Uncategorized
Letty Cottin Pogrebin wants Jews to own up to the corrosive power of shame
(JTA) — When a lawyer for Donald Trump asked E. Jean Carroll why she didn’t scream while allegedly being raped by Donald Trump, I thought of Letty Cottin Pogrebin. In her latest book, “Shanda: A Memoir of Shame and Secrecy,” she writes about being assaulted by a famous poet — and how the shadow of shame kept women like her silent about attacks on their own bodies.
That incident in 1962, she writes, was “fifty-eight years before the #MeToo movement provided the sisterhood and solidarity that made survivors of abuse and rape feel safe enough to tell their stories.”
Now 83, Pogrebin could have coasted with a memoir celebrating her six decades as a leading feminist: She co-founded Ms. magazine, its Foundation for Women and the National Women’s Political Caucus. She served as president of Americans for Peace Now and in 1982 blew the whistle on antisemitism in the feminist movement.
Instead, “Shanda” is about her immigrant Jewish family and the secrets they carried through their lives. First marriages that were kept hidden. An unacknowledged half-sister. Money problems and domestic abuse. An uncle banished for sharing family dirt in public.
“My mania around secrecy and shame was sparked in 1951 by the discovery that my parents had concealed from me the truth about their personal histories, and every member of my large extended family, on both sides, was in on it,” writes Pogrebin, now 83. “Their need to avoid scandal was so compelling that, once identified, it provided the lens through which I could see my family with fresh eyes, spotlight their fears, and, in so doing, illuminate my own.”
“Shanda” (the Yiddish word describes the kind of behavior that brings shame on an entire family or even a people) is also a portrait of immigrant New York Jews in the 20th century. As her father and mother father move up in the world and leave their Yiddish-speaking, Old World families behind for new lives in the Bronx and Queens, they stand in for a generation of Jews and new Americans “bent on saving face and determined to be, if not exemplary, at least impeccably respectable.”
Pogrebin and I spoke last week ahead of the Eight Over Eighty Gala on May 31, where she will be honored with a group that includes another Jewish feminist icon, the writer Erica Jong, and musician Eve Queler, who founded her own ensemble, the Opera Orchestra of New York, when she wasn’t being given chances to conduct in the male-dominated world of classical music. The gala is a fundraiser for the New Jewish Home, a healthcare nonprofit serving older New Yorkers.
Pogrebin and I spoke about shame and how it plays out in public and private, from rape accusations against a former president to her regrets over how she wrote about her own abortions to how the Bible justifies family trickery.
Our conversation was edited for length and clarity.
I found your book very moving because my parents’ generation, who like your family were middle-class Jews who grew up or lived in the New York metropolitan area, are also all gone now. Your book brought back to me that world of aunts and uncles and cousins, and kids like us who couldn’t imagine what kinds of secrets and traumas our parents and relatives were hiding. But you went back and asked all the questions that many of us are afraid to ask.
I can’t tell you how good writing it has been. I feel as though I have no weight on my back. And people who have read it gained such comfort from the normalization that happens when you read that others have been through what you’ve been through. And my family secrets are so varied — just one right after the other. The chameleon-like behavior of that generation — they became who they wanted to be through pretense or actual accomplishment.
In my mother’s case, pretense led the way. She went and got a studio photo that made it look like she graduated from high school when she didn’t. In the eighth grade, she went up to her uncle’s house in the north Bronx and had her dates pick her up there because of the shanda of where she lived on the Lower East Side with nine people in three rooms. She had to imagine herself the child of her uncle, who didn’t have an accent or had an accent but at least spoke English.
You describe yours as “an immigrant family torn between loyalty to their own kind and longing for American acceptance.”
There was the feeling that, “If only we could measure up, we would be real Americans.” My mother was a sewing machine operator who became a designer and figured out what American women wore when she came from rags and cardboard shoes, in steerage. So I admire them. As much as I was discomforted by the lies, I ended up having compassion for them.
It’s also a story of thwarted women, and all that lost potential of a generation in which few could contemplate a college degree or a career outside the home. Your mother worked for a time as a junior designer for Hattie Carnegie, a sort of Donna Karan of her day, but abandoned that after she met your dad and became, as you write, “Mrs. Jack Cottin.”
The powerlessness of women was complicated in the 1950s by the demands of the masculine Jewish ideal. So having a wife who didn’t work was proof that you were a man who could provide. As a result women sacrificed their own aspirations and passions. She protected her husband’s image by not pursuing her life outside the home. In a way my feminism is a positive, like a photograph, to the negative of my mother’s 1950s womanhood.
“I’m not an optimist. I call myself a ‘cockeyed strategist,” said Pogrebin, who has a home on the Upper West Side. (Mike Lovett)
You write that you “think of shame and secrecy as quintessentially Jewish issues.” What were the Jewish pressures that inspired your parents to tell so many stories that weren’t true?
Think about what we did. We hid behind our names. We changed our names. We sloughed off our accents. My mother learned to make My*T*Fine pudding instead of gefilte fish. Shame and secrecy have always been intrinsically Jewish to me, because of the “sha!” factor: At every supper party, there would be the moment when somebody would say, “Sha! We don’t talk about that!” So even though we talked about what felt like everything, there were things that couldn’t be touched: illness, the C-word [cancer]. If you wanted to make a shidduch [wedding match] with another family in the insular communities in which Jews lived, you couldn’t let it be known that there was cancer in the family, or mental illness.
While I was writing this memoir, I realized that the [Torah portion] I’m listening to one Shabbat morning is all about hiding. It is Jacob finding out that he didn’t marry Rachel, after all, but married somebody he didn’t love. All of the hiding that I took for granted in the Bible stories and I was raised on like mother’s milk was formative. They justified pretense, and they justified trickery. Rebecca lied to her husband and presented her younger son Jacob for the blessing because God told her, because it was for the greater good of the future the Jewish people.
I think Jews felt that same sort of way when it came to surviving. So we can get rid of our names. We wouldn’t have survived, whether we were hiding in a forest or behind a cabinet, a name or a passport, or [pushed into hiding] with [forced] conversions. Hiding was survival.
I was reading your book just as the E. Jean Carroll verdict came down, holding Donald Trump liable for sexually assaulting her during an encounter in the mid-’90s. You write how in 1962, when you were working as a book publicist, the hard-drinking Irish poet Brendan Behan (who died in 1964) tried to rape you in a hotel room and you didn’t report it. Like Carroll, you didn’t think that it was something that could be reported because the cost was too high.
Certainly in that era powerful men could get away with horrible behavior because of shanda reasons.
Carroll said in her court testimony, “It was shameful to go to the police.”
You know that it happened to so many others and nobody paid the price. The man’s reputation was intact and we kept our jobs because we sacrificed our dignity and our truth. I was in a career, and I really was supporting myself. I couldn’t afford to lose my job. I would have been pilloried for having gone to his hotel room, and nobody was there when he picked up an ashtray and threatened to break the window of the Chelsea Hotel unless I went up there with him.The cards were stacked against me.
In “Shanda,” you write about another kind of shame: The shame you now feel decades later about how you described the incident in your first book. You regret “how blithely I transformed an aggravated assault by a powerful man into a ‘sticky sexual encounter.’”
I wrote about the incident in such offhand terms, and wonder why. I wrote, basically, “Okay, girls, you’re gonna have to put up with this, but you’re gonna have to find your own magical sentence like I had with Behan” to get him to stop.
You write that you said, “You can’t do this to me! I’m a nice Jewish girl!” And that got him to back off.
Really painful.
I think that’s a powerful aspect of your book — how you look back at the ways you let down the movement or your family or friends and now regret. In 1991 you wrote a New York Times essay about an illegal abortion you had as a college senior in 1958, but not the second one you had only a few months later. While you were urging women to tell their stories of abortion, you note how a different shame kept you from telling the whole truth.
Jewish girls could be, you know, plain or ordinary, but they had to be smart, and I had been stupid. I could out myself as one of the many millions of women who had an abortion but not as a Jewish girl who made the same mistake [of getting pregnant] twice.
The book was written before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. In the book you write powerfully about the shame, danger and loneliness among women when abortion was illegal, and now, after 50 years, it is happening again. Having been very much part of the generation of activists that saw Roe become the law of the land, how have you processed its demise?
Since the 1970s, we thought everything was happening in this proper linear way. We got legislation passed, we had litigation and we won, and we saw the percentage of women’s participation in the workplace all across professions and trades and everything else rise and rise. And then Ronald Reagan was elected and then there was the Moral Majority and then it was the Hyde Amendment [barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion]. I was sideswiped because I think I was naive enough to imagine that once we articulated what feminism was driving at and why women’s rights were important, and how the economic reality of families and discrimination against women weren’t just women’s issues, people would internalize it and understand it and justice would be done.
In the case of Roe, we could not imagine that rights could ever be taken away. We didn’t do something that we should have done, which is to have outed ourselves in a big way. It’s not enough that abortion was legal. We allowed it to remain stigmatized. We allowed the right wing to create their own valence around it. That negated solidarity. If we had talked about abortion as healthcare, if we had had our stories published and created organizations around remembering what it was like and people telling their stories about when abortion was illegal and dangerous…. Instead we allowed the religious right to prioritize [fetal] cells over a woman’s life. We just were not truthful with each other, so we didn’t create solidarity.
Are you heartened by the backlash against restrictive new laws in red states or optimistic that the next wave of activism can reclaim the right to abortion?
I’m not an optimist. I call myself a “cockeyed strategist.” If you look at my long resume, it is all about organizing: Ms. magazine, feminist organizations, women’s foundations, Black-Jewish dialogues, Torah study groups and Palestinian-Jewish dialogues.
Number one, we have to own the data and reframe the narrative. We have to open channels for discussion for women who have either had one or know someone who has had one, even in religious Catholic families. The state-by-state strategy was really slow, but Ruth Bader Ginsburg wanted that. She almost didn’t get on the court because she didn’t like the nationwide, right-to-privacy strategy of Roe but instead wanted it won state by state, which would have required campaigns of acceptance and consciousness-raising.
So, the irony is she hasn’t lived to see that we’re going to have to do it her way.
You share a lot of family secrets in this book. Is this a book that you waited to write until, I’ll try to put this gently, most of the people had died?
I started this book when I was 78 years old, and there’s always a connection to my major birthdays. And turning 80 – you experience that number and it is so weird. It doesn’t describe me and it probably won’t describe you. I thought, this could well be my last book, so I needed to be completely transparent, put it all out there.
My mother and father and aunts and uncles were gone, but I have 24 cousins altogether. I went to my cousins, and told them I am going to write about the secret of your parents: It’s my uncle, but it’s your father. It’s your family story even though it’s my family, but it’s yours first. And every cousin, uniformly, said, “Are you kidding? You don’t even know the half of it,” and they’d tell me the whole story. I guess people want the truth out in the end.
Is that an aspect of getting older?
I think it’s a promise of liberation, which is what I have found. It’s this experience of being free from anything that I’ve hid. I don’t have to hide. Years ago, on our 35th wedding anniversary, we took our whole family to the Tenement Museum because we wanted them to see how far we’ve come in two generations.
—
The post Letty Cottin Pogrebin wants Jews to own up to the corrosive power of shame appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Mamdani’s Father Blasts Columbia University Over Antisemitism Policies, Says Anti-Israel Students ‘Terrorized’
Pro-Hamas demonstrators at Columbia University in New York City, US, April 29, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Caitlin Ochs
New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s father — Mahmood Mamdani — denounced Columbia University’s efforts to combat antisemitism on Friday, exacerbating concerns that the incoming Mamdani administration will be an anti-Zionist coterie bent on fostering a hostile climate for Jews and supporters of Israel.
“Well, students are terrified; they are terrorized,” Mamdani said on the Substack of Peter Beinart, a prominent anti-Israel writer who earlier this year refused to classify Hamas as a terrorist organization, arguing that the designation carries racial undertones.
“In the smallest move they make, they are targeted,” Mamdani continued. “They are expelled. They are suspended. They are warned. Which means we have less and less of an idea of what they think and how they might respond to their situation.”
He added, “The university is in a vindictive mood.”
As previously reported by The Algemeiner, Columbia University was, until the enactment of recent reforms, the face of anti-Jewish hatred in higher education in the aftermath of the Hamas-led Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel. Dozens of reported antisemitic incidents transpired on its grounds, including a student’s proclaiming that Zionist Jews deserve to be murdered and are lucky he is not doing so himself and the participation of administrative officials, outraged at the notion that Jews organized to resist anti-Zionism, in a group chat in which each member took turns sharing antisemitic tropes which described Jews as privileged and grafting.
The shocking acts of hatred alone did not militate the university’s adopting a new posture to confront antisemitism on its campus. A slew of civil rights complaints, lawsuits, and the federal government’s impounding $400 million in taxpayer funds did. In July, it agreed to pay over $200 million to settle the cases, which alleged that school officials allowed Jewish students, faculty, and staff to suffer antisemitic discrimination and harassment.
Additionally, Columbia pledged to hire new coordinators to oversee complaints alleging civil rights violations; facilitate “deeper education on antisemitism” by creating new training programs for students, faculty, and staff; and adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism — a tool that advocates say is necessary for identifying what constitutes antisemitic conduct and speech. Columbia also announced new partnerships with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and vowed never to “recognize or meet with” the self-titled “Columbia University Apartheid Divest” (CUAD), a notorious pro-Hamas campus group which has serially disrupted academic life with unauthorized, surprise demonstrations attended by non-students.
Last week, Columbia University’s Antisemitism Task Force implored the school to foster “intellectual diversity” with respect to the subjects of Zionism and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, concluding its fourth and final report on the origins of antisemitism on the campus. The task force found several instances of Jewish and Israeli students being harassed on campus as well as an overwhelming anti-Israel bias among faculty.
Mamdani took issue with the establishment of the task force in the first place.
“As you know, they created a task force on antisemitism. And then they followed suggestions that … why don’t we have a task force on Islamophobia? Why don’t we have a task force on XYZ? Student experiences cover lots of, you know, grievances,” he said.
Mamdani’s reversing the roles of victim and perpetrator is a staple of anti-Israel activism in the West, which thrives on misrepresenting the power dynamic between Israelis and Palestinians while insisting that antisemitic expression, conduct, and even terrorism are legitimate means of advocating Palestinian statehood.
Earlier this year, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) sued Northwestern University to cancel a course on antisemitism prevention. The group argued that the course, which aims to discourage discrimination, violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an anti-discrimination law. CAIR added that the antisemitism Northwestern University strives to prevent manifest as legitimate “expressions of Palestinian identity, culture, and advocacy for self-determination.”
Weeks earlier, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) sued California to stop the enactment of a law to combat K-12 antisemitism. ADC said that Arabs are victims of discrimination and that fighting antisemitic harassment in accordance with the new law undermines First Amendment protections of speech unfettered by governmental interference. Furthermore, the ADC argued that the law amounts to a hijacking of American policy by Israel, an argument advanced by neo-Nazis, including Nicholas Fuentes, and commentators who promote their views such as Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens.
Such notions appear to have convinced many anti-Israel activists that escalating their conduct is acceptable.
In November, for example, hundreds of people amassed outside a prominent New York City synagogue and clamored for violence against Jews.
Mamdani’s son, Zohran, received widespread backlash from Jewish leaders and pro-Israel advocates after issuing a statement that appeared to legitimize the gathering. The younger Mamdani, who was elected the city’s next mayor last month, issued a statement that “discouraged” the extreme rhetoric used by the protesters but did not unequivocally condemn the harassment of Jews outside their own house of worship. Mamdani’s office notably also criticized the synagogue, with his team describing the event inside as a “violation of international law.” The protesters were harassing those attending an event being held by Nefesh B’nefesh, a Zionist organization that helps Jews immigrate to Israel, at Park East Synagogue in Manhattan.
Mamdani, a far-left democratic socialist and anti-Zionist, is an avid supporter of boycotting all Israeli-tied entities who has been widely accused of promoting antisemitic rhetoric. He has repeatedly accused Israel of “apartheid” and “genocide”; refused to recognize the country’s right to exist as a Jewish state; and refused to explicitly condemn the phrase “globalize the intifada,” which has been associated with calls for violence against Jews and Israelis worldwide.
Leading members of the Jewish community in New York have expressed alarm about Mamdani’s victory, fearing what may come in a city already experiencing a surge in antisemitic hate crimes.
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
Uncategorized
Israel Honors Mossad Agents for ‘Extraordinary Work,’ Intel Chief Says Duty to Stop Iran’s Nuclear Program
Israeli President Isaac Herzog (left), Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (middle), and Mossad Director David Barnea (right) attend the Mossad Excellence Awards ceremony in Jerusalem. Photo: Screenshot
Israeli President Isaac Herzog and Mossad Director David Barnea on Tuesday honored 12 employees of Israel’s renowned intelligence agency with Certificates of Excellence, recognizing their exceptional service and critical contributions to the Jewish state’s security during the past two years of war.
Marking its 15th year, the Mossad Excellence Awards ceremony was held at the President’s Residence in Jerusalem, bringing together former Mossad directors, employees, and commanders, as well as the families of the honorees.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also attended the ceremony on the third night of Hanukkah, praising the honorees for their service, dedication, and unwavering commitment to the Jewish state.
“I want to thank you for your vital part in the ‘miracles and wonders’ we are performing in these times. I have absolute faith in your ability, your daring, and your commitment,” Netanyahu said during his speech at the ceremony.
“I commend the people of Israel that we have a modern-day generation of Maccabees performing miracles and wonders,” the Israeli leader continued.
Among the recipients of the Mossad Excellence Awards were four women and eight men, including field operatives in hostile territories, recruitment and case officers, peer operators, operations personnel, cyberwarfare specialists, and leading experts in intelligence, technology, and headquarters functions.
(Communicated by the President’s Spokesperson)
Tuesday, 16 December 2025.
*President Isaac Herzog and Mossad Director David Barnea Award 12 Certificates of Excellence to Mossad Employees*
Today (Tuesday, 16 December 2025), President Isaac Herzog and Director of the Mossad… pic.twitter.com/wXqUafGKz7
— Government Press Office
(@GPOIsrael) December 16, 2025
Barnea also praised the honorees for their dedication and sacrifice, recognizing their willingness to risk their lives in service of the people of Israel and the security of the country.
“You are the 12 wonders, the excellence awardees chosen from the best of the best, representing the entire spectrum of our activities,” the Mossad chief said during remarks at the ceremony. “You are the ones who, in the past two years, saw neither day nor night, did not see your families, and were entirely immersed in our success on the battlefield.”
“You are our spearhead from the operational wings who risk their lives on a daily and hourly basis. I am proud of you. All the men and women of the Mossad are proud of you. The citizens of Israel are proud of you, even without knowing who you are or why you were chosen,” Barnea continued.
During his speech, Barnea also warned about Iran’s ongoing nuclear ambitions, reaffirming the Mossad’s commitment to countering the Iranian regime and protecting Israel against any hostile threats.
“Even though the ayatollah regime woke up one moment to discover that Iran is exposed and completely penetrated, Iran has not abandoned its ambition to destroy the State of Israel,” he said, referring to Iran’s shattered air defense capabilities, as well as its decimated nuclear sites, during the 12-day war with Israel in June.
“The idea of continuing to develop a nuclear bomb still beats in their hearts. It is our responsibility to ensure that the nuclear project, which has been mortally wounded in close cooperation with the Americans, will never be activated,” he continued.
Barnea also expressed his condolences to the families of the victims of last weekend’s deadly attack on a Hanukkah celebration at Sydney’s Bondi Beach, which left 15 attendees dead and at least 40 others wounded.
“The murderous terrorist idea of harming innocent civilians was, and remains, at the base of the current Iranian regime’s security strategy,” he said. “Our hearts are with the families of the Australian victims.”
“The purpose of these terrorist attacks is to break our spirit. Our spirit will not be broken; we will continue to celebrate our holidays and live our lives in Israel and around the world. Justice will be done and will be seen,” he continued.
The Mossad, which is assisting Australia’s investigation into the massacre, had reportedly warned Australian authorities in recent months of an increased risk of terrorist attacks targeting the Jewish community.
Uncategorized
Some people are learning the wrong lessons from Ahmed al-Ahmed
Ahmed al-Ahmed’s seizure of a gun from one of the two killers in the Bondi Beach massacre over the weekend was irresistible to anyone looking for a sliver of hope in an otherwise completely devastating attack.
And yet that wasn’t how some chose to spin it.
On parts of the left, the focus on al-Ahmed seemed to eclipse what should have been the dominant story — simmering antisemitism exploding into shocking violence — while some on the right scrambled to erase al-Ahmed’s religious identity or claim he was an aberration rather than a reminder of our shared humanity.
Rosy Pirani, a liberal social media influencer, told her nearly 700,000 followers on Instagram that the massacre was “evil” but emphasized another “truth buried under agenda-driven narratives.”
“The man who put his life on the line, stopped the attacker and saved countless Jewish lives was Muslim,” she wrote in a Monday post shared thousands of times. “Muslim violence is amplified. Muslim heroism is buried. Good Muslims don’t fit the narrative, so they’re edited out.”
In fact, al-Ahmed’s courage was being so widely celebrated that Mehdi Hasan, the veteran journalist, focused his analysis of the Bondi shooting on what it meant for Muslims.
“Even the well-meaning liberals who say, ‘Hey, look, look a Muslim saved the day! See, it proves Muslims are peaceful,’ — well it shouldn’t require a hero,” Hasan argued.
A fair point, but one that elided any discussion of the antisemitism that motivated the original massacre, which he described more simply as an inexcusable act of terrorism.
It should be indisputable by now that, among the scores who have protested Israel’s actions in Gaza over the past two years, are some who were motivated by antisemitism — or who have gravitated toward antisemitism over time — and are willing to vent their anger at Israel through violence and discrimination against Jews in the diaspora.
While the motives of the Bondi Beach perpetrators remain less clear than the D.C. and Boulder killers — who both shouted anti-Zionist slogans while carrying out their attacks — police said the younger gunman, Naveed Akram, had ties to an Islamic preacher who was recently convicted of inciting hatred for referring to Jews as a “treacherous” and “vile people” who were “descendants of apes and pigs.”
Wissam Haddad, the preacher, said that he was simply trying to convey that “what the Israeli government is doing to the people of Gaza” is “not something new.”
This kind of antisemitic logic — either that Israel’s faults are the result of it being a country run by Jews, or that its faults justify animosity toward all Jews — has become prevalent. Yet that received little discussion among many prominent left-wing figures who responded to the Sydney attack as if it were a natural disaster.
***
The lack of introspection was also glaring among Jewish leaders who seized on the attack as proof that the framework they’ve used to understand antisemitism in recent years was right all along. As Em Hilton, policy director at the left-wing Diaspora Alliance and an Australian Jew, wrote in +972 Magazine:
Before the blood of the victims had even dried, right-wing politicians and public figures — in Australia and around the world — were declaring the attack a consequence of growing anti-Zionist sentiment and pro-Palestine activism, without any proof or indication of the attackers’ motivations.
Deborah Lipstadt, President Joe Biden’s former antisemitism envoy, claimed that Zohran Mamdani had helped “facilitate” the Sydney killings by declining to condemn the slogan “globalize the intifada,” a term Mamdani has never used but which he has been asked about for months.
Meanwhile, Sen. John Fetterman, a darling of the pro-Israel crowd, rather bizzarely responded to the attack by writing on X, “I stand and grieve with Israel.”
And that’s to say nothing of how some on the right responded to al-Ahmed’s bravery. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu initially claimed that al-Ahmed was Jewish, while others online tried to insist he was a Maronite Christian rather than a Muslim.
“There were zero Ahmed al-Ahmeds in Gaza,” an anonymous pro-Israel influencer who goes by Max Nordau posted on X.
This kneejerk insistence that any political opposition to Israel — including the Australian government’s recent recognition of a Palestinian state — is to blame for the worst instances of antisemitic violence inevitably pushes Israel’s critics into a defensive posture from which they’re loath to consider whether some of their their broad demonization of “Zionists,” for example, might be fueling antisemitism.
***
The Australian massacre might have put some things in perspective, suggesting that the biggest problem facing Jews is not “globalize the intifada” — a slogan that is neither especially popular, nor described as a call for violence by many of its proponents — but rather murderous violence carried out by antisemitic zealots.
And similarly, those focused on defending Palestinian rights should perhaps have viewed the attack as a wake-up call for considering who they accept as part of their movement and who they shun, whether that’s antisemitic preachers in Sydney or protesters outside a Manhattan synagogue chanting for Hamas to “take another settler out.”
Yet sadly, I have seen tragically few good faith efforts to take stock of how we got here, and to draw an honest line in the sand that sets aside one’s views on Israel in favor of a divide between antisemites who would perpetrate or encourage this kind of horrendous violence from those who believe Jews deserve to live in safety and dignity.
Instead, the discourse on antisemitism has calcified to the point that now it seems like little more than a proxy for views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in which those most invested are loath to reconsider their positions even in the face of shocking events.
The post Some people are learning the wrong lessons from Ahmed al-Ahmed appeared first on The Forward.