RSS
Why Anti-Zionism Is Antisemitism
23-year-old German-Israeli Shani Louk, who was murdered by Hamas on October 7, 2023. (Photo: Instagram)
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
The Golden Calf: A Reminder That Anarchy Is Closer Than We Realize
The Israelites dance around the golden calf, while Moses on the mountain receives the ten commandments of God. Photo: IMAGO/piemags via Reuters Connect
Writing for the Denver Post in 1896 about Mark Hanna — President William McKinley’s version of Elon Musk — the American writer Alfred Henry Lewis wryly noted that “the only barrier between us and anarchy is the last nine meals we’ve had.”
It’s a sobering thought. Three days without food and all our carefully cultivated civility — laws, social norms, polite lines at the coffee shop — vanish in a second. We all like to think that society is safely held together by some higher moral order — but time and again, history suggests otherwise.
The unspoken contract — that the lights will turn on with a flick of a switch, that garbage will disappear from the curb like clockwork, and that your local bodega won’t suddenly go up in flames — is far more fragile than we’d like to believe.
And if one city has learned this lesson, it’s New York. Not once, but twice. Once when the city drowned in its own garbage, and once when it was plunged into darkness. Each time, a sudden vacuum in the most mundane, taken-for-granted systems led to utter chaos.
The first time it happened was in 1968. New York’s sanitation workers had been without a contract for six months, locked in a stalemate with Mayor John Lindsay. In February, fed up with his latest offer, they walked off the job.
Garbage collection is one of those invisible functions of civilization, something most people never think about — until it stops. And when 7,000 sanitation workers went on strike, densely packed New York turned into something out of a dystopian novel.
Within days, sidewalks disappeared beneath 100,000 tons of rotting waste. History professor Vincent Cannato describes the Lower East Side: “Garbage was piled chest-high. Egg shells, coffee grounds, milk cartons, orange rinds, and empty beer cans littered the sidewalk.”
The city reeked like an open sewer, and rats strutted through the streets like they had just been elected to public office. The New York Daily News declared it “a stinking mess,” and for once, no one accused them of exaggeration.
New Yorkers, never ones to suffer in silence, found ways to cope. Some reportedly joked about selling chunks of trash heaps to foreign tourists as “authentic New York artifacts.” Others, running out of options or patience, took a more direct approach: they loaded up their garbage and dumped it on the mayor’s front lawn.
It took nine days for the city to cave and meet the workers’ demands. Nine days to realize that the people they had ignored — perhaps even forgotten — were the only thing standing between New York and a full-blown landfill apocalypse. Order was eventually restored, the streets were cleaned, and life moved on. But not before the city got a front-row seat to just how fast civilization can unravel when an essential system collapses.
Fast forward to 1977. This time, it wasn’t garbage collection but electricity that disappeared, and the consequences were even worse. At exactly 8:37 pm on July 13, a lightning strike knocked out power to the entire city. Not just a block or two, not just a borough — the whole thing.
New York had been through blackouts before, but this one was different. In the famous 1965 blackout, people had stayed calm, waiting patiently for the lights to return. Strangers helped each other across darkened streets, shared flashlights, and even turned the ordeal into an impromptu street festival.
But 1977 was another story. It was a sweltering summer, crime was already at an all-time high, and the city was teetering on the edge. When the power cut out this time, there were no candlelit singalongs — just total chaos.
Entire city blocks turned into war zones. More than 1,600 stores were looted. Hundreds of buildings were set on fire. Brooklyn alone lost half its sneaker supply overnight, while in Manhattan, electronics stores were wiped clean, with looters hauling away televisions even though there was no electricity to turn them on.
When the lights finally flickered back on the following day, New York looked like it had been hit by an earthquake and a tornado combined. Because, as Alfred Henry Lewis might have put it, the only thing standing between civilization and anarchy is a working power grid.
Which brings us to Parshat Ki Tissa. The Israelites, fresh out of Egypt and still adjusting to the whole concept of freedom, had their own infrastructure crisis. They had Moses — reliable, steady Moses. Their leader, their guide, their direct line to God. And then, suddenly, he was gone — delayed on Mount Sinai longer than expected. Maybe he wasn’t coming back at all.
His absence created a vacuum, and in a panic, they did what people in crisis always do: improvise. If they couldn’t have Moses, they’d make a replacement. Enter the Golden Calf — a glittering idol stand-in for leadership. Chaos erupted, and by the time Moses returned, the damage was done. The lesson was painfully clear: remove a stabilizing force, and all bets are off.
The tragedy of the golden calf — and more recently, of the garbage strike and the blackout — is that none of it had to happen. Had the Israelites waited just a little longer, had New Yorkers been just a little more patient, disaster could have been avoided.
But people don’t handle vacuums well. When leadership disappears, systems break down, and the fundamental structures of daily life suddenly vanish. What replaces it is often unsavory or worse.
The real test of a society isn’t how it functions when everything is running smoothly. It’s what happens when something — be it a leader, a service, or even just the streetlights — suddenly isn’t there. Do people hold steady, trust that order will be restored, and keep their equilibrium? Or do they spiral, letting fear and uncertainty consume them? History, unfortunately, suggests that the latter is far more likely.
Moses’ return, much like the end of the blackout or the arrival of the garbage collectors, came too late to undo the damage. The people had already revealed their true selves. And while the immediate crisis was resolved — Moses shattered the idol, the worst offenders were punished — the deeper question remained: why does it take losing something to realize how much it mattered?
The story of the golden calf has shaped Jewish civilization for millennia — precisely because it warns us what happens when a vacuum is allowed to fester. That’s why it’s in the Torah — to remind us, year after year, that the barrier between civilization and anarchy is thinner than we imagine. And it’s up to us to keep it from breaking down.
The post The Golden Calf: A Reminder That Anarchy Is Closer Than We Realize first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
New York Times Cheerleads for “Pro-Hamas” Mahmoud Khalil
A taxi passes by in front of The New York Times head office, Feb. 7, 2013. Photo: Reuters / Carlo Allegri
On March 9, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia University graduate student. Secretary of State Rubio posted on X, “We will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported.” President Trump himself posted, “ICE proudly apprehended and detained Mahmoud Khalil, a Radical Foreign Pro-Hamas Student on the campus of @Columbia University. This is the first arrest of many to come.”
Anyone who expected straight-down-the-middle, impartial coverage of this issue from the New York Times would be disappointed. Instead the paper’s news columns have turned themselves into cheerleaders for Khalil and his supporters, portraying him as a free-speech martyr.
In the four-and-a-half days since Khalil’s arrest, the Times has published at least 11 articles about it, with credits to no fewer than 13 reporters and two opinion columnists. The opinion columns set the tone with hyperbolic alarmism. “This Is The Greatest Threat to Free Speech Since the Red Scare,” one opinion headline put it, overlooking the McCain-Feingold campaign speech restriction legislation championed by the Times itself, signed into law by President George W. Bush, and eventually found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
The news articles read pretty much the same. One piece was by Eliza Shapiro, who last attracted notice for a flawed investigative series that targeted Orthodox Jewish schools in New York. Shapiro’s latest article included this passage, “the Columbia Jewish Alumni Association, which has been calling for aggressive action against pro-Palestinian demonstrators, praised Mr. Khalil’s detention in a series of social media posts, calling Mr. Khalil, without evidence, a ‘ringleader’ of the chaos at Columbia.”
These Columbia protesters are not “pro-Palestinian.” They are anti-Israel, pro-terrorism, and pro-Hamas. Likewise, it’s loaded to say the Columbia Jewish Alumni Association has been “calling for aggressive action” against the students who have been disrupting campus activities, including classes. The Jewish alumni have been calling for defensive action to protect the Jewish and Israeli students from the violent assaults, harassment, and social ostracism that has interfered with their education.
In the same sentence, the “without evidence” is such garbage—a classic tell of Times aggression toward whomever the phrase is applied to. The Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans offered up evidence including a New York magazine article describing Khalil as a “lead negotiator for Columbia University Apartheid Divest,” a group that has called for “total eradication of Western Civilization” and that the New York Times itself, in a brief moment of lucidity, acknowledged in an October 2024 headline “Now Backs ‘Armed Resistance’ by Hamas.”
Another Times reporter whose slant was clearly visible was Ana Ley. Her article acknowledged, “Mahmoud Khalil, 30, emerged as a public face of students opposed to the war, leading demonstrations and granting interviews.” So much for “without evidence.” But there, too, the bias shows; the students weren’t actually “opposed to the war”; they support Hamas’s war against Israel, that is, “armed resistance.” What they oppose is Israel fighting back in self-defense, with American assistance. A print version of Ley’s article included quotes from Israel boycott advocate “Sophie Ellman-Golan, the communications director of Jews for Racial & Economic Justice”; Ben Wizner of the ACLU; and a Columbia professor supportive of Mahmoud Khalil. That’s three sources on Mahmoud Khalil’s side, and virtually no representation of the point of view that supports deporting disruptive student protesters who are non-citizens. Perhaps the Times newsroom thinks this point of view is so reprehensible that Times readers need to be protected from exposure to it.
Columbia gives out the Pulitzer Prizes, which are a key to career advancement at the New York Times. Maybe the Times is hoping for a Pulitzer for its all-hands-on-deck defense of free-speech martyr Mahmoud Khalil? The free-speech aspect of the issue seemed somehow less salient to the Times newsroom when the Israel-haters at Columbia were disrupting the class of an Israeli professor, preventing him from speaking. It is almost enough to make a reader wonder whether whether the Times cause is really free-speech, as a universally applied principle, or if what they are really dug in committedly in favor of is the ability of Columbia students and graduates to cheer on Hamas without any significant adverse consequences.
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 Cheerleads for “Pro-Hamas” Mahmoud Khalil first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Turkish Delegation Visits Syria After Deal Between Damascus and Kurdish Forces
Syrian army personnel travel in a military vehicle as they head towards Latakia to join the fight against the fighters linked to Syria’s ousted leader Bashar al-Assad, in Aleppo, Syria, March 7, 2025. REUTERS/Mahmoud Hassano
A high-level Turkish delegation visited Syria after Damascus’ new government reached a deal with Kurdish forces, the Foreign Ministry said Thursday.
According to local media reports, Turkey’s Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, Defense Minister Yaşar Güler, and the head of Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization, Ibrahim Kalın, are expected to meet with their Syrian counterparts as well as Damascus’ President Ahmed al-Sharaa.
During this meeting, they are expected to discuss the recent clashes between supporters of the ousted Assad regime and government forces, as well as the recent deal signed between Syria’s new Islamist-led government — backed by Turkey — and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) militant group.
Under the new deal between the Kurdish-led, US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and the Syrian government, the SDF will be integrated into Damascus’ institutions. In exchange, the agreement gives the Syrian government control over SDF-held civilian and military sites in the northeast region of the country, including border crossings, an airport, and oil and gas fields.
Turkey has long considered the SDF, which controls much of northeastern Syria, a terrorist group due to its alleged links with the PKK, which has been waging an insurgency war against the Turkish state for the past 40 years.
Since the fall of the Assad regime last year, Ankara has emerged as a key foreign ally of the new Syrian government, pledging to assist in rebuilding the country and training its armed forces. It has also repeatedly demanded that the YPG militia – which leads the SDF – disarm, disband, and expel its foreign fighters from Syria.
While Turkey welcomed the recent deal between the SDF and Damascus, it also said that it would need to see its implementation to ensure the YPG does not join Syrian state institutions or security forces as a bloc.
On Wednesday, a Turkish Defense Ministry official said that attacks on Kurdish militants in Syria were still ongoing, highlighting Turkey’s determination to fight against terrorism.
“There’s no change in our expectations for an end to terrorist activities in Syria, for terrorists to lay down their weapons, and for foreign terrorists to be removed from Syria,” a Turkish Defense Ministry source told the Turkish newspaper Daily Sabah.
“We’ll see how the agreement is implemented in the field,” the source is quoted as saying. “We will closely follow its positive or negative consequences.”
The United States also welcomed the recent ceasefire deal between the SDF and Damascus, with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio saying that Washington supports a political transition in Syria that ensures a reliable and non-sectarian governance structure to prevent further conflict.
In late January, al-Sharaa became Damascus’s transitional president after leading a rebel campaign that ousted Assad, whose Iran-backed rule had strained ties with the Arab world during the nearly 14-year Syrian war.
According to an announcement by the military command that led the offensive against Assad, Sharaa was given the authority to form a temporary legislative council for the transitional period and to suspend the country’s constitution.
The collapse of Assad’s regime was the result of an offensive spearheaded by Sharaa’s Islamist Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) group, a former al-Qaeda affiliate.
This week, al-Sharaa signed Syria’s constitutional declaration that will be enforced throughout a five-year transitional period.
Since Assad’s fall, the new Syrian government has sought to strengthen ties with Arab and Western leaders. Damascus’s new diplomatic relationships reflect a distancing from its previous allies, Iran and Russia.
The new Syrian government appears focused on reassuring the West and working to get sanctions lifted, which date back to 1979 when the US labeled Syria a state sponsor of terrorism and were significantly increased following Assad’s violent response to the anti-government protests.
The Assad regime’s brutal crackdown on opposition protests in 2011 sparked the Syrian civil war, during which Syria was suspended from the Arab League for more than a decade.
The post Turkish Delegation Visits Syria After Deal Between Damascus and Kurdish Forces first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login