RSS
Why Anti-Zionism Is Antisemitism
The late Elie Wiesel recounted a stirring Hasidic legend to illustrate the insidious and ever-mutating scourge of antisemitism. The evocative story unfolds in a dimly lit inn late one night, where two revered Hasidic masters, Rebbe Elimelekh of Lizhensk, and his brother, Reb Zushya of Anipoli, are both immersed in their Torah studies, their faces illuminated by flickering candlelight as they delve into the sacred texts.
This tranquil scene is shattered when a group of drunken antisemites burst in. Their raucous laughter and uncouth conversation suddenly goes quiet as they spot the two rabbis studying quietly in the corner. Without warning, they unleash their fury on the hapless Reb Zushya, who is subjected to a vicious and relentless beating.
The attack is unexpected and brutal, but Reb Zushya endures it in stoic silence, until he eventually collapses unconscious on the floor, and the assailants momentarily go off to find another drink, their craving for violence temporarily satiated.
In these few fleeting moments of respite, Rebbe Elimelekh, moved by a profound sense of empathy and brotherly love, gently shifts his brother to where he had been sitting at the table and positions himself in Reb Zushya’s place on the floor, so that he will bear the burden of suffering on his brother’s behalf when the antisemites return.
But his act of self-sacrifice goes unnoticed by the returning drunkards. In their alcohol-fueled daze, they fail to recognize the switch, and once again direct their cruelty towards Reb Zushya — who is now seated at the table — thinking that he is the other rabbi, and inflicting yet further pain on the innocent sage.
Wiesel, with his unique brand of irony and insight, observes that this tale is emblematic of the broader narrative of Jewish history, serving as a potent metaphor for the relentless and often irrational nature of antisemitism. The story poignantly underscores the futility faced by Jews as they attempt to evade persecution, revealing how, despite efforts to change and adapt in order to protect themselves, they have historically been confronted with persistent hostility and violence in whatever guise they have chosen.
I’ve been thinking a lot about this story over the past few weeks, in particular because one of the most prominent aspirations behind the establishment of a Jewish state was to forge a sanctuary that could offer security and protection from persecution, not just in Israel but for Jews all over the world.
The idea was that a new reality — namely, a country Jews could call their own after 2000 years of dispersion — would precipitate a change in Jewish fortunes. A strong, independent Israel would place the Jewish people on an equal footing with other peoples, fostering a sense of global parity and, ideally, mitigating the scourge of antisemitism. “Never Again!” became the slogan associated with a strong and secure Israel firmly within the family of nations.
But, as it turned out, even though Reb Zushya moved from his spot on the floor to a seat at the table, he still got beaten up. Rather than this monumental change for Jews being the game-changer that neutralized antisemitism, Israel’s existence and actions have been leveraged by those who are drunk with antisemitism as the new justification for their prejudice, and for unleashing more violence against Jews — now called Zionists.
In fact, a critical aspect that is often overlooked in the discourse surrounding Israel and antisemitism is the conflation of the Israeli state’s actions with Jews. I don’t recall, after the Russian invasion of Ukraine last year, that Russians living in the West, along with descendants of Russian immigrants, were targeted by protesters sympathetic to the Ukrainian cause, and nor do I recall Russian Orthodox churches being daubed with swastikas — despite the frequent reports of horrific scenes of death and destruction in Ukraine.
And yet Jews are targeted, vilified, attacked, intimidated, ostracized, threatened with death, and accused of being murderers — British Jews in London, Australian Jews in Sydney, American Jews in New York, and French Jews in Paris — all because Israel is engaged in a war with Hamas in Gaza (after the war was initiated by Hamas attacking Israel).
The facts speak for themselves: criticism of Israel’s policies and military strategy has quickly morphed into undisguised antisemitic rhetoric that employs age-old stereotypes and conspiracy theories, and which calls for Israel’s existence to be undone.
And again, I don’t hear any calls for Russia to be undone as a country, or Syria, or Myanmar, or Zimbabwe, or Sudan — and the list goes on and on — even after tough images emerge from each of these countries, or countries of their foes, because of actions they have taken. Only Israel suffers the indignity of being called illegitimate. This means that the line between political critique and ugly bigotry has become dangerously blurred.
The argument that “Anti-Zionism is Not Antisemitism” is a cornerstone mantra of many anti-Israel groups, who insist that all criticism of Israeli policies and Zionist ideology is entirely separate from antisemitic sentiments.
But surely this distinction is undermined when we witness a marked increase in antisemitic incidents following the October 7 massacre. It all suggests that anti-Zionism either contributes to, or indeed serves as a pretext for, antisemitic attitudes and actions, challenging the clear-cut separation that anti-Israel groups claim to uphold.
Then there is the shocking lack of reaction by progressive groups to allegations of violence against Israeli women by Hamas on October 7, compared to their vocal support for victims of sexual violence during the #MeToo moment. Where was the outrage for Israeli women? And how can that lack of outrage be explained as not being antisemitic? The answer is: it can’t.
And who can fail to be struck by the inconsistency among academics and progressives, always eager to recognize and address microaggressions and prevent subtle forms of discrimination — a diligence that conveniently lapsed when it came to overt aggression and discrimination against Jews after October 7, particularly but not exclusively in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Is this not blatant antisemitism? The answer is: yes, it is.
The humanitarian outcry over the treatment of children in conflict zones, such as the concern for migrant children at the US border, and the regular reminders regarding Palestinian children killed and injured by the Israeli bombardment of Gaza, contrasts sharply with the complete lack of interest in Israeli children murdered by Hamas on October 7, and in the kidnapped children held by Hamas in dank underground tunnels with almost no food and water. Are Jewish children less important than non-Jewish children? It would appear so.
This week it was revealed that UNICEF — whose role it is to look after all children in need, wherever they are around the world — has no fund in place for Israeli children affected by the Hamas attacks. This, despite the fact that so many have been orphaned, and thousands are displaced and severely traumatized.
No less striking is the irreconcilable contradictions in the narratives propagated by those who condemn Israel. On the one hand, the October 7 massacre never happened say Hamas spokesmen and their Western supporters, while on the other hand, Hamas leaders promise that October 7 massacres against Israelis (and Jews) will be repeated again many times in the future.
Hamas spokesmen and their Western supporters claim that nobody was beheaded on October 7, but then we see videos taken by Hamas operatives showing them beheading people.
We are told that all the victims on October 7 were killed by IDF “friendly fire”– but the videos clearly show Hamas terrorists shooting Israeli victims dead. And so it goes on. Lie after lie. Inconsistency after inconsistency. It is so incredibly infuriating, and it never seems to end.
A remarkable Midrash on Parshat Vayigash reflects on the moment when Joseph reveals himself to his brothers. This Midrash draws a profound lesson about judgment and rebuke from the dramatic Biblical scene, declaring “Woe to us from the day of judgment, woe to us from the day of rebuke,” after noting that when Joseph revealed his true identity, his brothers are struck with fear and were unable to respond. If such was the reaction to Joseph’s revelation, says the Midrash, how much more intense will be the ultimate Divine rebuke, when every individual is confronted with the truth of their actions?
The celebrated mussar giant, Rabbi Yehuda Leib Chasman, explores a puzzling question arising out of this Midrash: What exactly was the rebuke that Joseph gave his brothers? On the surface, Joseph appears to comfort and reassure his brothers, not rebuke them.
Rabbi Chasman explains that the very act of Joseph revealing himself and saying “I am Joseph” was itself a profound and terrifying rebuke. It forced the brothers to come face to face with the error of their ways over the past 22 years, from their initial irrational jealousy of Joseph, to the sale into slavery, to the pain they caused their father — and all because they had fallen into the trap of unjustified bias, which resulted in them embracing a false narrative and perpetuating self-serving lies. In that moment of Joseph’s revelation, their misjudgments and mistakes were laid bare, as they realized that their actions had not been driven by righteousness, but by hatred and prejudice.
In Rabbi Chasman’s reading, the Midrash reveals an eternal truth — that hatred hiding behind feigned righteous virtue will ultimately be exposed for what it is: hatred, pure and simple. Just as Joseph’s brothers were eventually forced to confront the reality of their own bigotry when Joseph told them who he was, so too, in the fullness of time, all Jew-hating bigots who claim to oppose Israel for humanitarian reasons will be confronted with the harsh truths of their warped beliefs and their immoral actions.
The author is a rabbi in Beverly Hills, California.
The post Why Anti-Zionism Is Antisemitism first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Change in the Middle East? Don’t Hold Your Breath
One year after Hamas’ October 7 massacre, I noticed a cluster of articles in various sources referring to strategic realignments among some of the players in the Middle East.
For example, Zvika Klein interprets the muted responses from Egypt, the UAE and Saudi Arabia to Israel’s latest bombing of military sites in Iran as indicating that, while each country continues to give lip service to the Palestinian cause, their primary attention has shifted to restraining Iran.
Maria Abi-Habib and Ismaeel Naar come to the opposite conclusion. Noting what appears to be a possible rapprochement between Iran and rival Saudi Arabia, they see a Middle East shift in which Saudi Arabia’s interest in a normalization deal has passed, and Israel’s profile as a regional player is diminished.
An article by Aida Chávez reports that after the killing of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, US Congressional leaders such as Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) discussed wide-ranging Middle East scenarios, including US guarantees of Saudi security along with Saudi and Gulf State help in reconstruction and governance of Gaza.
Meanwhile, Neville Berman reminds us of the success of the Marshall Plan in rebuilding Europe after World War II, suggesting something similar for Gaza — but only after the release of the Israeli hostages and after the people of Gaza reject Hamas and the “pyromaniacal aims of Iran.”
Finally, Fahad Almasri, President of the National Salvation Front in Syria, a group opposed to the Assad government, believes that Israel’s battles with Hezbollah and Iran have won the hearts of a majority of the Lebanese and Syrian people. Almasri argues that an Arab version of NATO, led by Saudi Arabia, would reduce foreign involvement in the area (especially Iran’s) and support peaceful relations with Israel.
While these proposals may be well intentioned, I am skeptical. We have seen this movie before. Previous starring roles, for example, involved Egypt under Nasser and Syria. Who remembers the late United Arab Republic?
In 1958, when John F. Kennedy was a senator, the world was dealing with the aftermath of the Suez Crisis. America was not Israel’s close ally. In fact, the US continued to enforce an embargo on arms sales to Israel. That year Kennedy wrote the following:
Even by the coldest calculations, the removal of Israel would not alter the basic crisis in the area. For, if there is any lesson which the melancholy events of the last two years and more taught us, it is that, though Arab states are generally united in opposition to Israel, their political unities do not rise above this negative position. The basic rivalries within the Arab world, the quarrels over boundaries, the tensions involved in lifting their economies from stagnation, the cross pressures of nationalism — all of these factors would still be there, even if there were no Israel.
What was true 66 years ago is still true today.
The prominent actors in the region are the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia, all authoritarian regimes that rank far down on The Economist’s democracy index. Their influence is due to oil and gas revenues. Only 12 percent of the three million people living in Qatar, for example, are Qataris. (The same percentage applies to the UAE.) The vast majority are support workers from abroad. Qatar has been compared to a good airport terminal: pleasantly air-conditioned, lots of shopping, a wide selection of food, and people from around the world.
The Abraham Accords may yet lead to peace between Israel and all her neighbors, and adding Saudi Arabia to the Accords is laudable, but don’t get your hopes up.
Jacob Sivak, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, is a retired professor, University of Waterloo.
The post Change in the Middle East? Don’t Hold Your Breath first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
NYT’s ‘65 Doctors’ Essay Crumbles as Evidence of Embellished Testimony Mounts
The New York Times recently defended its guest essay, in which 65 medical professionals recounted their experiences working in Gaza.
The essay included graphic accounts suggesting that the IDF deliberately targets civilians, including women and children. It also featured X-ray images that were later scrutinized by medical experts for inconsistencies, casting doubt on their authenticity.
Six days after publication, amid growing questions about the credibility of these accounts and the evidence provided, The New York Times issued a statement asserting that the essay had been “rigorously edited” and standing by the contributors’ credentials. The statement further insisted, “Any implication that its images are fabricated is simply false.”
Despite this defense, more evidence soon surfaced, challenging the essay’s claims.
In The Jurist, two physicians and medical ethicists described allegations that Israeli forces intentionally targeted children’s heads in Gaza as “highly implausible,” citing ballistic evidence, medical imaging analysis, and the realities of combat. They emphasized the ethical imperative for healthcare workers to provide impartial, fact-based accounts in conflict zones.
In addition to concerns about the X-rays, HonestReporting can now reveal inconsistencies in at least one of the accounts given by a doctor featured in the essay.
Dr. Khawaja Ikram, an orthopedic surgeon from Dallas, Texas, describes treating two children, aged three and five, who he alleges were shot in the head by an Israeli sniper as they returned with their father to survey their home in Khan Younis:
However, this is not the first time Ikram has spoken to a media outlet about his experience in Gaza.
In a February interview with NBC Dallas-Fort Worth, more than six months before the New York Times essay, Ikram recounted a strikingly similar story — though with several key differences.
He described treating a man who arrived at the hospital carrying his five-year-old daughter, claiming she had sustained a “single bullet wound to the head.” According to Ikram, the father said, “We thought the troops were pulling back, so we went to check on our home. There were snipers waiting. My five-year-old daughter was shot. She’s my only daughter, please save her.”
The narrative is nearly identical to the one Ikram later gave to The New York Times, but in his earlier account, no mention was made of the additional three-year-old child who was allegedly shot. If his later testimony is accurate, we must ask why this significant detail was omitted in the earlier interview.
Despite The New York Times’ vigorous defense of the essay, mounting evidence continues to discredit both the accounts and the purported evidence within the piece.
It raises serious questions about how thoroughly the Times vetted the doctors involved. Did they even check if these individuals had shared their stories before, and whether there were discrepancies in the details?
As the credibility of the 65 doctors’ essay unravels, The New York Times cannot continue to ignore the cracks.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
The post NYT’s ‘65 Doctors’ Essay Crumbles as Evidence of Embellished Testimony Mounts first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Actress Ellen Barkin Calls for Nazi Persecution of MSG Owners, Death of Trump Supporters After New York Rally
Actress Ellen Barkin said on Sunday she wants the owners of Madison Square Garden (MSG) to face the same persecution Jews experienced from the Nazis during the Holocaust because the famous New York City venue held a rally for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump during which several racist insults were made.
The “Ocean’s Thirteen” actress, whose parents are Russian Jews, also called Trump a “Nazi” and called for the death of those who attended what she called the “Nazi rally” in several posts on X, formerly know as Twitter.
“Madison Square Garden is owned by James Dolan,” Barkin, 70, wrote. “A major supporter of Nazi trump. His accomplice is one Irving Azoff. A Jew. A shonda for the goyim if ever one lived. May they suffer the pain of all who suffered at the hands of the Nazi regime.” Shonda means disgrace in Yiddish while goyim means non-Jews.
In separate posts on X, the former “Animal Kingdom” star advocated for a boycott of MSG. “Justice would be served if athletes and artists refused to play the Garden,” she wrote.
The actress compared Trump’s Sunday night event to a Nazi rally held in MSG in 1939 and also wrote, “I don’t wish death on anyone … except pedophiles and Nazis. The gangs all here at MSG.”
“I’m thinking biblical,” she added. “May the good earth beneath MSG open its fiery jaws and hurl them all straight into the burning cauldron of the 9 circles. Going down maggots?”
Dolan is the executive chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) of Madison Square Garden Entertainment Corp. (MSG Entertainment). In 2018, MSG and Azoff, a music industry tycoon, signed a joint agreement that led to the formation of The Azoff Company, which helps run the media and music venue in New York City. MSG has previously hosted both the Democratic National Convention and the Republican National Convention. US President Joe Biden held an event in March at Radio City Music Hall, which is owned by the Dolan family.
Dolan, who is reportedly a registered Democrat, is a longtime friend of Trump’s and got married at the latter’s Mar-A-Lago resort in Florida. During his speech at the rally on Sunday, Trump thanked Dolan, saying: “He’s been incredible. He’s been just incredible. The job they’ve done. The job they’ve done. Thank you.”
During the Trump rally in MSG on Sunday, stand-up comedian Tony Hinchcliffe made racist and offensive comments about Latinos, Jews, and Black people, just a little over a week away from the US presidential election. Hinchcliffe, who hosts the podcast Kill Tony, joked about a Black person in the audience, saying he had “carved watermelons” with the audience member instead of pumpkins for Halloween.
He additionally said during the rally: “I don’t know if you guys know this, but there’s literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. I think it’s called Puerto Rico.” That comment sparked backlash from several Puerto Ricans in the entertainment industry, including singers Jennifer Lopez, Marc Anthony, Ricky Martin and Bad Bunny, and “The View” co-host Sunny Hostin.
Also while on stage, he said of Latinos: “[They] love making babies. They do. There’s no pulling out. They don’t do that. They come inside. Just like they did to our country.”
Trump campaign adviser Danielle Alvarez said in a statement reported by The Hill that Hinchcliffe’s joke about Puerto Rico “does not reflect the views of President Trump or the campaign.” An MSG Entertainment spokesperson told The Hollywood Reporter on Monday: “As a business we are neutral in political matters. We rent to either side. We don’t censor artists, performers, or speakers.”
Hinchcliffe took to social media to defend his joke about Puerto Rico. He responded to a clip on X of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) criticizing his remark, and wrote that his joke was “taken out of context to make it seem racist.”
“These people have no sense of humor,” he said. “I love Puerto Rico and vacation there. I made fun of everyone … watch the whole set. I’m a comedian Tim … might be time to change your tampon.”
The post Actress Ellen Barkin Calls for Nazi Persecution of MSG Owners, Death of Trump Supporters After New York Rally first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login