"What’s Wrong with anti-Zionism is anti-Zionism itself"

"Long ago, August Bebel gave a name to left-wing anti-Semitism: “the socialism of fools.” , Emeritus Professor Michael Walzer, of Princeton, reminded us back in March, adding,  "Now the fools are in Congress".

His focus, no prizes for guessing, was on Representative Ilhan Omar, and he wrote, inter alia:

"A congressional resolution condemning all forms of bigotry is no doubt commendable, but it doesn’t serve our political purpose. What is necessary is a fierce and detailed expose of all the lies about the Jews. And it is important that the word be used: lies. Many of Omar’s critics prefer to be offended, hurt, and distressed by her repetition of anti-Semitic tropes rather than outraged by the dishonesty of the tropes.

 And they are, in turn, afraid to offend Omar’s supporters, who seem to think that the lies Omar repeats are simply her opinions; they are just like everyone else’s opinions. Indeed, Omar is entitled to her falsehoods; it is, as we say, a free country. But the falsehoods have to be given their proper name. If Jewish Democrats don’t get tough about this, they will soon find themselves unable to be tough about anything. They will be pushed out of the Democratic Party just as Jews are being pushed out of the Labour Party in the U.K."

That article was in The Tablet here.

Now, in the Fall 2019 issue of Dissent magazine, Professor Walzer wows with an article entitled "Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism".  A taster, in his summing up:

 "Why not Zionism? Because the Jews aren’t a people; because they should be more cosmopolitan than anyone else; because the Zionist state has had some terrible governments; because no one should have a state (even if almost everyone does). Each of these claims can be made and reasons given, but the way they are made in the world today is bound to arouse suspicion. It is at least possible, and sometimes it seems likely, that the people making them also believe that Jews ran the slave trade, that the Zionist lobby controls U.S. foreign policy (as Representative Ilhan Omar has said), that Jews are disloyal to every country in which they live except Israel, and that Jewish bankers control the international financial system.

 There are too many men and women who believe these things—on the left as well as on the right. They are anti-Semites or fellow travelers of anti-Semites, and their anti-Zionism is probably tightly connected to their anti-Semitism (though there are now pro-Israel anti-Semites among, for example, American evangelicals and Eastern European right-wing nationalists).

Men and women on the left need to be sharply critical, especially critical, of other leftists who hold these views. It is obviously easier to condemn right-wing anti-Semites and pretend that anti-Semitism doesn’t exist on the left. But it does ...  It may well be true that right-wing anti-Semitism poses the greater danger to Jewish well-being, but the leftist version should not be underestimated.

Still, I am sure that a lot of anti-Zionists and many leftist anti-Zionists don’t believe any of the anti-Semitic fables. Maybe they are willfully ignorant about the Jewish people, maybe they are peculiarly focused on the Jewish state; maybe they just don’t like Jews (as George Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, said about Jeremy Corbyn). Maybe. But when it comes to leftist debates about Israel, Zionism is the issue, and it is Zionism that we should talk about. For all the reasons I’ve given, what’s wrong with anti-Zionism is anti-Zionism itself..."

Read the entire article here

David Singer: Democrats Backing Jew-Haters Over Israel Play into Trump’s Hands

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

The Democratic Party House majority is now in freefall backing two of its openly-avowed Jew-hating members – Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib – against decisions made by Israel banning them from unconditional entry into the Jewish State.

The Democrats leadership in the House issued the following statement on 11th February 2019 rebuking Omar for her antisemitic comments:

Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Majority Whip James E. Clyburn, Assistant Speaker Ben Ray Luján, Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries and Caucus Vice Chair Katherine Clark issued this joint statement condemning anti-Semitic comments made over Twitter by Congresswoman Ilhan Omar:

“Anti-Semitism must be called out, confronted and condemned whenever it is encountered, without exception.

“We are and will always be strong supporters of Israel in Congress because we understand that our support is based on shared values and strategic interests.  Legitimate criticism of Israel’s policies is protected by the values of free speech and democratic debate that the United States and Israel share.  But Congresswoman Omar’s use of anti-Semitic tropes and prejudicial accusations about Israel’s supporters is deeply offensive.  We condemn these remarks and we call upon Congresswoman Omar to immediately apologize for these hurtful comments.

“As Democrats and as Americans, the entire Congress must be fully engaged in denouncing and rejecting all forms of hatred, racism, prejudice and discrimination wherever they are encountered.”

Omar has never recanted or apologized.

The House condemned the Global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS) on 23^rdJuly as one that:

• “does not recognize, and many of its supporters explicitly deny, the right of the Jewish people to national self-determination”;

• “promotes principles of collective guilt, mass punishment and group isolation, which are destructive of prospects for progress towards peace.”

Tlaib and Omar voted against this resolution which was overwhelmingly adopted by 398 votes to 17.

President Trump had no compunction in calling on Israel to ban them in this succinct tweet:

It would show great weakness if Israel allowed Rep. Omar and Rep.Tlaib to visit. They hate Israel & all Jewish people, & there is nothing that can be said or doe to change their minds. Minnesota and Michigan will have a hard time putting them back in office. They are a disgrace!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 15, 2019

A specific Israeli law entitles Israel to ban Tlaib and Omar for supporting BDS – a Movement condemned by both Democrats and the House as abhorrent. No one – not even two US Congress members – should be above the law.

The Democrats and the House had – in taking their principled actions – provided sufficient justification for Israel to deny these two virulent Jew-haters entry into Israel. The Democrats should have been standing four-square behind Israel’s decision to exclude them.

The Democrats’ response to Israel’s decision – however – has been appalling.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has called Israel’s decision:

“a sign of weakness, and beneath the dignity of the great State of Israel.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has joined the firing squad saying Israel’s decision:

“will only hurt the U.S.-Israeli relationship and support for Israel in America.”

Democratic Party leaders’ criticism of Israel’s decision could see large numbers of the 71 per cent of Jews who vote Democrat simply not turning up to vote at the 2020 elections.

The optics of the Democratic Party in being seen to be supporting two Jew-haters over Israel is not pretty – and will be repeatedly and mercilessly exploited by Trump in the 2020 election campaign.
The Democrats failure to stand with President Trump in supporting Israel’s decision has indeed played right into Trump’s hands.

 Author’s note: The cartoon — commissioned exclusively for this article — is by Yaakov Kirschen aka “Dry Bones” — one of Israel’s foremost political and social commentators — whose cartoons have graced the columns of Israeli and international media publications for decades. His cartoons can be viewed at Drybonesblog

Correct Answer? Israel (video)

"The sad truth is that antisemites are willfully ignorant and do not let the truth get in the way of their demonization of Jews and Israel" rightly declares American foreign policy analyst Mitchell Bard in his latest post here

Meanwhile:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9k1cSsT_1uM

And:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DND-WnwRZ0

David Singer: Ilhan Omar Needs to Rethink her Flawed Position on Palestine

Here's the latest article by Sydney lawyer and international affairs analyst David Singer.

He writes:

For far too long political debate has been reduced to name-calling and identity labelling, with facts and reasoned arguments taking second place – consigning civilised discourse and the exchange of ideas and opinions into the trash bin.

Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar has taken a positive step in reversing this burgeoning practice of personal denigration and arbitrary dismissal of opinions of those with whom one doesn’t agree – in setting out her opinion on resolving the Arab-Jewish conflictin an op-ed article in the Washington Post on 17 March.

Omar’s opinion is based on factual errors and her failure to take into account other relevant facts – as this sentence by sentence analysis of her position makes clear:

1.“The founding of Israel 70 years ago was built on the Jewish people’s connection to their historical homeland, as well as the urgency of establishing a nation in the wake of the horror of the Holocaust and the centuries of anti-Semitic oppression leading up to it.”

The founding of Israel pre-dated the Holocaust – back to the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War One. Palestine – within boundaries to be determined – which had formed part of the territory of the Ottoman Empire for the previous 400 years -was designated by the Principal Allied Powers at the San Remo Conference held in April 1920 as the location for the “establishment of a national home for the Jewish people.”

This decision was unanimously endorsed by the League of Nations when granting Great Britain the Mandate for Palestine in 1922. The Mandate’s boundaries comprised what is today called Israel, Jordan, Judea and Samaria (West Bank) and Gaza. However the establishment of the Jewish National Home in Transjordan – 78% of Mandatory Palestine – was postponed or withheld under article 25 of the Mandate.

2.“We must acknowledge that this is also the historical homeland of Palestinians.” 

The “Palestinians” were not recognised as an identifiable people in 1917. The Mandate for Palestine regarded the Arab residents of Palestine as forming part of the “existing non-Jewish communities” in Palestine – whose civil and religious rights were not to be prejudiced. The “Palestinians” were only defined for the first time in the 1964 PLO Charter – article 6.

 3.“And without a state, the Palestinian people live in a state of permanent refugeehood and displacement.” 

The Palestinian Arabs acquired their own state and independence in 1946 in Jordan – 78% of Palestine. Hamas exercises full administrative control over the Arab residents of Gaza. The PLO exercises full administrative control over 95% of the Arab population of Judea and Samaria (West Bank).

4.“This, too, is a refugee crisis, and they, too, deserve freedom and dignity.” 

A refugee crisis exists in Lebanon and Syria because the Palestinian Arabs living there have been denied citizenship for 70 years.

5.“I support a two-state solution, with internationally recognized borders, which allows for both Israelis and Palestinians to have their own sanctuaries and self-determination.'' 

There are already two such states in 95% of former Palestine – one (78%) for the Arabs called Jordan – one (17%) for the Jews, called Israel.

6.“This has been official bipartisan U.S. policy across two decades and has been supported by each of the most recent Israeli and Palestinian leaders, as well as the consensus of the Israeli security establishment.” 

New solutions are required after negotiations spanning 25 years have failed to create a second Arab state in former Palestine between Israel and Jordan. Redrawing the international bordersbetween Jordan Israel and Egypt could be game changers. 

Hopefully Congresswoman Omar will rethink her flawed position and continue this dialogue.