RSS
Virginia cultural festival says it won’t hold a menorah lighting due to Israel-Hamas war
(JTA) – When the director of the Chabad-Lubavitch center in Williamsburg, Virginia, pitched a local arts and culture festival last month on the idea of holding a public menorah lighting to celebrate Hanukkah, he thought it made sense.
“We look to bring people together with Jewish pride and unity,” Rabbi Mendy Heber, of Chabad of Williamsburg, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Likewise, Second Sundays, a monthly cultural festival held in historic Colonial Williamsburg that features artisans and musical performances, also has a mission to bring about “peace for all humans everywhere”
So it seemed to Heber a natural fit to hold the menorah lighting as part of the next Second Sunday, which falls on Dec. 10, the fourth night of Hanukkah. In fact, Chabad of Williamsburg already had a months-long relationship with the festival, having sold challah as a vendor at prior installments.
And like the thousands of other Chabad outposts around the world, public menorah lightings are a big part of Heber’s mission; the Chabad Hasidic movement claimed to have staged 15,000 such events worldwide in 2021. When Heber proposed the lighting, he said, he and Second Sundays founder Susan Vermillion had a series of “positive communications” about the event.
Instead, the planned celebration turned into a debacle when Second Sundays leadership decided, on Nov. 16, not to hold the menorah lighting because they feared it would be seen as an endorsement of Israel during its war with Hamas in Gaza. Organizers then suggested that the lighting could go forward only if they could get an Islamic group to participate, or if they could hold it under a banner calling for a ceasefire in Gaza.
“This hurt,” Heber said. “It was a kick in the gut, not just for the Jewish community here, not just for Jews throughout the United States, but for all decent people who believe in the American dream.”
Since the war began nearly two months ago, a range of American institutions have seen cancellations, protest and heightened rhetoric related to the debate over Israel and Hamas, from college campuses to cultural centers to local governments. But the Williamsburg incident is an example of how expressions of Judaism that are unrelated to Israel — from synagogues to kosher restaurants and, now, Hanukkah celebrations — are being implicated in the debate over the war.
Last week a Maine town removed a Star of David from its holiday lights display after a local resident had complained it was taking sides in the war, though officials insisted to JTA that the complaint was unrelated to the removal.
Unlike in those two incidents, it is clear that Israel was a direct factor in organizers’ decision not to hold the menorah lighting in Williamsburg. Vermillion, a dental hygienist who founded and oversees Second Sundays through her nonprofit LoveLight Placemaking, told Heber directly that she and her board did not want to be perceived as taking sides in the conflict.
The “National Menorah,” erected by Chabad-Lubavitch in front of the White House in Washington, Dec. 2, 2021. (Kerem Yucel/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
In a series of messages, portions of which were read to JTA and whose exact wording was confirmed by Heber and another local rabbi who received them, Vermillion wrote that the event wouldn’t happen “unless we can get an Islamic group to participate at essentially the same time,” adding, “We don’t want to make it seem we’re choosing a side.”
Vermillion went on to state that she wanted to avoid “letting a specific church or religion seeming to be supported” by her organization, and that “timing isn’t good or appropriate at this time.”
Heber insisted the event would have nothing to do with Israel or Zionism (Chabad is not an explicitly Zionist movement, though many of its adherents are Zionist and many of its chapters host pro-Israel programming) and would consist only of a few prayers. Vermillion wrote back, “Our board members said they’d be OK with proceeding if you do it under a ceasefire banner. Bombing and killing thousands of people isn’t spreading love and light, and we aren’t going to openly support any religious/cultural holidays/celebrations.”
“I’m really not sure why you guys are making it such a big deal,” Vermillion continued. “This is my event. My nonprofit. You guys are more than welcome to do whatever you want to do on your own.”
After Vermillion informed Heber that the menorah lighting would not move forward, the rabbi looped in the United Jewish Community of the Virginia Peninsula, a local communal organization that provides services to around 2,000 Jews between the communities of Williamsburg, Newport News and Hampton. (Williamsburg itself has only one Jewish congregation, apart from the Chabad and a Hillel that serves a few hundred students at the College of William & Mary.)
Vermillion did not respond to subsequent attempts by UJCVP to arrange a sit-down, leading the organization to make good on a threat that it would go public with the exchange on Sunday. In a statement, UJCVP asserted that it “is shocked and alarmed” by LoveLight Placemaking’s decision.
“We should be very clear: it is antisemitic to hold Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s policies and actions, and to require a political litmus test for Jews’ participation in community events that have nothing to do with Israel,” the statement read.
A Chabad menorah, distinguished by the diagonal—rather than curved—arms. (Mindy Schauer/Digital First Media/Orange County Register via Getty Images)
In text messages with JTA, Vermillion said, “It’s sad that the most inclusive organization and event in Williamsburg is being targeted for trying to stay neutral.”
In Vermillion’s telling, the menorah lighting “was proposed but was not consistent with the purpose of this non-religious, community art and music festival, and the proposal was denied.”
She continued, “It feels very wrong to label anyone associated with this as an antisemite when the rejection of this religious programming was entirely consistent with our decision to keep our gathering focused on music and art, rather than religious ceremonies.” She added that she has received “some threats” over the matter and would be reporting them to the local police.
Speaking to other media outlets, Vermillion seemed to reaffirm that she and the board viewed a menorah lighting as akin to making a political statement on Israel. In an interview with a local newspaper, Vermillion said that the event “seemed very inappropriate” given the situation in Gaza, and added, “The concern is of folks feeling like we are siding with a group over the other.”
As of Monday, a posted online schedule for the Dec. 10 Second Sundays made no mention of a menorah lighting. Videos for the event, posted to the Second Sundays Facebook page, include montages of Christmas tree ornaments, wreaths and other Christmas-related paraphernalia, and are set to the songs “Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas” and “Deck the Halls.”
UJCVP’s executive director, Eric Maurer, did not return JTA requests for comment. But another UJCVP member said he was troubled by the incident.
“It came across to me as ignorant, in the most literal sense of the word: just not understanding what this was about,” Rabbi David Katz, who leads Temple Beth El in Williamsburg, told JTA.
Katz, whose unaffiliated congregation uses a Reconstructionist prayer book, was not involved in Heber’s efforts to hold the menorah lighting — and was out of town for a bar mitzvah as the weekend’s controversy was unfolding. He told JTA that he lives close enough to the Second Sundays festivities that “there’s a decent chance I might have walked over there this Sunday.”
But as a member of UJCVP, he read and relayed the text and email exchanges to JTA and says that, in a small community with few Jews, an incident like this can travel and is most likely born out of “a lack of knowing, of being connected to Jews.”
“This form of underlying antisemitism is in so many places where a lot of us wouldn’t expect,” Katz said. “If you want to protest the IDF, that’s not the same thing as protesting Jews lighting the menorah.”
Heber, who has been in Williamsburg for two years, agrees. “Giving American Jews a political litmus test is just discriminatory, ugly and un-American,” he said. “And doing it with Hanukkah, which symbolizes liberty, is just ironic, especially during these times when Jews are facing tremendous amounts of antisemitism.”
The controversy seemed poised to continue to snowball Monday, as Heber said he has been in communication with the Virginia attorney general’s office and its antisemitism task force. This summer the state commissioned the task force, unique among state attorneys general offices, which includes representatives of groups including the Anti-Defamation League, regional Federations, and Hillel International. The task force’s establishment followed a lengthy report on antisemitism in the state commissioned by Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin last year. The attorney general’s office did not return requests for comment.
Jewish Council for Public Affairs CEO Amy Spitalnick, who is working with UJCVP on its response to the incident, said it was “such a clear cut example of antisemitism.”
“We were horrified by the festival’s decision to cancel the menorah lighting — so clearly seeking to collectively blame the Jewish people for Israel’s actions and create poltical litmus tests for events that have nothing to do with Israel,” she told JTA in a text message.
Another public menorah lighting is still on the table in Williamsburg, as the Chabad will also be holding one Thursday on the William & Mary campus. Scheduled before the Second Sundays controversy and primarily intended for Jewish students, Heber said Thursday’s lighting would now become a much larger communal event. He has also received words of sympathy from some non-Jews who have said they will now light menorahs in their own windows in solidarity.
“We’re going to make this Hanukkah bigger and brighter than ever,” he said. “That is how we respond to darkness.”
—
The post Virginia cultural festival says it won’t hold a menorah lighting due to Israel-Hamas war appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
RSS
Israel-Hezbollah War: To Cease or Not to Cease
Lebanon’s Hezbollah leader Sheikh Naim Qassem leads prayers during funeral of Hezbollah senior leader Ibrahim Aqil and Hezbollah member Mahmoud Hamad, who were killed in Israeli strike on Beirut’s southern suburbs, in Beirut, Lebanon, Sept. 22, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Amr Abdallah Dalsh
There were reasons for Israel to have accepted an American-authored “ceasefire” agreement with Hezbollah.
First, Iran is Israel’s chief security priority, not Hezbollah. In addition, Israel has been fighting the longest war of its modern existence, and its forces are being stretched. During that war, Hezbollah has been helping Hamas by diverting Israel’s military capability and attention; this ceasefire will allow Israel to put the focus of its deployment back on Gaza.
And not to be underestimated is the US “soft embargo” on weapons to Israel. There are rumors that the Biden administration has said that it will ensure deliveries on time if Israel agrees to the Lebanon plan. It would not be in Israel’s interest to further aggravate the outgoing administration.
There were also reasons for Israel to reject the current incarnation of a “ceasefire,” beginning with the way the signatories are positioned. Israel and the US have an agreement; the US and Lebanon have a separate one, although the language is the same; and there is an “authorized” non-Hezbollah representative as a third party.
The US tried the same fiction during the “Maritime Border Agreement” talks — separate US-Israel and US-Lebanon agreements, and a nod from Hezbollah. It failed when Hezbollah decided to break it.
Hezbollah had control not only of territory in the south, in which it had buried its arsenal, but also of the government in Beirut. Its control of territory is — happily — diminished, but it retains its place in Beirut. There is no assurance that Hezbollah will do other than what it chooses to do, and no assurance that the “Government of Lebanon” can operate independently.
According to the agreement, “both nations” — meaning Lebanon and Israel — retain their “inherent right of self-defense.” The kindest way to look at Lebanon is to say that it is occupied by Hezbollah, in which case, it has no ability to defend itself and requires rescue from its occupier. Neither the UN nor the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) have that capability. Israel might, but only if the international community agrees that Hezbollah has to go. No such policy has been articulated.
Moving through the terms, they are precisely those of the failed UN Security Council Resolution 1701 of 2006. Reports say that both Israel and Lebanon simply “reaffirmed” their commitment to the resolution. Hezbollah, it seems, simply reaffirmed its commitment to a “ceasefire.” Under the terms of 1701, the LAF was charged with enforcing conditions including, “Any other armed groups will be disarmed, and unauthorized military facilities or weapons caches will be dismantled.”
The LAF failed to do this in 2006, and there is no reason to believe it will succeed in 2024. Although it has received millions of US dollars, the US has had no influence on the political leaning of LAF commanders and troops.
Next, Israel has 60 days in which to operate in southern Lebanon and then gradually withdraw to the Blue Line (the UN-demarcated Lebanon-Israel border). Hezbollah has been tunneling and accumulating weapons inside civilian infrastructure — houses, mosques, schools — for 28 years. What if the job isn’t done in 60 days?
Hezbollah can wait 60 days, regroup its commanders and forces in Beirut, and then plan for its future. There is no international penalty on Hezbollah for its terrorist behavior or its violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) for abusing the civilian population and infrastructure of Lebanon.
An “Oversight Committee” will “oversee” compliance. That was, in fact, the job of UNIFIL — which not only failed, but operated in conjunction with Hezbollah to protect it and enhance its capabilities. Now the Oversight Committee will report violations of the new agreement to — wait for it — UNIFIL.
And finally, the US will facilitate indirect talks between Israel and Lebanon to finalize a “mutually agreed-upon land border.” This is obscurantism.
There is already a UN-demarcated land border between Israel and Lebanon, but there is also an unmentioned maritime border — encompassing vast natural gas reserves. This has been a separate but related bone of contention (see Maritime Border Agreement, above).
That covers the main points in the agreement, but what about the fundamental points that are NOT in the agreement?
There is no mention of eliminating, or even extracting a price from Hezbollah — an Iranian-funded proxy organization that has wrecked the once-prosperous nation of Lebanon, and threatens Israel as well as the broader region.
Speaking of the broader region, there is no mention of controlling the Iranian military supply lines that run through Syria and into Lebanon. Is that the responsibility of the LAF? UNIFIL?
The IDF, in conjunction with a deconfliction agreement with Russia, has worked to keep Iranian weapons out of Lebanon. Will that continue? Who says?
There is no mention of a peace agreement, or Lebanese recognition of the State of Israel, as required by UN Security Council Resolution 242 passed in 1967.
Without those, everything agreed to is temporary and lives at the convenience of organizations and countries uninterested in peace — but very much interested in the elimination of the State of Israel.
A ceasefire is not peace.
Survival is not victory.
Shoshana Bryen is Senior Director of The Jewish Policy Center and Editor of inFOCUS Quarterly magazine.
The post Israel-Hezbollah War: To Cease or Not to Cease first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Columbia, My Alma Mater, Fell to the Antisemitic Mob. Will Princeton and Yale Do the Same?
Pro-Hamas Columbia University students march in front of pro-Israel demonstrators on Oct. 7, 2024, the one-year anniversary of Hamas’s Oct. 7 massacre across southern Israel. Photo: Roy De La Cruz via Reuters Connect
As a young girl growing up, my parents recognized the limited opportunities for women in a post-revolutionary Iran.
My father, a physician for the Shah, wanted my sister and I to get a good education — so we escaped the oppressive regime and came to America. My parents put me into the top schools, and I eventually landed at my dream school, Columbia University, where I graduated with a degree in economics with a pre-medical concentration.
I was always proud to be a Columbia grad — but not anymore. There were antisemitic incidents at the school over the years, but since October 7, 2023, when Hamas carried out the worst massacre of the Jewish people since the Holocaust, the school has seen an explosion of Jew-hatred.
And shockingly, Columbia has bowed to the antisemitic mob.
My disgraceful alma mater allowed students to set up pro-Palestinian encampments, and more than 100 Columbia professors signed a letter defending students who supported what they called “Hamas’ military action” on October 7. Senior Columbia administrators were caught sending hateful messages about Jews to one another, including tropes about the “Jews” having money. The antisemitism task force at Columbia found that the school failed to stop the hate perpetrated on campus; they said students were on the receiving end of “ethnic slurs, stereotypes about supposedly dangerous Israeli veterans, antisemitic tropes about Jewish wealth and hidden power, threats and physical assaults, [and] exclusion of Zionists from student groups.”
All of this is just the tip of the iceberg. It’s clear that Columbia is a lost cause. Now, will two other Ivy League universities, Princeton and Yale, also collapse under pressure from antisemites?
We will see, as Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) referenda are now on the table at both.
On November 10, Princeton’s Undergraduate Student Government (USG) approved a divestment referendum that’s “calling on the trustees and PRINCO to ‘uphold human rights’ by disclosing and divesting holds in weapon manufacturing companies connected to Gaza,” according to The Daily Princetonian. From November 25 through 27, students will be able to vote on whether they believe Princeton should divest from Israel.
And over at Yale, a new anti-Israel group called the Sumud Coalition is pushing for Yale to hold a student referendum to disclose and divest its holdings from military manufacturers, as well as invest in Palestinian students and scholars. At least 25 other student groups have already endorsed the Sumud Coalition’s “Books, Not Bombs” petition.
Given the horrendous track record that Ivy League schools have when it comes to antisemitism, I’m not very hopeful that these referendums will fail.
After all, Princeton hosted poet Mohammed El-Kurd, who expressed support for Hamas’ actions on Oct. 7 and previously said, “Zionism is apartheid, it’s genocide, it’s murder, it’s a racist ideology rooted in settler expansion and racial domination, and we must root it out of the world.” At the same time, a Zionist and Israeli professor, Ronen Shoval, had to shut his speech down early after anti-Israel protestors kept disrupting him. The police had to then escort him to his car out of concern for his safety. And this past April, the US Department of Education opened a Title VI investigation into antisemitism allegations against the school.
Yale is also under Federal investigation. In January, the United States Department of Education opened a Title VI Shared Ancestry investigation related to a November 6, 2023, panel called “Gaza under siege,” where several Jewish students claimed they were excluded from the event simply because they’re Jewish. Gabriel Diamond, a senior at Yale, wrote in The Hill that her school has let antisemitic and pro-Hamas propaganda proliferate on campus, citing a conference that peddled “Hamas propaganda to dozens of students for hours.”
Though Princeton and Yale have failed their Jewish students in the past, they can refrain from making another disastrous decision by rejecting divestment referenda. It’s clear that outright ignoring antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiments on campus is not a winning tactic for these schools — the Federal investigations prove that.
The Ivy League universities putting their stamp of approval on antisemitism claim that they’re all for free speech and student expression, but divestment is not a matter of free speech. It’s a targeted campaign against the only Jewish state in the world. Over this past year, anti-Zionists have proven that it’s not about freeing Palestinians, it’s also about wiping Israel off the map completely, which would include eliminating the Jewish population there.
It’s no surprise that BDS has ties to terrorist groups. Why any university would want to team up with a pro-terror group like this is mind-boggling, to say the least.
It’s time for Princeton and Yale to grow a backbone. I urge them to stand up to the antisemitic mob and shut down the divestment referendums before they come to a vote. They’ve made many mistakes over the past year, that’s for sure. But it’s not too late to rectify them.
Dr. Sheila Nazarian is a Los Angeles physician and star of the Emmy-nominated Netflix series “Skin Decision: Before and After.” Her family escaped to the United States from Iran.
The post Columbia, My Alma Mater, Fell to the Antisemitic Mob. Will Princeton and Yale Do the Same? first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
BBC Uses Syrian Regime Propaganda, and Calls It ‘News’
An Iranian flag hangs as smoke rises after what the Iranian media said was an Israeli strike on a building close to the Iranian embassy in Damascus, Syria, April 1, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Firas Makdesi
Given the BBC’s long documented habit of basing news reports on unverified claims made by a news agency controlled by the Assad regime in Syria, it was not surprising to find that some four hours after unclaimed airstrikes in Syria on November 21, the BBC News website was already promoting a headline stating “Israeli strikes on Syria’s Palmyra kills 36, state media say.”
The original version of that report quoted an announcement put out by the Sana news agency, and a claim from an unnamed “UK-based monitoring group” that, in a version published around an hour later and credited to David Gritten, turned out to be the one-man show called ‘The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights’ (SOHR).
Gritten’s report was again updated on November 21 – some 21 hours after its original publication; the version currently available online opens by telling readers that:
At least 36 people have been killed and 50 others injured in Israeli air strikes on residential buildings and an industrial area in the central Syrian town of Palmyra, Syrian state media report.
The Sana news agency cited a military source as saying that Israeli jets attacked from the direction of the Jordanian border to the south at around 13:30 (10:30 GMT) and that the strikes causes [sic] significant material damage.
A UK-based monitoring group reported that the strikes hit a weapons depot and other locations in and around an area where families of Iran-backed militia fighters were, killing 68 Syrian and foreign fighters.
The Israeli military said it did not comment on foreign reports.
Later in the article, readers find a link to a Tweet put out by the SOHR and quotes from a report it put out:
Videos and photos posted on social media following Wednesday’s strikes appear to show three large columns of black smoke rising from the Palmyra area.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), a UK-based monitoring group, cited its sources on the ground as saying that Israeli fighter jets struck three locations in the town.
Two were in the al-Jamiya neighbourhood, including a weapons depot near the industrial zone inhabited by families of Iran-backed fighters of Iraqi and other foreign nationalities, it said.
The third location was nearby and targeted a meeting attended by leaders of Iran-backed militias based in Palmyra and the surrounding desert as well as leaders of the Iraqi group Nujaba and Hezbollah, it added.
The SOHR initially reported that 41 people were killed, but later said the death toll had risen to 68.
It identified them as 42 Syrian members of Iran-backed militias, and 22 foreign members, mostly from Nujaba, and four Lebanese members of Hezbollah.
As noted by the Times of Israel in a report on the same topic:
SOHR, run by a single person, has regularly been accused by Syrian war analysts of false reporting and inflating casualty numbers as well as inventing them wholesale.
Remarkably, Gritten had nothing whatsoever to tell his readers about “the Iraqi group Nujaba” — despite the fact that in January 2024 he contributed to an article which includes the following:
Iran has built a wide network of allied armed groups and proxies operating in countries across the Middle East. They are all opposed to Israel and the US, and sometimes refer to themselves as the “Axis of Resistance”, though the extent of Iran’s influence over them is not clear.
The US says co-ordination is overseen by the IRGC and its overseas operations arm, the Quds Force. Both are designated by the US as terrorist organisations, as are a number of the regional armed groups, including Kataib Hezbollah.
The groups have dramatically stepped up their attacks against Israel, US forces and other linked targets since the start of the war between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip in October, in what they say is a demonstration of their solidarity with the Palestinian people.
Many of the at least 165 drone, rocket and missile attacks on US bases in Iraq and Syria, or facilities hosting US troops, since 17 October have been claimed by an umbrella group of Iran-backed militias calling itself the Islamic Resistance in Iraq.
In response, the US says it has struck targets belonging to the IRGC and militias believed to have strong links with the force, including Kataib Hezbollah, Harakat al-Nujaba and Asaib Ahl al-Haq.
The organization to which Gritten refers in this report as “Nujaba” is known as Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba (HaN) (Movement of the Party of God’s Noble Ones) or Harakat al-Nujaba. As reported by the ITIC:
The Nujaba Movement (Harakat al-Nujaba), or the Movement of the Noble Ones, is an Iraqi Shiite pro-Iranian militia established in 2013 by Sheikh Akram Abbas al-Kaabi, its secretary-general, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps’ (IRGC’s) Qods Force. It is one of the largest militias in the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF). It is operated by the Iranian Qods Force, which provides the funding, weapons, and training of its members. The Nujaba Movement is also supported by the Lebanese Hezbollah, with which Al-Kaabi has maintained close ties for many years. The militia adopts the ideology of the Islamic Revolution in Iran and regards Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei as its supreme leader.
In 2020, the ITIC documented Nujaba’s activities in the Gaza Strip, where it maintains an office.
A WINEP profile of that US designated organization describes its chain of command as follows:
Iran. There is clear and convincing evidence that HaN is subordinate to and partly financed by the IRGC-QF. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Iran provides the group with financial assistance, military assistance, and intelligence sharing, as well as help in selecting, supporting, and supervising its leadership. HaN units in Syria are under the direct operational and administrative control of the IRGC-QF.
Partly financed by the Iraqi state. HaN operates the state-funded 12th Brigade of the PMF. Chain of command nominally runs through the Popular Mobilization Commission of the Prime Minister’s Office and up to the prime minister. In practice, HaN PMF units frequently disobey the Iraqi government chain of command while legally remaining organs of the Iraqi state.
In other words, a BBC report based entirely on unverified accounts from the Syrian regime-controlled news agency and a UK based project fails to clarify that among the “36 people” reportedly killed in a strike it attributes to Israel were operatives of an Iranian financed and operated Iraqi militia with bases in Syria and links to Hezbollah, which has threatened Israel since long before the current war.
BBC audiences would surely have found that context useful for full understanding of Gritten’s story about “Israeli air strikes.”
Hadar Sela is the co-editor of CAMERA UK — an affiliate of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA), where a version of this article first appeared.
The post BBC Uses Syrian Regime Propaganda, and Calls It ‘News’ first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login