America’s future depends on Trump’s promise to punish woke universities

Jonathan S. Tobin

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at a rally at Mullett Arena on Arizona State University campus in Tempe, Ariz. on Oct. 24, 2024. Photo by Ash Ponders for “The Washington Post” via Getty Images.

Occidental College seemingly waved the white flag last week in its efforts to defend itself against charges of tolerating antisemitism on its Los Angeles campus. The school agreed to a “sweeping settlement” with the Anti-Defamation League and the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law that acknowledged the ongoing hardships, harassment and discrimination faced by Jewish students since the Hamas-led massacre in southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Occidental’s apathy to all this, which was little different from what has been happening at dozens if not hundreds of other American institutions of higher learning, violated its obligations to prohibit such discrimination under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

But for many observers, the context for the agreement was not so much a belated interest by one school to address the wrongs suffered by its Jewish students. Rather, it was the fact that it came a few weeks after the election victory of Donald Trump. As one headline in a news article about the settlement put it, “College settles antisemitism claims before Trump can make good on accreditation threats.”

Trump repeatedly made clear during the 2024 election campaign that the educational establishment would be as much a target for his second administration as the denizens of the Washington “swamp” such as the liberal-dominated federal bureaucracy that did so much to sabotage and obstruct his first four years in the White House.

More will hinge, however, on whether he makes good on this promise than the fate of school administrators or even the safety of Jewish students.

Trump’s war on woke

The president-elect vowed to punish colleges and universities that tolerated not just the sort of antisemitism that went on at Occidental and so many other schools. He’s also determined to rid American higher education of the plague of “woke” ideology. That’s a term that refers to the way left-wing ideologues have conquered academia and imposed toxic ideas like critical race theory and intersectionality that divide humanity into two permanently warring groups of “white” oppressors and “people of color” who are their victims. The left’s long march through U.S. institutions—and that includes the arts, corporate America and government—has involved the indoctrination of a generation of students in the woke catechism of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) that trashes equal opportunity (the opposite of “equity”) and includes only certain approved minorities while excluding everyone else, including minorities like Jews.

Seen in that context, antisemitism is just one aspect of the broad damage that the adoption of this new secular religion by those in charge of education has been doing to America. It’s also fueling a surge in racial divisiveness and a war on the canon of Western civilization that is the foundation of a society grounded in the rule of law, which made America a great nation as well as one that was particularly hospitable to religious minorities.

That means the stakes involved in whether or not Trump keeps his vow to reform education and to turn the antisemites out are as important as any involving his second-term agenda. It represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reverse the left’s conquest of academia. If he and/or his appointees falter in their resolve, the consequences for the country as a whole and for Jews will be incalculable.

But as the coverage of the issue in liberal legacy corporate media like The New York Times and The Guardian indicates, the educational establishment and their allies on the political left and the press are determined to oppose Trump’s goals. They have already begun a campaign to obfuscate the issue and demonize efforts to roll back the woke orthodoxy as part of what they routinely and falsely describe as the next administration’s putative authoritarian putsch. The truth is just the opposite since the real authoritarians are the bureaucrats and “educators” who have been imposing their distorted neo-Marxist vision on the country while also fomenting and enabling a new wave of antisemitism.

Ironically, the legal settlement with Occidental, which was celebrated by both the ADL and the Brandeis Institute as a victory in the effort to push back against campus antisemitism, was an indication of just how feeble the effort to counteract woke antisemitism has been up until now.

The agreement involved some elements that are necessary such as efforts to train school administrators to be more aware of antisemitism and to take into account the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s working definition of antisemitism when dealing with instances of Jew-hatred.

But the lawyerly document Occidental signed leaves plenty of leeway for it to evade responsibility for future violations. It can be defended as probably as much as could be achieved in such a negotiation at this point in time.

Title VI antisemitism complaints to the U.S. Department of Education—the primary mode of carrying on the fight against this scourge in recent years—involves a lengthy process that has, to date, never resulted in any real punishment for even the most egregious violators of the rights of Jewish students. Stripping a university of its federal funding—something that is a given for any institution that engaged in open discrimination against African-Americans or Hispanics—is the sole remedy that could, if fully implemented, mean a much-needed fundamental change in the way American higher education operates.

And as long as schools retain their woke administrators and faculty, as well as curricula that discard traditional standards and help fuel antisemitism, agreements like the one with Occidental are almost certain to fail to create the kind of change that is needed.

Draining the swamp

That is why Trump’s scorched-earth approach is so necessary, even as it is being denounced by the same people who are responsible for creating or perpetuating the current mess as too extreme or even needed at all.

Trump’s stated intention of “draining the swamp” throughout the federal government is being depicted as evidence of his supposed authoritarian impulses and racism. But this is exactly the sort of argument based on a high-handed dismissal of genuine concerns and problems that have caused so many Americans to lose faith both in our educational system and in Washington.

His threats can seem crude to those accustomed to politicians being guarded in their remarks. Yet the events of the last few years—starting with the moral panic about race behind the Black Lives Matter riots and then on to the post-Oct. 7 surge in antisemitism—demonstrated that a restrained “business as usual” approach won’t cut it when the collapse of our most cherished institutions is at stake. Their transformation into purveyors of neo-Marxist indoctrination and toxic ideas that enable hatred for both the West and Jews is a crisis of enormous proportions. It is happening at both the college and graduate levels, as well as in K-12 schools where leftist teachers’ unions have also imposed the indoctrination of critical race theory.

The only reasonable response to this disaster is exactly the kind of tough-minded purge that Trump has envisioned. And far from this being an uninformed or extreme approach, Trump and his transition team are consulting with experts like Christopher Rufo, author of an authoritative and essential book on the woke plague—America’s Cultural Revolution: How the Radical Left Conquered Everything—and incorporating the ideas of “Project Esther,” a serious plan for dealing with campus antisemitism produced by The Heritage Foundation.

All of this has produced panic on the left and even among mainstream liberals who have been conditioned by partisan political rhetoric to believe that Trump is a second Hitler. They worry that he is already going too far in seeking accountability for institutions that engage in racial discrimination and tolerate antisemitism under the guise of DEI “anti-racist” policies, believing that somehow this will destroy academic freedom. What his critics fail to recognize is that American education is already enduring a catastrophic transformation that has silenced dissent against woke doctrines that seek to trash the Western canon.

A necessary sledgehammer

The only way to fix it is with the same sort of Trumpian sledgehammer that tossed aside failed ideas about the Middle East in his first term that enabled him, among other important policy changes, to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and forge the Abraham Accords. If that means executive orders reversing President Joe Biden’s DEI orders that created woke commissars in every federal agency and department, that should be welcomed. If it means closing the largely useless and counter-productive Department of Education and enacting far-reaching reforms that will defund institutions clinging to discriminatory ideas and actions, then that should be cheered by those who cherish the values of equal opportunity, merit and zero tolerance for hatred and discrimination.

More to the point, it will mean that policing antisemitism on campus will be shifted away from the ineffectual Title VI complaints to federal education bureaucrats to a campaign of lawsuits conducted not just by groups like the Deborah Project, valuable though they may be, but by the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, with all of the vast resources at its command. In this manner, a message can be sent that will likely motivate the vast majority of college administrations to discard DEI and the tolerance of hate for Jews that accompanies it.

It is impossible to know whether the new administration will succeed. But rather than worrying that he is the wrong instrument to carry out this effort or wasting time decrying his rhetoric, it’s likely that only an outlier like Trump could contemplate such a bold project or have the will to see it to its logical end. Indeed, so grave is the threat that DEI and other leftist ideas pose to the country’s future that anything short of what he has discussed would be inadequate. Instead of expressing horror at his determination to enact real change, fair-minded Americans of all faiths and in both major political parties should be rooting for him to keep his word and to do everything he promised to punish colleges and universities, in addition to any other entity that promotes the sort of woke hate that has made life for Jewish students and anyone else who dissents against the new secular orthodoxy so difficult.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of JNS (Jewish News Syndicate). Follow him @jonathans_tobin.

Israel tells JNS it’s looking into timing after it pays UN $17.6m on day of ICC warrants

Mike Wagenheim

.
Stéphane Dujarric, spokesman for the United Nations secretary-general, briefs reporters at U.N. headquarters on Oct. 9, 2023. Credit: Paulo Filgueiras/U.N. Photo.

The Israeli mission to the United Nations told JNS that it is looking into the timing of its $17.6 million payment of its U.N. dues for the year on Thursday—the same day that the International Criminal Court announced arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, the former defense minister.

In so doing, Israel became the 147th of 193 U.N. member states to pay its 2024 dues.

JNS asked Stéphane Dujarric, spokesman for António Guterres, the U.N. secretary-general, at the global body’s press briefing on Thursday if the Jewish state’s dues payment came via automatic deposit.

“If our friend, the comptroller, had automatic access to the bank accounts of 193 countries, I can tell you we would not be in the liquidity crisis that we are in,” Dujarric told JNS. “Every country pays its dues when it’s able to, when it chooses to.”

The International Criminal Court, which is based in The Hague, is a stand-alone body that is not part of the United Nations.

The court issued the arrest warrants for the Israeli prime minister and former minister in part over allegations that the Jewish state instituted a policy of starvation of Gazan civilians amid its war against Hamas.

U.N. officials have repeated assessments repeatedly in the past year from the  U.N.-aligned Integrated Food Security Phase Classification, which has projected and warned of ongoing famine.

The projections were all subsequently revisited, either revised internally or discredited by the IPC Review Committee.

Much of the data came from the United Nations. For months, Israeli officials have protested that the global body was not reflecting food deliveries into Gaza by outside groups or the private sector in its statistics, which the Jewish state says paints a more dire picture of Gaza where no starvation exists.

To date, the only known malnutrition deaths in Gaza are linked to pre-existing conditions and there is no publicly available evidence of mass starvation.

Karim Khan, The Hague court’s prosecutor, cited the IPC assessments specifically to justify, he said, charges of deliberate Israeli starvation of Gazans.

.

‘Not here to arrest people’

Dujarric said at the press briefing that the U.N. secretary-general “respects the work and the independence of the International Criminal Court.”

Despite a long-standing U.N. rule that bars contact between the global body’s officials and those subject to arrest warrants, Dujarric said that Guterres will remain in contact with Netanyahu under an exception, which allows for dealing with “fundamental issues, operational issues and our ability to carry out our mandates, including vital matters of security.”

That issue appears moot for the time being, as Netanyahu has declined to take calls from Guterres since October 2023, after the U.N. secretary-general appeared to justify Hamas’s Oct. 7 attacks by claiming that it didn’t occur “in a vacuum.”

The remarks drew condemnation across the Israeli political spectrum, triggering an immediate and harsh deterioration in Israeli-U.N. relations. Last month, Israel Katz, then-Israel’s foreign minister, declared Guterres persona non grata.

A reporter asked Dujarric if Netanyahu would be welcome at future events at the General Assembly, given the United Nations maintains its own security force. “They’re here to keep us safe, to keep the building safe,” the U.N. spokesman said. “They’re not here to arrest people.”

JNS asked Dujarric about media reports that Netanyahu met with government and military officials recently to develop a plan to have a private company take over food distribution in Gaza under Israel Defense Forces protection to try to mitigate massive looting.

Dujarric said he was unaware that the United Nations had been briefed on it.

“We continue to feel that the best way to improve the humanitarian situation of Palestinians is to do it through the international community, the humanitarian operations as they are, including with increased safety and security for them, as well as a big role for the private sector to get the economy going,” he said.

He added that the United Nations couldn’t say if it would cooperate with a private or military Israeli aid delivery program “until we’ve seen something on paper, officially.”

The United Nations has criticized the Jewish state repeatedly for, it says, failing to secure distribution routes and to protect humanitarian convoys in Gaza.

Dujarric said earlier this week that the United Nations does “not accept protection from any warring party,” as it would be “pretty obvious that we would be an even greater target if we were surrounded by armed soldiers from one of the two parties during this conflict.”

EU Ministers Reject Proposal to Suspend Dialogue With Israel

Algemeiner Staff

Let us not forget that those who collaborated with Hitler’s Germany were:
– Spain, France, Norway, Sweden, Ireland, and Turkey.
The same ones who today want to fulfill Hitler’s promises to the Muslim Arabs.

European Union foreign policy chief Josep Borrell attends a press conference on the day of EU-Ukraine Association Council in Brussels, Belgium, March 20, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Yves Herman

European Union foreign ministers on Monday did not support a proposal by the bloc’s outgoing foreign policy chief to suspend regular political dialogue with Israel in response to the Jewish state’s ongoing military campaign against the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas in Gaza.

Top EU diplomat Josep Borrell last week had proposed the suspension of dialogue in a letter to the bloc’s foreign ministers ahead of their meeting on Monday in Brussels, citing “serious concerns about possible breaches of international humanitarian law in Gaza,” the Palestinian enclave ruled by Hamas. He also wrote, “Thus far, these concerns have not been sufficiently addressed by Israel.”

The proposal was met with widespread resistance, with several ministers either expressing support for Israel’s position or arguing that severing dialogue with the Jewish state would be counterproductive.

“We know that there are tragic events in Gaza, huge civilian casualties, but we do not forget who started the current cycle of violence,” Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski told reporters after Monday’s meeting in Brussels, seemingly referring to the fact that Hamas began the conflict with its invasion of southern Israel last Oct. 7. “And I can tell you that there was no agreement on the idea of suspending negotiations with Israel.”

The regular dialogues that Borrell sought to break off were enshrined in a broader agreement on relations between the EU and Israel, including extensive trade ties, that was implemented in 2000.

“In light of the above considerations, I will be tabling a proposal that the EU should invoke the human rights clause to suspend the political dialogue with Israel,” Borrell wrote last week.

A suspension needed the approval of all 27 EU countries, an unlikely outcome from the beginning.

German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock publicly rejected the proposal last Thursday.

“We are always in favor of keeping channels of dialogue open. Of course, this also applies to Israel,” the German Foreign Office said of Borrell’s plans.

The Foreign Office added that, while the political conversations under the EU-Israel Association Council provide a regular opportunity to strengthen relations and, in recent months, discuss the provision of humanitarian aid to Gaza, severing that mechanism would make little sense.

“Breaking off dialogue, however, will not help anyone, neither the suffering people in Gaza, nor the hostages who are still being held by Hamas, nor all those in Israel who are committed to dialogue,” the statement continued.

Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp similarly said that he disagreed with the proposal and that the EU needed to continue its diplomatic dialogue with Israel.

“Apparently, the high rep [Borrell] takes a 180-degree turn. I don’t fully grasp that,” Veldkamp told reporters in Brussels. “In the view of the Netherlands, this door should be kept open, and we should start a discussion with the Israeli ministers. There will soon be a new high rep. Let’s use these opportunities to get a dialogue running, because there’s a lot to discuss, including the catastrophic humanitarian situation the Gaza Strip.”

Borrel, whose formal title is the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, is set to leave his position, with his five-year term as the EU’s foreign policy chief coming to an end next month. His successor is former Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas.

The EU has been divided over how to address the war in Gaza. While some member countries, such as Spain and Ireland, have been fiercely critical of Israel since the outbreak of the conflict, calling on the bloc to review and even suspend its free trade agreement with Israel, others have been more supportive. For example, Hungary, Austria, and the Czech Republic have so far largely backed Israel’s military efforts.

“Most of the member states considered that it was much better to continue having a diplomatic and political relationship with Israel,” Borrell told a press conference after the meeting on Monday.

“But at least I put on the table all the information produced by United Nations organizations and every international organization working in Gaza and the West Bank and in Lebanon in order to judge the way the war is being waged,” he added.

Earlier, Borrell said he had “no more words” to describe the situation in the Middle East, before chairing his last planned meeting of the bloc’s foreign ministers.

“I exhausted the words to explain what’s happening in the Middle East,” he said, citing the death toll and humanitarian crisis in Gaza. “There [are] no more words.”

Hamas launched the ongoing conflict with its invasion of southern Israel last Oct. 7. During the onslaught, Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists murdered 1,200 people, wounded thousands more, and kidnapped over 250 hostages while perpetrating mass sexual violence and other atrocities.

Israel responded with a military campaign aimed at freeing the hostages and dismantling Hamas’s military and governing capabilities in neighboring Gaza.

Israel says it has gone to unprecedented lengths to try and avoid civilian casualties, noting its efforts to evacuate areas before it targets them and to warn residents of impending military operations with leaflets, text messages, and other forms of communication. However, Hamas has in many cases prevented people from leaving, according to the Israeli military.

Another challenge for Israel is Hamas’s widely recognized military strategy of embedding its terrorists within Gaza’s civilian population and commandeering civilian facilities like hospitals, schools, and mosques to run operations, direct attacks, and store weapons.

Israeli Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon said last month that Israel has delivered over 1 million tons of aid, including 700,000 tons of food, to Gaza since it launched its military operation a year ago. He also noted that Hamas terrorists often hijack and steal aid shipments while fellow Palestinians suffer.

The Israeli government has ramped up the supply of humanitarian aid into Gaza in recent weeks under pressure from the United States, which has expressed concern about the plight of civilians in the war-torn enclave.

Nonetheless, Borrell said ahead of the meeting that his proposal was meant to put pressure on the Israeli government after it had, in his view, ignored several pleas to adhere to international law in the Gaza war.

“Many people tried to stop the war in Gaza … this has not happened yet. And I don’t see a hope for this to happen. That’s why we have to put pressure on the Israeli government, and also, obviously on the Hamas side,” Borrell said, without mentioning Hamas’s rejection of recent ceasefire proposals.

Borrell has been one of the EU’s most outspoken critics of Israel over the past year. Just six weeks after Hamas’s Oct. 7 attacks, he drew a moral equivalence between Israel and the terrorist group while speaking to the European Parliament, accusing both of having carried out “massacres” while insisting that it is possible to criticize Israeli actions “without being accused of not liking the Jews.”

Borrell’s speech followed a visit to the Middle East the prior week. While in Israel, he delivered what the Spanish daily El Pais described as the “most critical message heard so far from a representative of the European Union regarding Israel’s response to the Hamas attack of Oct. 7.”

“Not far from here is Gaza. One horror does not justify another,” Borrell said at a joint press conference alongside then-Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen. “I understand your rage. But let me ask you not to let yourself be consumed by rage. I think that is what the best friends of Israel can tell you, because what makes the difference between a civilized society and a terrorist group is the respect for human life. All human lives have the same value.”

Months later, in March of this year, Borrell claimed that Israel was imposing a famine on Palestinian civilians in Gaza and using starvation as a weapon of war. His comments came a few months before the United Nations Famine Review Committee (FRC), a panel of experts in international food security and nutrition, rejected the assertion that northern Gaza was experiencing famine, citing a lack of evidence. Borrell’s comments prompted outrage from Israel.

In August, Borrell pushed EU member states to impose sanctions on some Israeli ministers.

On Monday, beyond his push to suspend EU-Israel dialogue, Borrell also sought to introduce a ban on the import of products from Israeli settlements in “occupied Palestinian territories according with the rules of the International Court of Justice.”

Under US Pressure to Expel Hamas, Qatar Keeps Double-Dealing

Yaakov Lappin / JNS.org

Qatar’s Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani makes statements to the media with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, in Doha, Qatar, Oct. 13, 2023. Photo: Jacquelyn Martin/Pool via REUTERS

The United States is pressuring Qatar to expel Hamas leaders from its territory due to the terrorist organization’s refusal to consider even a short ceasefire and new suggestions for a hostage release deal with Israel.

According to international media reports, Qatar is under American comply with an ultimatum to expel the senior Palestinian terrorists.

While Qatar has confirmed that it is stalling its mediation efforts in the indirect hostages-for-terrorists exchange talks between Israel and Hamas, it has not confirmed that it is ousting Hamas members.

Jonathan Schanzer, senior vice president for research at the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies, said, “This is pressure from Senate Republicans, amplified by Trump’s electoral victory. The Biden team appears to be trying to take credit for something that was spurred by others.

“The regime in Doha is trying to simultaneously confirm and deny the news. This is consistent with Qatar’s double-dealing. The goal right now should be to squeeze the regime to jettison Hamas,” he added.

While it is “unclear how Trump’s arrival will change any of this,” Schanzer assessed, the fear of a shift in American policy “is undeniably pushing Doha to make these moves and announcements.”

Meanwhile, “the Qataris are going to continue to buy up assets in the United States, regardless of who is president. This is their way of gaining leverage over our leaders in politics and business,” said Schanzer. “I believe that the next administration needs to conduct a careful and thorough review of these sovereign investments. The amount of money that Qatar has invested in this country is staggering. But it has not yet been made clear why it has invested so much—especially in sectors like education that do not yield a financial return.”

The Biden administration’s ‘last card’

Brandon Friedman, director of research at Tel Aviv University’s Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies, told JNS that US pressure on Qatar is the Biden administration’s “last card to play. How effective it will be depends on how Hamas—and Qatar—perceive the Trump administration. My guess is that the Qataris suspect the Trump administration will ask them to expel Hamas, so there is no harm in playing this card now and preemptively dealing with a potential source of tension with the new administration.”

According to Friedman, “The Qataris use their relations with various Islamist and jihadi groups as foreign policy tools to advance and protect their interests. Even if they expel Hamas, they will continue to host factions of the Muslim Brotherhood and let Al Jazeera be used to promote the Brotherhood’s ideology. It is also unclear whether the US asked Qatar to end its role as financial backer and conduit for Hamas’s extensive regional network of businesses and charities, which funded its terror infrastructure.”

(Hamas began as the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.)

Qatar, Friedman said, “was traumatized by the Saudi-led June 2017 blockade that lasted until the end of the Trump presidency. The blockade was imposed shortly after Trump’s visit to the Saudi kingdom. The Qataris are likely to make every effort to earn the good favor of the Trump administration.”

Asked to address the American military’s ongoing use of Qatar’s Al Udeid Airbase, which Doha spent a very large some of money to build and develop, Freidman said, “I don’t view the US as dependent on Al Udeid. I see it as a source of leverage for the US in dealing with Qatar. It is a symbol of US protection.

“If the US withdrew from Al Udeid, Qatar would feel unprotected. In fact, one might argue it is not a coincidence that the US quietly renewed its lease of Al Udeid for another 10 years after the Qataris brokered the November [2023] deal for the hostages. It was almost as if it was a reward for good behavior or a service provided.”

Addressing Doha’s global investments, Friedman said that “Qatar can use its immense wealth to purchase US arms, which would likely be viewed favorably by Trump. It can also invest its energy wealth in the US economy, which is one of the ways Saudi Arabia won favor with the first Trump administration. It is worth noting that Qatar has been substantially increasing its activities in both of these areas—US weapons purchases [$1 billion in 2022] and investments in the US economy over the past five to 10 years.”

‘No longer serves its purpose’

On Nov. 9, Reuters reported that Qatar is stalling its Gaza ceasefire mediation. Doha informed Hamas and Israel it will “stall its efforts to mediate a Gaza ceasefire and hostage release deal until they show ‘willingness and seriousness’ to resume talks,” the news agency stated on Saturday, citing the Qatari Foreign Ministry.

“The Gulf country has been working alongside the United States and Egypt for months on fruitless talks between the warring sides in Gaza,” said the report.

“The Qatari ministry also said press reports on the future of the Hamas political office in Doha were inaccurate without specifying how,” it added. On Friday, Reuters cited a US official as confirming that Washington asked Doha to expel Hamas, and that the Qataris had “passed this message on to Hamas.”

Reuters also cited an unnamed official briefed on the matter as stating on Saturday that “Qatar had concluded that with its mediation efforts paused, Hamas’ political office there ‘no longer serves its purpose.’”

Hamas has denied being told to leave the Gulf state, which has hosted it since 2012.

Były prezydent Bill Clinton omawia działania pomocowe z pułkownikiem Buckiem Eltonem, dowódcą Special Operations Command South Forward-Haiti, Port-au-Prince, Haiti, 18 stycznia 2010 r. Źródło: sierżant sztabowy Jeremy Lock/US Air Force Photo.

Kłamstwa Amosa Schockena, prawdy Billa Clintona

Ruthie Blum
Tłumaczenie: Małgorzata Koraszewska

Amos Schocken przemawia na konferencji „Izrael po 7 października: sojusznicy czy sami?” w Londynie, 27 października 2024 r. Źródło: YouTube/Haaretz.

To ta sama tragiczna ironia, jaka spotkała zasymilowanych Żydów w Europie, którym nie oszczędzono komór gazowych. To samo dotyczyło członków kibuców w południowym Izraelu, którzy dążyli i pracowali na rzecz pokoju ze swoimi palestyńskimi sąsiadami. Ich polityczne wsparcie i rzeczywista pomoc dla mieszkańców Gazy nie uchroniły ich przed wrogością, która została uwolniona z pełną, przerażającą siłą podczas tego pamiętnego święta Simchat Tora.

Mimo to Schocken nie powstrzymał się od wylewania swoich jadowitych obelg.

„Rząd Netanjahu chce kontynuować i nasilić nielegalne osadnictwo na terytoriach, które miały być państwem palestyńskim  – oświadczył. – Nie obchodzi go narzucanie okrutnego reżimu apartheidu ludności palestyńskiej. Odrzuca koszty obu stron za obronę osiedli, podczas gdy walczy z palestyńskimi bojownikami o wolność, których Izrael nazywa terrorystami”.

Reżim apartheidu. Bojownicy o wolność, których Izrael nazywa terrorystami. Wow.

„Jedynym sposobem na tak katastrofalny rząd jest poproszenie innych krajów o wywarcie presji, tak jak to miało miejsce w przypadku zakończenia apartheidu w Republice Południowej Afryki  – kontynuował. – W grudniu 2016 r. Rada Bezpieczeństwa ONZ przyjęła rezolucję 2334, która stwierdza, że terytorium nie może zostać zdobyte siłą; sprzeciwia się budowie osiedli, w tym tzw. ‘naturalnemu wzrostowi’ osiedli; i przewiduje likwidację wszystkich osiedli zbudowanych od marca 2001 r. w ramach dwóch demokratycznych państw żyjących w pokoju, obok siebie, w uznanych granicach”.

Następnie stwierdził: „Kolejne rządy Izraela całkowicie zignorowały tę rezolucję i działały tak, jakby ona nie istniała. Nie tylko kontynuowały budowę osiedli, ale obecny rząd również wspiera czystki etniczne Palestyńczyków z części okupowanych terytoriów. W pewnym sensie to, co dzieje się teraz na okupowanych terytoriach i w części Gazy, jest drugą Nakbą”.

Kiedy rozpętało się piekło z powodu kłamliwego opisu Izraela, który istniał jedynie w umysłach tych, którzy chcieli, żeby zniknął, Schocken dodał później wyjaśnienie.

„Przemyślałem to, co powiedziałem – ogłosił w czwartek. – Na świecie i w historii jest wielu bojowników o wolność, być może także na drodze do ustanowienia państwa Izrael, którzy prowadzili szokujące i straszne działania terrorystyczne i krzywdzili niewinnych ludzi, aby osiągnąć swoje cele. Powinienem był powiedzieć: ‘Bojownicy o wolność, którzy również stosują metody terrorystyczne i z którymi należy walczyć’. Stosowanie terroryzmu nie jest uzasadnione”.

Wniosek był oczywisty: Żydzi również stosowali złe metody, aby uzyskać państwowość. Jednak ta sprytna sztuczka, o której myślał, że jest taka zgrabna, nie wzbudziła sympatii, nie mówiąc już o oklaskach.

Co prowadzi nas do drugiego przemówienia, które również miało oszałamiający efekt, ale z zupełnie innego powodu. To przemówienie wygłosił były prezydent USA Bill Clinton.

Na wiecu Kamali Harris w środę w kluczowym stanie Michigan, Clinton zwrócił się do wyborców, którzy wystąpili przeciwko kandydatce Demokratów za rzekomo niewybaczalne poparcie jej administracji dla Izraela. Uczynił to, prostując fakty dotyczące stosunku Palestyńczyków do państwa żydowskiego.

Choć rozpoczął przemówienie od wezwania do ponownego rozpoczęcia „procesu pokojowego”, przyznał, kto jest winny za kolejne niepowodzenia.

„Rozumiem, dlaczego młodzi Palestyńczycy i arabscy Amerykanie w Michigan uważają, że zginęło zbyt wielu ludzi  – zaczął. – Ale jeśli mieszkałeś w jednym z tych kibuców w Izraelu, tuż obok Gazy, gdzie ludzie byli najbardziej za przyjaźnią z Palestyną – te społeczności tuż obok Gazy były najbardziej za rozwiązaniem w postaci dwóch państw ze wszystkich społeczności izraelskich, a Hamas je zmasakrował”.

Kontynuował:

„Ludzie, którzy krytykują [odpowiedź Izraela], zasadniczo mówią: ‘Tak, ale spójrz, ilu ludzi zabiliście w odwecie. Ilu zabitych wystarczy, żeby ukarać ich za straszne rzeczy, które zrobili?’ To wszystko brzmi ładnie, dopóki nie uświadomisz sobie, co byś zrobił, gdyby to była twoja rodzina i nie zrobiłeś nic poza wspieraniem ojczyzny dla Palestyńczyków, a pewnego dnia przyjdą po ciebie i wymordują ludzi w twojej wiosce. Powiedziałbyś: ‘Musisz mi wybaczyć, ale nie będę tak prowadził rachunku’. Nie chodzi o to, ilu musieliśmy zabić, ponieważ Hamas dba o to, aby chronili go cywile. Zmuszą cię do zabicia cywilów, jeśli chcesz się bronić”.

Przywołując fakt, że to on gościł rozmowy w Camp David w 2000 r., które miały doprowadzić do zawarcia traktatu, który doprowadziłby do powstania niepodległego państwa palestyńskiego, Clinton przyznał: „Słuchajcie, ciężko nad tym pracowałem. I jedynym razem, kiedy [szef OWP] Jaser Arafat nie powiedział mi prawdy, było, gdy obiecał mi, że zaakceptuje porozumienie pokojowe, które wypracowaliśmy, które dałoby Palestyńczykom państwo na 96% Zachodniego Brzegu i 4% Izraela — i mogliby wybrać, które 4% Izraela. Więc mieliby wpływ na ten sam obszar całego Zachodniego Brzegu. Mieliby stolicę we wschodniej Jerozolimie”.

Zatrzymując się, by wyrazić żal zmieszany z frustracją, rzucił: „Z trudem o tym mówię”.

Następnie przedstawił rzeczywisty stan rzeczy, podkreślając szczegóły.

„Oni [Palestyńczycy] mieliby równy dostęp, przez cały dzień, każdego dnia, do wież bezpieczeństwa, które Izrael utrzymywał na całym Zachodnim Brzegu aż do Wzgórz Golan. Wszystko to zostało zaoferowane, w tym — powtórzę to jeszcze raz — stolica we wschodniej Jerozolimie i dwie z czterech dzielnic Starego Miasta w Jerozolimie, potwierdzone przez premiera Izraela, Ehuda Baraka i jego gabinet. A [Palestyńczycy] powiedzieli nie. Myślę, że częściowo wynikało to z tego, że Hamas nie dbał o ojczyznę dla Palestyńczyków. Chcieli zabić Izraelczyków i uczynić Izrael nienadający się do zamieszkania”.

Cóż, oświadczył, „Mam dla nich wiadomość. [Żydzi] byli tam pierwsi. Zanim ich wiara [islam] istniała, [Żydzi] byli tam, w czasach króla Dawida, a najbardziej wysunięte na południe plemiona miały Judeę i Samarię”.

Zakończył, wyjaśniając, dlaczego zniszczenie Izraela nie leży w interesie ani Palestyńczyków, ani Amerykanów, którzy ich popierają. Czy jego argumenty przekonały przynajmniej niektórych niezdecydowanych, nie wiadomo. Trudno sobie wyobrazić, aby tłum skandujący „From the River to the Sea” zaakceptował jego historycznie dokładną relację.

Szkoda, że nie głosił tego na cały świat przez ostatnie dwie i pół dekady. To samo dotyczy Ehuda Baraka, który jest zbyt zajęty krytyką i próbami obalenia rządu Netanjahu, by angażować się w prawdomówność lub w jakiś rachunek sumienia.

Gdyby on i jego wywrotowa grupka czytających „Haaretz” przestali zadzierać z dumą nosy i spuścili głowy z pokorą, jeśli nie ze wstydu, mogliby zrozumieć, dlaczego izraelski obóz pokojowy rozpadał się na przestrzeni lat, aż w końcu, w wyniku tego, co się stało 7 października 2023 r. praktycznie zniknął.

Ruthie Blum emerytowana wieloletnia publicystka „Jerusalm Post”.