Archive | December 2023

American Jews Need to Stop Being Stupid About Politics

American Jews Need to Stop Being Stupid About Politics


JULIA HAHN


And start taking policy seriously.
.

A pro-Palestinian demonstrator places a Palestinian flag on a menorah on New Haven Green, Dec. 10, 2023 / @JAKE_THE_LAWYER_ VIA INSTAGRAM
.

In the aftermath of Oct. 7, the assault on American Jewish liberal reality has come from all sides: from universities, favored media outlets, Hollywood, and the political leaders for whom many American Jews had voted and donated large sums of money. The day following the attack, the Biden White House held a barbecue for staff—apparently the events of the day prior didn’t call for a postponement of festivities. That weekend, the administration pushed out not one, but two tweets (which were subsequently deleted) pressing for a cease-fire before Israel had finished counting its dead. Since then, the administration has made a point of emphasizing that its main priority following the war’s end is the speedy establishment of a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank. Apparently, Palestinians are to be rewarded for the mass killing of Jews, while Israelis will be forced to live with the imminent threat of a repeat of Oct. 7—this time coming from two fronts instead of one.

It is no surprise, then, that the social signaling from the White House has made itself felt wherever progressives hold power. Academics at esteemed universities made statements explaining that Hamas’ savagery was justified. It would seem that the violent gang rape of Jewish women—unlike so many unfortunate college frat house dalliances—is not black and white, and instead requires “context” and endless questioning of the victims, who are often proclaimed to be fake.

Former President Barack Obama exhibited true restraint and waited until after the weekend had passed before he put forward his statement about the events of Oct. 7. When the cerebral Obama eventually chose to elaborate on his views in an interview, he characterized the situation of the Palestinian people as “unbearable.” “You have to admit that nobody’s hands are clean, that all of us are complicit to some degree,” blathered the former president, who had championed and signed the Iran nuclear deal.

American Jews need to be clear about their own interests and opt out of the political verticals that are pushing them to engage in self-harm.

While we were perhaps not surprised to see an outpouring of support for Hamas in the Europe Angela Merkel made, conditions in the U.S. were not much different. Over 300,000 pro-Palestinian protesters gathered in D.C. for a rally in which they attempted to scale the White House gates, vandalized public property, and defaced the “People’s House” with painted red “bloody” handprints in what ABC News described as a “passionate” protest. In New York, pro-Palestinian protesters climbed flag poles to tear down American flags and attempted to break down the doors of Grand Central station, temporarily closing access to the terminal. Jewish kids on a college campus cowered in fear, trapped in the library as pro-Palestinian students jeered outside. Hasidic Jews in Crown Heights were warned to stay indoors on Shabbat. In Los Angeles, a 69-year-old Jewish man was allegedly struck on the head by a pro-Palestinian protester with a megaphone resulting in his death, in what the medical examiner ruled as a homicide—or as an NBC News headline put it, “Man dies after hitting head.”

The insanity seemed unending. Black Lives Matter came out on the side of Hamas—could it be that the BLM movement doesnt actually care about the persecution of a historic minority? pro-BLM Jews began to wonder. Queers for Palestine made their alliances known at every major rally. All of a sudden, many American Jewish liberals began to notice that those rag-tag groups of victims with whom they had previously allied themselves did not seem superfocused on justice or peace. Rather, they were hellbent on the dissolution of the so-called “oppressor” class, “by any means necessary.”

American Jewish liberals realized in the last two months that even though they represent only 0.2% of the global population and were nearly exterminated in Nazi gas chambers 80 years ago, they do not qualify as one of the oppressed minorities that they had so passionately advocated for. They were in fact the “oppressor” that “movements for justice” hope to destroy.

Antisemitism and Political Verticals

Over the course of two months, American Jews witnessed the vaporization of what they had previously imagined to be the best era, in the greatest country, for Jews in history. Wealthy Jews began questioning what had been done with the many millions of dollars they had donated to their alma maters. Some even began to wonder about all the money they donated to the Democratic Party. But voting for Republicans still appears to be a bridge too far. In fact, the first poll of U.S. Jewish voters since Oct. 7, shows 74% approval of Biden’s approach on Israel and Gaza, and 68% of U.S. Jewish voters backing Biden over Trump.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre has given us a good glimpse into what an afterthought the Jews are for the president, who allegedly ran for office because of Charlottesville. When asked on Oct. 23 about the rise in antisemitic attacks since the beginning of the war in Gaza, she refused both times to address them at the podium. The White House had not seen “any credible threats” of increased antisemitism, the press secretary said, as she pivoted and read from her binder about the increase in “hate-fueled” Islamophobic attacks. When asked about antisemitic protests on college campuses, she said simply that she was “not going to go into” that.

Being serious about antisemitism means being wise to the administration’s belitting of antisemitism by juxtaposing it with other forms of “hate.” It also means being discerning about what actually counts as antisemitism. The administration feels it can get away with its relativization of antisemitism in part because, for too long, we have allowed those in authority to claim that attacking liberal policies is somehow an attack on Judaism—or that attacking prominent supporters of Iran apologists and far-left ideologues like George Soros is inherently antisemitic.

But in pretending that anti-liberalism is antisemitism, we’ve allowed ourselves to be distracted and emotionally manipulated by people who do not have the best interests of American Jews at heart, and whose preferred policies—including large-scale immigration from countries where antisemitism is rampant—pose a clear and obvious danger to Jewish lives.

The latest prominent individual to find himself the victim of the left’s faux antisemitic manipulation campaign is Elon Musk, whose crime was essentially agreeing with someone who criticized the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and some American Jews for not being in touch with reality. The White House was quick to pounce, calling it a “hideous lie.” While unartfully articulated, this claim was not antisemitic. A Tablet editorial in October, for instance, criticized the ADL for having become a “handmaiden of power.”

A well-organized campaign highlighting Musk’s “antisemitic” post is now bent on forcing advertisers from Musk’s platform—using the lie of Musk’s antisemitism to damage a public figure they see as a political enemy. Interestingly, we have seen no similar news coverage of the companies that have been pressured into joining this campaign—which include Apple, Comcast, Disney, IBM, Lions Gate, NBC Universal, Paramount, and Warner Brothers—for advertising on TikTok, the Chinese communist-run social media platform that algorithmically pushes far more openly antisemitic content than either X or Instagram.

Allowing political manipulators to play on the fears of a besieged community by convincing them to act against their own interests is worse than manipulative—it is sick and sadistic. Instead of signing on, American Jews need to be clear about their own interests and opt out of the political verticals that are pushing them to engage in self-harm.

We cannot be sidetracked from squarely facing threats to our lives and to our hard-won positions in American life. “The Jewish principle of tikkun olam” is not a commandment by which G-d Almighty mandates voting for the Democratic Party, nor is it a commandment that decrees the expansion of Jew-hating DEI bureaucracies into every corner of American institutional and corporate life.

The argument one now hears from American Jewish liberals searching for an excuse not to have to vote with conservatives is that there are right-wing antisemites, too. While that is obviously true, it amounts to the observation that vile antisemitism exists everywhere, just as it always has. The question is where is it being rewarded, celebrated, and institutionalized. As Yoram Hazony writes in a post on X: “the anti-Semitic right still has only a tiny fraction of the real public presence and political influence that is wielded by the anti-Semitic left and [its] close allies … It is the anti-Semitic left that is flooding the campuses and the streets and inciting to violence throughout the West. Nothing remotely on this scale has been organized by anti-Semitic elements on the right in the decades [sic].”

Antisemitism and Democratic Foreign Policy

The media, of course, wants you to believe otherwise. That is why it has spent the last seven years screaming that Donald Trump is literally Hitler. Yes, the president who brokered historic Mideast peace agreements, recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and moved the American Embassy there, acknowledged Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, withdrew the U.S. from the United Nations’ Human Rights Council because of its anti-Israel bias, and made Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act apply to antisemitic discrimination is “literally Hitler.” This lie is no different from when Vice President Joe Biden told African Americans in 2012 that the Republican Party of Mitt Romney was planning to “put y’all back in chains.”

Israel shouldn’t be a partisan issue, many liberal Jews demur. Except, it is. In fact, pretending that Israel is not a partisan issue requires one to ignore both the evidence of the present moment as well as the eight-year long record of the Obama administration, when the Democratic Party openly threatened its Jewish voters and supporters if they didn’t support the new policy of realignment with the Jew-hating theocracy in Iran, which eventually sponsored the Oct. 7 attacks.

While the media has hosted us to a barrage of puff pieces about how deeply Biden personally cares about Israel, his administration’s policies suggest otherwise. Prior to Oct. 7, these actions included: restarting assistance worth hundreds of millions of dollars for the West Bank and Hamas-controlled Gaza, which the Trump administration had previously stopped; reengaging Iran and unfreezing $6 billion in funds for Tehran, and extending a sanctions waiver that allows the Iranians to access another $10 billion; and gifting Iran a monetary windfall, with which Iran could potentially fund Hamas terrorism, by failing to enforce Iranian oil sanctions. Post-Oct. 7, the administration has tried to strong-arm Israel into a cease-fire; announced it would veto an Israel-only aid bill with bipartisan support unless it also included far more controversial funding for Ukraine; and, like a Norm Macdonald joke brought back to life, launched a national strategy to counter Islamophobia less than a month after the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust.

Here, too, the counterargument one often hears—for example from New York Times columnist Bret Stephens on Nov. 7, is that antisemitism is just as bad or worse on the “neo-isolationist right,” which “would be mainstreamed by a second Trump term.” In essence, people like Stephens warn American Jews against a second term for the most pro-Israel president in modern American history because that administration might also reject the views of the foreign policy establishment. American Jews simply cannot pretend that the isolationist right and its supposed lack of support for NATO are a bigger threat than those on the left calling for the eradication of the only Jewish state, justifying Hamas’ beheading of Jewish babies, and desecrating posters of kidnapped Jewish children. Now that we have seen what genocidal antisemitism looks like with our own eyes, in our own lifetimes, we cannot afford to continue to pretend that disagreements about foreign policy are somehow the same as attempts to exterminate us.

Antisemitism and Immigration

While the media will continue to generate a lot of noise about who’s better on Israel and whose antisemitism is worse, the truth is that on the other critical issues concerning American Jews, there is no doubt where our interests lie. Chief among these issues is immigration. Almost every Democratic figure, including Israel supporters like Hillary Clinton and John Fetterman, also support importing huge inflows of people who are hostile to Jews. Indeed, prominent Democrats such as Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin and Washington Rep. Pramila Jayapal are demanding the Biden administration allow large numbers of Palestinians to migrate to the United States.

Regardless of how you feel about the conflict or the treatment of the Palestinian people, the fact remains that according to recent polling, 75% of Palestinians say that they support Hamas’ savagery on Oct. 7. It is a gross understatement to say that bringing in huge numbers of like-minded individuals from the Palestinian territories and other places in the region where Jew hatred and terrorism are salient, will not lead America into the progressive and inclusive future liberals claim they want to create. It will, however, greatly exacerbate and increase antisemitism in America, the way it has in France, Germany, and Great Britain.

Watching the events of the past month, many American Jewish liberals have quietly begun to acknowledge what conservatives have been warning against for decades: that much of the antisemitic radicalism we see on the streets of large American cities and on college campuses does not look or feel “home-grown.” Bringing the “Arab Street” to the streets of New York and Los Angeles hardly seems like a good idea, especially if you are Jewish.

The problem posed by importing foreign nationals from countries where Jew-hatred has been normalized has proven to be particularly acute on college campuses—whose administrators have become complicit in supporting the vile prejudices of many of their students. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has acknowledged that the reason it didn’t suspend pro-Palestinian students who threatened Jews was because they could face deportation as a result, since they are not U.S. citizens. The anti-Israel students at Harvard similarly indicated that their immigration status would suffer if their universities imposed consequences for their vile actions.

Why should American Jews advocate for the admission of people to the United States who want to kill us? Why are we turning our universities—many of them generously funded by Jewish donors—into shields to prevent Jew-hating maniacs from being deported under U.S. law, which denies a visa to any alien who endorses or espouses terrorist activity, and instead educate them at our expense? How is it that when a former Hamas leader calls for a “global day of jihad,” Americans thousands of miles away— especially young Jews—have to brace themselves for it?

George W. Bush once said his war strategy in the Middle East was to “fight them over there so we do not have to face them in the United States of America.” If the pro-Palestinian protests of the last several weeks across Europe and the United States are any indication, that strategy does not seem to have aged well, thanks in part to immigration policies that verge on madness. Hundreds of thousands of American Jews have relatives and ancestors who fled Jew-hatred in countries like Iran, Egypt, Libya, and Iraq, where their families lived for centuries. The idea that Jews now willingly support importing those same murderous hatreds to America defies belief.

In a moment when American Jews seem to be asking themselves many new questions, immigration is certainly a good place to start. Where is the progressive and enlightened America that supporters of open borders promised? Is it possible mass immigration has not been an unalloyed good? Could it be that importing people who do not share the values of our nation was perhaps a risky experiment—especially for vulnerable minorities such as Jews?

In a recent piece in The Atlantic, David Leonhardt argues that if we want to have an immigration policy that serves our national interest, we must move away from the trope that more immigration is always better, and instead begin by asking not only how many people we should be admitting, but also who we want to make our fellow citizens. As a people who have always celebrated rational inquiry, Jews should be at the forefront of this effort—especially now that we have seen the consequences of avoiding uncomfortable questions.


Julia Hahn is a Jewish American writer and former deputy White House communications director.


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com


To replace Santos, NY GOP taps Ethiopian-born, Orthodox IDF veteran

To replace Santos, NY GOP taps Ethiopian-born, Orthodox IDF veteran

ANDREW BERNARD


Mazi Melesa Pilip is a “remarkable candidate,” said Matt Brooks, CEO of the Republican Jewish Coalition, in an endorsement.

.

Mazi Melesa Pilip. Source: YouTube/CBS News New York.
.

New York Republicans selected Mazi Melesa Pilip, an Ethiopian-born, Orthodox Jew and Israel Defense Forces veteran, on Thursday to run for New York’s 3rd Congressional District.

A current Nassau County legislator, Pilip is running for the seat that Republican Rep. George Santos held before being expelled from the U.S. House of Representatives, on Dec. 1, following federal criminal indictments for fraud. It was also revealed that Santos had fabricated his backstory, including his supposed Jewish heritage.

Santos’s inventions stand in dramatic contrast with Pilip’s real-life biography. Born in Ethiopia, she emigrated to Israel as a refugee in 1991 as part of an Israeli operation to airlift Ethiopian Jews. She served in the IDF as a paratrooper before moving to the United States with her husband and becoming a U.S. citizen. A mother of seven, Pilip was first elected to the Nassau County legislature in 2021.

The New York 3rd district special election holds national significance, given how narrowly Republicans control the House. Following the expulsion of Santos, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) wields an eight-seat, fractious majority. 

“Winning this battleground seat is critical to maintaining the GOP majority in the House of Representatives,” Matt Brooks, CEO of the Republican Jewish Coalition, said in a statement. He endorsed Pilip, whom he called “a remarkable candidate whose strength of character and firm principles are clear to anyone who looks at her life story and her work.”

NY-03 was one of several Republican pickups in New York in the 2022 midterms, though Pilip will face a difficult challenger in the Democratic nominee, Tom Souzzi, who previously held the seat and has been a figure in Long Island politics for decades.

The special election will be held on Feb. 13.


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com


Zdumiewająca naiwność Izraelofobów. Zachodnie oburzenie wywołane wyłapywaniem przez IDF podejrzanych członków Hamasu jest absurdalnym kwiecistym moralizowaniem.

Zdumiewająca naiwność Izraelofobów. Zachodnie oburzenie wywołane wyłapywaniem przez IDF podejrzanych członków Hamasu jest absurdalnym kwiecistym moralizowaniem.
Brendan O’Neill

Tłumaczenie:  Małgorzata Koraszewska


Co zatem jest dziś zbrodnią wojenną? Zmuszanie pokonanych wrogów do oddania broni jest dziś zbrodnią wojenną. Zobaczcie gwałtowne reakcje emocjonalne Izraelofobów po nagraniu przedstawiającym mężczyzn w wieku poborowym w pobliżu Dżabalii w Gazie przekazujących broń IDF. Mężczyźni są rozebrani do kalesonów. Wyglądają na pokonanych. Podnoszą ręce z karabinami szturmowymi i uroczyście odkładają je na stos skonfiskowanej broni. Legion nienawidzący Izraela w zachodnim, uprzejmym społeczeństwie jest zbulwersowany. Sięgają po sole trzeźwiące. Nigdy nie widzieli takiego upokorzenia. Czyżby urodzili się wczoraj?

Wyjaśnijmy sobie to wprost: przetrzymywanie mężczyzn w wieku poborowym na podbitym właśnie terytorium jest całkowicie normalną praktyką podczas wojny. Kurdowie złapali dziesiątki tysięcy podejrzanych o przynależność do ISIS w północno-wschodniej Syrii. Oraz członków ich rodzin. Wojska amerykańskie aresztowały podejrzanych o przynależność do Al-Kaidy w Afganistanie. Wątpię, czy znajdziesz w historii choć jedną wojnę, w której zwycięska armia nie wypędziłaby mężczyzn w wieku poborowym na rynek miejski, aby dowiedzieć się, którzy są wojownikami, a którzy nie. To nie zbrodnia, to wojna.

Reakcja rozpieszczonych, nienawidzących Izraela ludzi Zachodu na zgromadzenie mężczyzn przez IDF w Gazie jest surrealistyczna. Przysięgam, że w ich szeregach było więcej oburzenia z powodu widoku podejrzanych z Hamasu w kalesonach niż z powodu izraelskich kobiet, których zmaltretowane ciała przewieziono przez ulice Gazy 7 października, aby tłum mógł je kopać i pluć na nie. Martwe ciało kobiety na tylnym siedzeniu ciężarówki to „opór”; próba znalezienia ludzi, którzy przyłożyli rękę do tego rasistowskiego i mizoginicznego okrucieństwa, jest „zbrodnią” – to pokręcone dwójmyślenie, które obecnie panuje na rozgorączkowanej antyizraelskiej lewicy.

W zeszłym tygodniu opublikowano różne zdjęcia nagich mężczyzn z zawiązanymi oczami. Wszystkie wywołały napady irytacji wśród obłudnych bufonów w Internecie. Kenneth Roth, były dyrektor Human Rights Watch, był wściekły z powodu izraelskich „naruszeń godności osobistej”, które są zabronione przez Konwencje Genewskie, jak wyniośle przypomniał temu małemu, aroganckiemu państwu. Izrael potępia Hamas za branie zakładników, a mimo to także angażuje się w „poniżające traktowanie”, pisze Roth. Przeraża mnie to, że człowiek, który przez prawie 30 lat stał na czele Human Rights Watch, nie potrafi dostrzec różnicy pomiędzy porwaniem ośmioletniej dziewczynki przez mężczyzn owładniętych apokaliptyczną nienawiścią rasową do grupy etnicznej tej dziewczynki, a armią przeszukującą potencjalnych terrorystów, by odebrać im broń.

Największą pianę na ustach wywołało rozebranie mężczyzn do bielizny. To „celowe upokorzenie” – twierdzi Roth. Te obrazy „podsumowują oszustwo zachodniej supremacji moralnej” – pisze Owen Jones z Guardiana”. Jones ma historię wypowiedzi w kwestii bielizny. Pamiętacie, jak napisał, że zdjęcie bielizny z jednej z młodych Żydówek zamordowanych przez Hamas 7 października nie jest wystarczającym dowodem, że została zgwałcona? Jednak obecnie zdjęcia mężczyzn w wieku poborowym, którym pozwolono przynajmniej zachować bieliznę, są żelaznym dowodem moralnej dwulicowości świata zachodniego. Jeśli obrazy żywych mężczyzn w bieliźnie przerażają was bardziej niż zdjęcia martwych kobiet bez bielizny, to naprawdę nie wiem, co mam powiedzieć.

Roth, Jones i inni podsumowują infantylne oderwanie od rzeczywistości najbardziej krzykliwych krytyków Izraela. Dla większości z nas jest całkowicie jasne, dlaczego podejrzani zostali rozebrani – ponieważ Hamas jest znany z ataków samobójczych, a IDF musi mieć pewność, że żaden z podejrzanych nie ma ukrytych pod ubraniem bomb. To nie jest wielka filozofia. W ciągu ostatnich 20 lat w samobójczych zamachach bombowych zginęły setki Izraelczyków. W autobusach, na targowiskach, w kawiarniach. Bardzo dużą liczbę tych ataków przeprowadzili terroryści Hamasu, z których większość stanowili mężczyźni po dwudziestce. Mówię bezpiecznym, zadowolonym z siebie Izraelofobom z Zachodu, że gdybyś mieszkał obok faszystowskiej armii, która rozerwała na kawałki wielu twoich współobywateli, mógłbyś także zapytać: „Czy zechciałbyś zdjąć koszulę?” przed przesłuchaniem człowieka, który może należeć do tej armii.

 

I oczywiście jest też relatywizowanie Holokaustu. Żadna dyskusja na temat Izraela nie jest dziś kompletna bez obecności jakiegoś fanatyka, analfabety w dziedzinie historii, który na koncie X głosi, że: „Oni są zupełnie jak naziści!” Ludzie udostępniali zdjęcie rozebranych mężczyzn w Gazie obok zdjęć rozebranych Żydów łapanych przez nazistów. „Dostrzeż różnicę” – głosił plakat przedstawiający te dwa zdjęcia podczas ostatniego marszu nienawiści, który odbył się wczoraj w Londynie. Różnica jest jasna dla każdego, kogo busola moralny nie została kompletnie zniszczona przez szaleńczy wstręt do państwa żydowskiego. Naziści łapali Żydów w celu eksterminacji każdego z nich; IDF gromadzi mężczyzn w wieku poborowym, aby znaleźć terrorystów Hamasu, którzy zaatakowali Izrael 7 października. Rozumiesz to? Porównywanie tych rzeczy umniejsza Holokaust i zniesławia naród żydowski – to jest podwójny wylew nienawiści do Żydów.

Czy te obrazy rozebranych mężczyzn w Gazie są nieprzyjemne? Oczywiście że są. Wojna jest nieprzyjemna. Wojna to piekło. Dlatego niektórzy z nas nienawidzą Hamasu i pragną jego zniszczenia: ponieważ to Hamas rozpoczął tę straszną wojnę i teraz nie chce jej zakończyć poprzez zwrot zakładników i poddanie się Izraelowi. I zgoda, niektórzy mężczyźni w wieku poborowym nie są członkami Hamasu, co okaże się dopiero po sprawdzeniu. Należy ich zwolnić. (Nie bądźmy jednak naiwni: ustalenie, kto jest, a kto nie terrorystą Hamasu, nie będzie proste.) Jednak pogląd, że Izrael postępuje niezwykle okrutnie, łapiąc ludzi, pogląd, że jest to wyjątkowo niegodziwy akt celowego upokorzenia, jest astronomicznym nonsensem. Wszystkie armie tak robią. Trudno nie dostrzec przebłysku bigoterii, a czasami wręcz rasizmu, w tym nieustannym osądzaniu IDF według standardów moralnych odmiennych od standardów stosowanych wobec wszystkich innych sił zbrojnych na Ziemi.

Widzimy teraz, że jednym z kluczowych czynników wywołujących histerię antyizraelską jest dramatyczna naiwność. To luksusowy moralizm uprzywilejowanych zachodnich millenialsów, którzy nigdy nie musieli o nic walczyć. To rozpieszczona arogancja zachodnich radykałów, którzy nienawidzą wojny, żyjąc równocześnie w błogiej nieświadomości faktu, że wszelka wolność i wygoda, którymi się cieszą, są darem od tych, którzy byli przygotowani do walki na wojnach. Dar wcześniejszych pokoleń, które chwyciły za broń przeciwko faszyzmowi, despotyzmowi, niewolnictwu, tyranii i dzięki temu uczyniły życie nas wszystkich lepszym i swobodniejszym. Izraelożercy z klas wyższych żyją w wolności i pokoju dzięki ludziom, którzy zrobili to, co Izrael robi obecnie. Wasz dysonans poznawczy przekracza wszystko. Gdyby wasi przodkowie w podobny sposób nie łapali podejrzanych o faszyzm, nie cieszylibyście się swobodą zniesławiania Izraela całymi dniami.

Rozpieszczenie nowego pokolenia odebrało mu zdolność zrozumienia, że czasami społeczeństwo musi walczyć o przetrwanie. W przeciwieństwie do Izraela, ci ludzie nigdy nie stanęli w obliczu egzystencjalnego zagrożenia. Ich największą udręką jest przypisanie im błędnej płci lub konieczność oglądania Nigela Farage’a w I’m a Celebrity…. Udają, że są antyfaszystami, ale nie mają pojęcia, jak to jest zostać zaatakowanym przez faszystów, tak jak Izrael został zaatakowany 7 października. Nie mają pojęcia, jak to jest walczyć z rasistowską armią, która chce wymazać cały twój świat. Nie mają pojęcia, jak to jest stawić czoła wrogowi, który kryje się wśród zwykłych obywateli. Czują się jednak uprawnieni do potępienia kraju, który obecnie stoi przed tym niezwykłym dylematem.

To nie moralność napędza izraelofobię – to amoralny defetyzm. To nie jest antykolonializm – to, jak na ironię, neokolonialna odraza do małego państwa, które ośmiela się zrobić to, co nasze większe państwa zrobiły kilkadziesiąt lat temu. „Wojna to brzydka rzecz, ale nie najbrzydsza – powiedział John Stuart Mill. – Zniszczony i zdegradowany stan uczuć moralnych i patriotycznych, który uważa, że nic nie jest warte wojny, jest znacznie gorszy”. Zdecydowanie. Dlatego właśnie zadowolony z siebie, pokazowy lęk związany z łapaniem podejrzanych mężczyzn w Gazie przeraża mnie bardziej niż samo ich wyłapywanie.


Brendan O’Neill znany brytyjski publicysta i komentator polityczny, wieloletni naczelny redaktor „Spiked” publikujący często w „The Spectator”. W młodości zapalony trockista, członek Rewolucyjnej Partii Komunistycznej i autor artykułów w „Living Marxism”. (Jak się wydaje, z tamtych poglądów została mu wiedza o tym, jak ideologia może odczłowieczać.)


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com


Woke Cowardice: Wrong University Presidents at the Wrong Time

Woke Cowardice: Wrong University Presidents at the Wrong Time

Alan M. Dershowitz


The three university presidents who disgraced themselves and their universities by their abysmal testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce represent a far larger concern. Pictured L-R: Claudine Gay, President of Harvard University, Liz Magill, President of University of Pennsylvania, Professor Pamela Nadell of American University, and Sally Kornbluth, President of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, testify before the House Education and Workforce Committee on December 5, 2023 in Washington, DC, on the subject of antisemitism on college campuses. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

  • As Ecclesiastes observed “to everything there is a season”. This seems to be the season for woke cowardice
  • [These administrators] are also insensitive to civil liberties and the rights of those with whom they disagree.
  • It creates divisiveness on campuses that makes Jewish students and faculty fearful for their safety when their university president seems unwilling to apply the same standard to those who advocate genocide against Jews as they surely would against anyone who advocated genocide against Blacks or the raping of women or the shooting of gay and transgender people.
  • What these universities need now are principled advocates of a single standard, rather than leaders who base their decisions on outside pressures and the need to pander to extremist students, faculty and administrators.
  • One thing is clear: [university presidents] should be selected on the basis of relevant, individual meritocratic criteria— not the cookie cutter criteria of the “diversity, equity and inclusion” bureaucracies.

The forced resignation of the president of the University of Pennsylvania is a good first step in dealing with a far more pervasive problem in higher education.

The three university presidents who disgraced themselves and their universities by their abysmal testimony before the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce represent a far larger concern.

In recent years, many universities have selected as their presidents woke, progressive cowards who pander to the most extreme and most vocal left-wing students and professors. They are the wrong people, at the wrong time, to be leading American educational institutions.

When I first came to Harvard in 1964, university presidents all came from the same cookie-cutter. They were white Anglo-Saxon males, who represented the wealthy conservative donors and board members. There were no Jewish university presidents and the then president of Harvard – Nathan Marsh Pusey – made it clear that no Jew need apply for the presidency or deanships.

Within a decade, following the civil rights movement, matters changed considerably. Several years ago, many of the most elite universities had Jewish presidents and Jewish deans.

Now matters have changed again and many of the new presidents represent the current political correctness reflected by the “diversity, equity and inclusion” (DEI) bureaucracies. Many also represent, or are sympathetic to, woke progressive movements that today dominate many campuses.

As Ecclesiastes observed, “to everything there is a season”. This seems to be the season for woke cowardice. Many of the current university presidents also seem to come from a cookie-cutter. They are different from previous university presidents but seem quite similar to each other in their pandering to the DEI and progressive woke constituencies on campus.

The recent spate of rabid anti-Semitism on so many campuses has posed enormous challenges to this new breed of university presidents. For the most part they have failed miserably to meet these challenges, as reflected by the big three who testified so ineptly.

A friend of mine, who was the president of a major university during the “Jewish period,” told me that the one characteristic which is not a qualification for being a current university president is “courage.” To that, should be added a commitment to principle.

Also at fault for the selection of current university presidents are the boards of directors who select them in an effort to pander to current student and faculty demands for DEI. They have ignored the majority of students and faculty, as well as the majority of alumni and donors. This overlooked and large constituency wants to see academic excellence and political neutrality on behalf of university presidents, deans and administrators. Most would prefer what has come to be called “the Chicago principles,” which require that the university itself stay out of politics.

Only a handful of universities have accepted these principles even in theory. Most universities pick and choose among the political views they publicly espouse. For example, virtually every university condemned the killing of George Floyd by a policeman — but many refused to condemn Hamas’ October 7 murder of more than 1,200 Israelis (and many Americans) and the kidnapping of more than 240 other Israelis. It is this double standard that has opened these administrators to criticism that they are more sensitive to Black lives than to Jewish lives. They are also insensitive to civil liberties and the rights of those with whom they disagree.

Just as many of these new university presidents were selected for symbolism, so too should they be dismissed for symbolism. What they symbolized during the Congressional testimony does a disservice to their students, their faculty and their alumni. It teaches the wrong lessons to current and future students. It creates divisiveness on campuses that makes Jewish students and faculty fearful for their safety when their university president seems unwilling to apply the same standard to those who advocate genocide against Jews as they surely would against anyone who advocated genocide against Blacks or the raping of women or the shooting of gay and transgender people.

It is not enough that these presidents are constantly forced to apologize for their cowardice because of pressure from the outside. What these universities need now are principled advocates of a single standard, rather than leaders who base their decisions on outside pressures and the need to pander to extremist students, faculty and administrators.

These are the wrong leaders for today’s educational challenges. Those who selected them were employing the wrong criteria. It will not be easy to find the correct replacements who can strike the proper balance between responding to the pervasive anti-Semitism and “cancel culture” on current campuses. One thing is clear: they should be selected on the basis of relevant, individual meritocratic criteria — not the cookie-cutter criteria of the DEI bureaucracies.


Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus at Harvard Law School, and the author most recently of War Against the Jews: How to End Hamas Barbarism. He is the Jack Roth Charitable Foundation Fellow at Gatestone Institute, and is also the host of “The Dershow” podcast.


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com


New Initiative ‘Operation Hug’ Reunites Parents Abroad With Lone IDF Soldiers in Israel-Hamas War

New Initiative ‘Operation Hug’ Reunites Parents Abroad With Lone IDF Soldiers in Israel-Hamas War

Shiryn Ghermezian


Stacie Stufflebeam reunites with her lone soldier sons thanks to Operation Hug. Photo: Provided

A new initiative launched by a group of Jewish organizations provides hundreds of free round-trip airline tickets to Israel from around the world for one parent of any lone soldier who is currently serving in a combat unit in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) during the war between the Jewish state and Hamas terrorists.

Nefesh B’Nefesh, Jewish National Fund-USA, and Friends of the IDF (FIDF) have joined forces to launch “Operation Hug,” with flights being provided by Israel’s national airline El Al.

A lone soldier is a soldier in the IDF who has no family in Israel either because he is a new immigrant to the country who made aliyah, a volunteer from abroad, an orphan, or an individual with no ties to his family. According to the Lone Soldier Center in Israel, there are over 7,000 lone soldiers currently serving in the IDF. “Operation Hug” allows concerned parents of these lone soldiers to be in Israel and support their children during the current campaign against Hamas.

Because of “Operation Hug,” Stacie Stufflebeam, from Richmond, Virginia, was able to have a surprise reunion with her sons Evan, 24, and Adam, 29, who are reserve soldiers in the Nachal and Sayeret Golani brigades, respectively.  Her third son, 27-year-old Yered, who also served in Nachal, is on standby if needed.

Another parent who took part in the initiative, named Michelle, said, “It’s almost my lone soldier’s 21st birthday, and there would be nothing more special for me to know that I am in the same country as him and have the possibility to give him a huge hug as well.”

“Lone soldiers have left behind their friends, family, and support systems to serve their Jewish Homeland. Now it’s our turn to serve them and offer whatever measure of comfort we can,” said Russell Robinson, CEO of Jewish National Fund-USA.”Not only will this initiative strengthen their spirits, but it will also strengthen our worldwide Jewish family in coming together to make a difference. There is nothing like a parent’s hug in these terrifying times, and we are proud to partner with two other incredible organizations to make this possible for Israel’s lone soldiers.”

FIDF CEO Steve Weil praised Israel’s lone soldiers, saying, “Their valor and selflessness inspire us, and we are honored to facilitate reunions with their deserving parents. Their service and dedication exemplify the highest ideals of commitment and courage.”


Zawartość publikowanych artykułów i materiałów nie reprezentuje poglądów ani opinii Reunion’68,
ani też webmastera Blogu Reunion’68, chyba ze jest to wyraźnie zaznaczone.
Twoje uwagi, linki, własne artykuły lub wiadomości prześlij na adres:
webmaster@reunion68.com