before Israel was created. So too was the Ottoman Empire, which ruled over the region for centuries prior. Blaming the Jewish State for the lack of democracy in the Middle East is ahistorical. But it is very much on brand for The Washington Post of today.
To be sure, Egypt, Iraq, and Transjordan were heavily influenced by the British at the time — just as Syria and Lebanon retained heavy French influence. Yet this can hardly be laid at the doorstep of some sort of Western proto-Zionism; all these countries attacked the fledgling Jewish State at its founding, and all received, to varying degrees, support from their colonial masters for doing so. Indeed, as the historian Benny Morris recounted in his history of the 1948 war, the British actively aided Transjordan in its war against the Jewish State.
Nor can it be said that the US has supported dictatorships out of some sort of pro-Israel impulse. Far from it. In fact, many in the US government, including the CIA and State Department, initially backed Gamal Abdel Nasser and the Free Officers movement in Egypt, in their bid to oust Egypt’s King Farouk. Nasser was hardly pro-Israel; he waged a decades long war against the Jewish State, supporting Palestinian terrorist groups and launching no fewer than three wars against the nation in less than two decades of rule. Yet, Nasser had the active backing, indeed friendship with top CIA officials like Kermit Roosevelt, a prominent anti-Zionist.
As Hugh Wilford documents in his excellent 2013 book, America’s Great Game: The CIA’s Secret Arabists and the Shaping of the Modern Middle East, Roosevelt was involved in a project called American Friends of the Middle East — a CIA-backed front group whose entire goal was to attack Israel and defame it in Western press. And, as the journalist Ian Johnson recounted in his 2010 book A Mosque in Munich: Nazis, the CIA, and the Muslim Brotherhood, the US even actively supported former Nazi collaborators, including allies of Amin al-Husseini, the founding father of Palestinian nationalism, during the Cold War. Support was also extended to Muslim Brotherhood elements, whom the US-viewed as a useful foil against the atheist Soviets. Are we to believe that they were pro-Israel?
It should also be noted, and is no less important, that many Middle Eastern nations, such as Syria and eventually, for a time, Egypt, were Soviet client states. They were dictatorships and they were, to put it mildly, anti-Israel. When Israel is factored out of the equation, a simple, and unpleasant truth emerges: many Middle Eastern countries have been led by autocrats before Israel existed and were led by autocrats irrespective of whether they recognized Israel or waged war on the Jewish state. In the Middle East, democracy is not the norm — and that’s hardly Israel’s fault, nor is it that of the United States.
Indeed, when Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, Gazans voted for the repressive and highly undemocratic Hamas, a US-designated terrorist group. Hamas hasn’t held elections since. The US doesn’t support Hamas. Nor does Israel. They’re fundamentally undemocratic all on their own. Blaming Israel or the United States for the lack of democracy in the Middle East is a convenient way to overlook some decidedly unpleasant truths — truths that predate Israel’s founding and speak volumes about much of the region.
It is curious that Hamid doesn’t mention the example of Hamas, a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot. It is equally curious that he seldom, if ever, writes anything negative about Qatar, a backer of the Brotherhood and a dictatorship itself. And it’s particularly interesting that he singled out Egypt’s Sisi, a foe of the Brotherhood.
Of course, Hamid used to work for the Brookings Institute, whose financial links to Qatar are a matter of record. Hamid is hardly alone in this; as a recent National Review article noted, in recent years, the Post has hired numerous staffers with ties to Qatari-linked entities, be it Brookings, Al Jazeera, the Qatar Foundation, or others.
When it isn’t warning about the nefarious Jewish State, The Washington Post is warning about undue Jewish influence.
In a May 16, 2024 article, the Post claimed that a group of prominent business leaders expressing concerns over campus antisemitism offered “a window into how some prominent individuals have wielded their money and power in an effort to shape American views of the Gaza War, as well as the actions of academic, business and political leaders—including New York’s mayor.” That sure is a lot of influence and power! And it sounds nefarious!
The article, headlined “Business titans privately urged NYC mayor to use police on Columbia protestors, chats show,” posited that powerful, pro-Israel, business leaders used WhatsApp to convince New York City Mayor Eric Adams to use police to crush campus “protesters.”
The problem? The entire gist of the article is false. One senses a theme here when it comes to the Post and bending the truth in service of an anti-Israel narrative.
As the New York City Mayor’s office told Jewish Insider:
Let’s be very clear: Both times the NYPD entered Columbia University’s campus — on April 18th and April 30th — were in response to specific written requests from Columbia University to do so. Prior to these operations, Mayor Adams consistently stated that Columbia is a private institution on private property and that assistance would be provided only upon request.
Further: “Any suggestion that other considerations were involved in the decision-making process is completely false, and the insinuation that Jewish donors secretly plotted to influence government operations is an all too familiar antisemitic trope that the Washington Post should be ashamed to ask about, let alone normalize in print.”
On X, formerly known as Twitter, Fabian Levy, a spokesperson for the Mayor’s office, upbraided the Post for saying Jews “wielded their money & power in an effort to shape American views,” noting that it “is offensive on so many levels.”
It is offensive. But it is also in keeping with the Post’s brand. Once well-regarded, the newspaper has steadily earned a reputation for being “Al Jazeera on the Potomac,” as some critics have asserted. Indeed, the May 16, 2024, Jewish Insider write up was the fourth such critique of the Post’s coverage of Israel to appear in the publication in the last six month. National Review, Commentary, and other major publications have all published pieces in the last few months noting the Post’s current trend away from serious journalism and towards something else.
Indeed, in the seven months since Hamas perpetrated the Oct. 7, 2023 massacre, the Post has consistently regurgitated casualty statistics provided by the terrorist group and defended doing so, minimized and denied the rapes and sexual violence carried out by Hamas, and labeled the massacre — the worst slaughter of Jewish civilians since the Holocaust — merely a “bad thing” that “doesn’t justify other bad things.” The Post has, on multiple occasions, met the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. Post columnists have also minimized the rampant antisemitism taking place on college campuses. That’s quite the record.
Yet, antisemitism is more than conspiracy theories about Jewish influence, or blaming Jews for a lack of democracy. It is also, by its very nature, obsessive.
The Post’s Chris Richards used a May 12, 2024 review of Neil Young rock concert to insert some curious anti-Israel commentary. A concert review. Richards asserted that police “across our country were brutalizing college student’s protesting Israel’s war on Gaza.” But Israel didn’t declare “war on Gaza.” Rather it is engaged in a defensive war against Iranian proxies, including, but not limited to, Hamas. CAMERA even clarified this point — that saying “Israel is at war with Gaza” is incorrect — in an interview with the Washington Post’s Paul Farhi on Oct. 17, 2024.
But facts don’t seem to matter to the Washington Post. Narrative does. And that narrative — that the Jewish state is uniquely evil and unjust — is rampant at the newspaper. Both readers and advertisers alike should take note.
The writer is a Senior Research Analyst for CAMERA, the 65,000-member, Boston-based Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis.
The post The Washington Post Continuous Its Venomous Campaign Against Jews and Israel first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Down and Out in Paris and London
The Oxford Circus station in London’s Underground metro. Photo: Pixabay
JNS.org – In my previous column, I wrote about the rape of a 12-year-old Jewish girl in Paris at the hands of three boys just one year older than her, who showered her with antisemitic abuse as they carried out an act of violation reminiscent of the worst excesses of the Oct. 7 Hamas pogrom in southern Israel. This week, my peg is another act of violence—one less horrifying and less traumatic, but which similarly suggests that the writing may be on the wall for the Jews in much of Europe.
Last week, a group of young Jewish boys who attend London’s well-regarded Hasmonean School was assaulted by a gang of antisemitic thugs. The attack occurred at Belsize Park tube station on the London Underground, in a neighborhood with a similar demographic and sensibility to New York’s Upper West Side, insofar as it is home to a large, long-established Jewish population with shops, cafes and synagogues serving that community. According to the mother of one of the Jewish boys, an 11-year-old, the gang “ran ahead of my son and kicked one of his friends to the ground. They were trying to push another kid onto the tracks. They got him as far the yellow line.” When the woman’s son bravely tried to intervene to protect his friends, he was chased down and elbowed in the face, dislodging a tooth. “Get out of the city, Jew!” the gang told him.
Since the attack, her son has had trouble sleeping. “My son is very shaken. He couldn’t sleep last night. He said ‘It’s not fair. Why do they do this to us?’” she disclosed. “We love this country,” she added, “and we participate and we contribute, but now we’re being singled out in exactly the same way as Jews were singled out in 1936 in Berlin. And for the first time in my life. I am terrified of using the tube. What’s going on?”
The woman and her family may not be in London long enough to find out. According to The Jewish Chronicle, they are thinking of “fleeing” Britain—not a verb we’d hoped to encounter again in a Jewish context after the mass murder we experienced during the previous century. But here we are.
When I was a schoolboy in London, I had a history teacher who always told us that no two situations are exactly alike. “Comparisons are odious, boys,” he would repeatedly tell the class. That was an insight I took to heart, and I still believe it to be true. There are structural reasons that explain why the 2020s are different from the 1930s in significant ways. For one thing, European societies are more affluent and better equipped to deal with social conflicts and economic strife than they were a century ago. Laws, too, are more explicit in the protections they offer to minorities, and more punishing of hate crimes and hate speech. Perhaps most importantly, there is a Jewish state barely 80 years old which all Jews can make their home if they so desire.
Therein lies the rub, however. Since 1948, Israel has allowed Jews inside and outside the Jewish state to hold their heads high and to feel as though they are a partner in the system of international relations, rather than a vulnerable, subjugated group at the mercy of the states where we lived as an often hated minority. Israel’s existence is the jewel in the crown of Jewish emancipation, sealing what we believed to be our new status, in which we are treated as equals, and where the antisemitism that plagued our grandparents and great-grandparents has become taboo.
If Israel represents the greatest achievement of the Jewish people in at least 100 years, small wonder that it has become the main target of today’s reconstituted antisemites. And if one thing has been clear since the atrocities by Hamas on Oct. 7, it’s that Israel’s existence is not something that Jews—with the exception of that small minority of anti-Zionists who do the bidding of the antisemites and who echo their ignorance and bigotry—are willing to compromise on. What’s changed is that it is increasingly difficult for Jews to remain in the countries where they live and express their Zionist sympathies at the same time. We are being attacked because of these sympathies on social media, at demonstrations and increasingly in the streets by people with no moral compass, who regard our children as legitimate targets. Hence, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that while the 2020s may not be the 1930s, they certainly feel like the 1930s.
And so the age-old question returns: Should Jews, especially those in Europe, where they confront the pincer movement of burgeoning Muslim populations and a resurgent far-left in thrall to the Palestinian cause, stay where they are, or should they up sticks and move to Israel? Should we be thinking, given the surge in antisemitism of the past few months, of giving up on America as well? I used to have a clear view of all this. Aliyah is the noblest of Zionist goals and should be encouraged, but I always resisted the notion that every Jew should live in Israel—firstly, because a strong Israel needs vocal, confident Diaspora communities that can advocate for it in the corridors of power; and secondly, because moving to Israel should ideally be a positive act motivated by love, not a negative act propelled by fear.
My view these days isn’t as clear as it was. I still believe that a strong Israel needs a strong Diaspora, and I think it’s far too early to give up on the United States—a country where Jews have flourished as they never did elsewhere in the Diaspora. Yet the situation in Europe increasingly reminds me of the observation of the Russian Zionist Leo Pinsker in “Autoemancipation,” a doom-laden essay he wrote in 1882, during another dark period of Jewish history: “We should not persuade ourselves that humanity and enlightenment will ever be radical remedies for the malady of our people.” The antisemitism we are dealing with now presents itself as “enlightened,” based on boundless sympathy for an Arab nation allegedly dispossessed by Jewish colonists. When our children are victimized by it, this antisemitism ceases to be a merely intellectual challenge, and becomes a matter of life and death. As Jews and as human beings, we are obliged to choose life—which, in the final analysis, when nuance disappears and terror stalks us, means Israel.
The post Down and Out in Paris and London first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Hamas Says No Major Changes to Ceasefire Proposal After ‘Vague Wording’ Amendments by US
FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Joe Biden speaks during a campaign rally in Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S., June 28, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Elizabeth Frantz/File Photo
i24 News – A senior official from the terrorist organization Hamas called the changes made by the US to the ceasefire proposal “vague” on Saturday night, speaking to the Arab World Press.
The official said that the US promises to end the war are without a clear Israeli commitment to withdraw from the Gaza Strip and agree to a permanent ceasefire.
US President Joe Biden made “vague wording” changes to the proposal on the table, although it amounted to an insufficient change in stance, he said.
“The slight amendments revolve around the very nature of the Israeli constellation, and offer nothing new to bridge the chasm between what is proposed and what is acceptable to us,” he said.
“We will not deviate from our three national conditions, the most important of which is the end of the war and the complete withdrawal from the Gaza Strip,” he added.
Another Hamas official said that the amendments were minor and applied to only two clauses.
US President Joe Biden made the amendments to bridge gaps amid an impasse between Israel and Hamas over a hostage deal mediated by Qatar and Egypt.
Hamas’s demands for a permanent ceasefire have been met with Israeli leaders vowing that the war would not end until the 120 hostages still held in Gaza are released and the replacement of Hamas in control of the Palestinian enclave.
The post Hamas Says No Major Changes to Ceasefire Proposal After ‘Vague Wording’ Amendments by US first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Sacred Spies?
A Torah scroll. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
JNS.org – How far away is theory from practice? “In theory,” a new system should work. But it doesn’t always, does it? How many job applicants ticked all the boxes “theoretically,” but when it came to the bottom line they didn’t get the job done?
And how many famous people were better theorists than practitioners?
The great Greek philosopher Aristotle taught not only philosophy but virtue and ethics. The story is told that he was once discovered in a rather compromised moral position by his students. When they asked him how he, the great Aristotle, could engage in such an immoral practice, he had a clever answer: “Now I am not Aristotle.”
A similar tale is told of one of the great philosophers of the 20th century, Bertrand Russell. He, too, expounded on ethics and morality. And like Aristotle, he was also discovered in a similarly morally embarrassing situation.
When challenged, his rather brilliant answer was: “So what if I teach ethics? People teach mathematics, and they’re not triangles!”
This idea is relevant to this week’s Torah portion, Shelach, which contains the famous story of Moses sending a dozen spies on a reconnaissance mission to the Land of Israel. The mission goes sour. It was meant to be an intelligence-gathering exercise to see the best way of conquering Canaan. But it resulted in 10 of the 12 spies returning with an utterly negative report of a land teeming with giants and frightening warriors who, they claimed, would eat us alive. “We cannot ascend,” was their hopeless conclusion.
The people wept and had second thoughts about the Promised Land, and God said, indeed, you will not enter the land. In fact, for every day of the spies’ disastrous journey, the Israelites would languish a year in the wilderness. Hence, the 40-year delay in entering Israel. The day of their weeping was Tisha B’Av, which became a day of “weeping for generations” when both our Holy Temples were destroyed on that same day and many other calamities befell our people throughout history.
And the question resounds: How was it possible that these spies, all righteous noblemen, handpicked personally by Moses for the job, should so lose the plot? How did they go so wrong, so off-course from the Divine vision?
Naturally, there are many commentaries with a variety of explanations. To me personally, the most satisfying one I’ve found comes from a more mystical source.
Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, in his work Likkutei Torah, explains it thus: The error of the spies was less blatant than it seems. Their rationale was, in fact, a “holy” one. They actually meant well. The Israelites had been beneficiaries of the mighty miracles of God during their sojourn in the wilderness thus far. God had been providing for them supernaturally with manna from heaven every day, water that flowed from the “Well of Miriam,” Clouds of Glory that smoothed the roads and even dry cleaned their clothes. In the wilderness, the people were enjoying a taste of heaven itself. All their material needs were taken care of miraculously. With no material distractions, they were able to live a life of spiritual bliss, of refined existence and could devote themselves fully to Torah, prayer and spiritual experiences.
But the spies knew that as soon as the Israelites entered the Promised Land, the manna would cease to fall and they would have to till the land, plow, plant, knead, bake and make a living by the sweat of their brow. No more bread from heaven, but bread from the earth. Furthermore, they would have to battle the Canaanite nations for the land. What chance would they then have to devote themselves to idyllic, spiritual pursuits?
So, the spies preferred to remain in the wilderness rather than enter the land. Why be compelled to resort to natural and material means of surviving and living a wholly physical way of life when they could enjoy spiritual ecstasy and paradise undisturbed? Why get involved in the “rat race”?
But, of course, as “holy” and spiritual as their motivation may have been, the spies were dead wrong.
The journey in the wilderness was meant to be but a stepping stone to the ultimate purpose of the Exodus from Egypt: entering the Promised Land and making it a Holy Land. God has plenty of angels in heaven who exist in a pure, spiritual state. The whole purpose of creation was to have mortal human beings, with all their faults and frailties, to make the physical world a more spiritual place. To bring heaven down to earth.
While their argument was rooted in piety, for the spies to opt out of the very purpose of creation was to miss the whole point. What are we here for? To sit in the lotus position and meditate, or to get out there and change the world? Yes, the spies were “holy,” but theirs was an escapist holiness.
The Torah is not only a book of wisdom; it is also a book of action. Torah means instruction. It teaches us how to live our lives, meaningfully and productively in the pursuit of God’s intended desire to make our world a better, more Godly place. This we do not only by study and prayer, the “theoretical” part of Torah but by acts of goodness and kindness, by mitzvot performed physically in the reality of the material world. Theory alone leaves us looking like Aristotle with his pants down.
Yes, it is a cliché but a well-worn truth: Torah is a “way of life.”
The post Sacred Spies? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.