Remember The Maccabees

Doodad

Just another example of Left anti-white racism

I have been talking a bit recently about the rise of anti-white racism, antisemitic anti-Zionism, and a condescending racism toward "people of color" increasingly coming out of the progressive-left.

In an article titled, Tucker Carlson Uncovers an AOC Moment of 'Vicious' Racism That Has Somehow Been Ignored published on October 31 of this year by Joe Saunders in The Western Journal, a conservative outlet, Tucker Carlson demonstrated blatant anti-white racism on the part of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who blames "climate change" on "white" people.

In the record of a congressional hearing we read:

"Do we see largely that it’s the global south and communities of color that may be bearing the brunt of the initial havoc from climate change?” AOC asked a sympathetic witness.

“And in terms of that wealth, the people who are producing climate change, the folks that are responsible for the largest amount of emissions, or communities, or corporations, they tend to be predominantly white, correct?"

Ah, so it's those nefarious "white" people who are behind "climate change."

Needless to say, this is entirely false given that China and India are far worse offenders when it comes to toxic industrial emissions.

I wonder just when so much of the progressive-left gave up on the vision of Martin Luther King, Jr., without telling the rest of us.

Jews and anti-White Racism

Michael Lumish

{Also published at Jews Down Under and the Elder of Ziyon.}

I recently published a Facebook tidbit titled, "The Grounding of Democratic Party Racism is the Progressive Left." There I suggest that the progressive-left is racist in three primary ways. These are anti-white racism, antisemitic anti-Zionism, and an imperial condescension toward those of non-European descent.

In response, Corinne Blackmer, a Professor of Biblical and American literature and gender studies at Southern Connecticut State University, pointed me to a 2019 article by Keith Payne published in Scientific American titled, "The Truth about Anti-White Discrimination."

The thesis is that anti-white racism is, itself, a racist delusion on the part of "white" people. Payne's conclusions are grounded in a piece published in Perspectives on Psychological Science by Michael Norton and Sam Sommers, titled "Whites See Racism as a Zero-Sum Game That They Are Now Losing."

Payne writes:

...a national survey reported that both blacks and whites believed that discrimination against blacks had declined over the past few decades, but whites believed that discrimination against whites was now more common than discrimination against blacks...

Whites tend to view increasing diversity as anti-white bias.

The implication is clear. The only reason that "whites" detect anti-white racism is out of their own sense of unearned privilege. It is not that there is any incessant cultural or academic tendency to berate "whites," but merely an irrational sense of weakness and vulnerability in the face of rising diversity and social justice in the United States.

The premise of Payne's argument rests on the undeniable fact of disparity of income between "white" people in the United States versus "black" people here. He claims that "the average black family earns about half as much as the average white family" and "that the unemployment rate for blacks is twice that for whites..."

Of course, none of this takes into account the fact that East-Asian Americans, Asian-Indian Americans, and American Jews, out-earn Americans of European descent. It seems hard to argue for "white privilege" in a society wherein those at the top of the economic hierarchy are not "white." Nonetheless, the disparagement of "white" people as essentially racist is obviously itself a racist notion and Jews are swept up in it.

Recently there has been considerable conversation around the notion of the "white Jew." The basic idea is that since Ashkenazim are "white" we enjoy "white privilege" and are, in fact, among the primary oppressors of "people of color." Democratic Party devotees of Louis Farrakhan even believe that Jews were the driving force behind the Atlantic Slave Trade and remain so to this day... as if that makes the slightest bit of sense.

The question then becomes, so what is the evidence for this political and cultural anti-white racism? I am not a sociologist and have not done independent research on the question. So we will have to make do with a few pieces of anecdotal evidence, and one scholarly study, that represents a tiny drop in the bucket if you decide to look into the matter further.

My favorite example is MTV's 2017 New Years Resolutions for White Guys. This one is fun because it is just so transparent in its contempt toward "white guys." Another interesting piece from the New York Times, written by Ekow N. Yankah, is titled, "Can My Children Be Friends With White People?" Can you begin to imagine a New York Times piece titled in all seriousness, "Can My Children Be Friends With Black People"? Yankah is not sure that his children can be friends with "white" people and this was published in The Times. Thankfully, Yankah tells us, "I have not given up on being friends with all white people."

And I have no doubt that "white" people -- whoever they may be, exactly -- appreciate that very much.

This one captured my attention shortly after the election of Donald Trump. This is a case wherein some young black kids tortured a mentally-handicapped white kid because Donald Trump won the 2016 election. The torturers made a point of calling the kid "white" as they stripped him naked into a bathtub and taped his mouth. The point, of course, is that he was tortured for being "white." I feel reasonably certain that the people doing the torturing were not Republicans.

Finally, I want to point you to a piece written by Muneeb Hafiz, a PhD Candidate and Associate Lecturer at Lancaster University, UK, published in Critical Ethnic Studies by the University of Minnesota Press, titled "On Whiteness" (2018). Hafiz writes:

Whiteness “is on a toggle switch between ‘bland nothingness’ and ‘racist hatred,’” Professor Nell Painter tells us. It is a “metaphor for power” in James Baldwin’s vocabulary. According to Kehinde Andrews, Whiteness is “a process rooted in the social structure, one that induces a form of psychosis.” Whiteness, Achille Mbembe explains, “became the mark of a certain mode of Western presence in the world, a certain figure of brutality and cruelty, a singular form of predation with an unequaled capacity for the subjection and exploitation of foreign peoples.” A fantasy — no more real than Blackness, we should add — later transformed into a kind of common (non)sense, Whiteness “involves a constellation of objects of desire and public signs of privilege that relate to body and image, language and wealth.”

It is frankly astonishing that we can reify "whiteness" as a negative toxic epistemology in human history and not recognize this notion for the racism that it is. This does not only effect those of European descent. It represents racism towards Jews, as well.

The Executive Order

Sar Shalom

One of the leftist critiques of Trump's executive order last week is that it defines Judaism as a nationality as well as a religion. It is unsurprising that leftists would oppose such a move, as many oppose such a definition. However, they go further than stating opposition to creating that definition and claim that doing so is antisemitic. Unfortunately for those who claim the mantle of standing up to antisemitism in opposing the definition of Judaism as a nationality, that opposition to recognition of Jewish nationhood is a staple of PLO propaganda for decades. As Einat Wilf has said, it was being exposed to Palestinian so-called moderates who insisted that the Jews are not a people that started her questioning whether or not there is a genuine peace partner.

Further, it is because Judaism is a nationality as well as a religion that the Jewish people has a natural right to a homeland where the Jews became a people. Readers of my work would know that I am not a fan of Trump. However, to the extent that he implied that Judaism is a nationality, he should be celebrated.

A note to an old college friend

Michael Lumish

So, you support Sanders.

Do you understand that Sanders is not considered a friend of either the Jewish people or the state of Israel... by, y'know, most Jews. I am very familiar with the ongoing discussion among Jews who care about the Jewish people and Sanders is not well-liked.

He is hostile toward Israel and even brought antisemitic anti-Zionist, Linda Sarsour, into his campaign as a representative.

As for "far right talking points" I am liberal.

I marched against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I support Gay rights and a woman's right to choose an abortion.

I support a tax code that favors the middle-class and the poor.

You write:

<"There's been mostly white people at every Bernie rally I've ever been to.">

What's your point? Of course, there has mainly been "white" people at Bernie rallies. This does not negate the fact of anti-white racism as a central feature of progressive-left politics.

This is not a "right-wing" perspective.

It is simply a matter of acknowledging the obvious.

You write:

<"For hardcore Zionists it seems that anyone critical of the Israeli government's policies and actions towards the Palestinians is, BOOM, automatically, an anti-Semite...">

How do you distinguish a "hardcore Zionist" from a Jew who supports Jewish self-determination and self-defense on historically Jewish land?

Do you think that Jews who support the well-being of our brothers and sisters in Israel are "hardcore Zionists"?

Is any Japanese person who believes in Japanese self-determination and self-defense on Japanese land a "hardcore Japanese nationalist"?

How about the French?

From there you launch into a diatribe that is something akin to the "blood libel" wherein you discuss how brutal and murderous "Zionists" are.

<"1,492 civilians brutally killed during protective edge or the teams of Israeli snipers shooting thousands of unarmed protesters at the wall in Gaza, killing hundreds including paramedics and journalists.">

You know nothing of the conflict.

I remember you as a good guy, but you know zero about the Long Arab War Against the Jews in the Middle East and seem to think that Israeli Jews are something akin to evil.

This is, by the way, a very sort-of nineteenth-century imperial outlook which sees "people of color" as merely innocent victims who have no agency in the world.

This is a perfect example of how "progressives" -- who are not liberal, btw -- treat those of non-European descent as children.

I find it racist, as hell, frankly.

The fact of the matter, of course, is that the Jews of the Middle East lived under the boot of Arab and Muslim imperial rule for thirteen long centuries.

We were not allowed to ride horses, only donkeys.

We were not allowed to marry Muslim women or build housing in higher geographical locations than Muslims.

Cursing "the prophet" meant death.

In some places, we were not even allowed to go out in the rain lest our filth washed into the streets and contaminated our neighbors.

And we had to pay protection money, the jizya, in order to live in our own communities.

Furthermore, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are not "critical" of Israeli policies. They are antisemitic anti-Zionists who want Israel eliminated as the national homeland of the Jewish people. They are not working for social justice but against it.

These people are not liberals. They are something much more akin to fascists and they are all very protective of political Islam which targets Jews for death.

I know that you mean well, and I do not mean to give you a hard time, but I do not think that you are very well educated on this subject.

What to call the disputed territories

Sar Shalom

As is well known, most supporters of Israel have a term for the disputed territories that is at odds with what almost all of the rest of the world calls it. For supporters of Israel, that territory is Judea and Samaria, the name by which those territories were known from biblical times until the 19th century. For the rest of the world, it is the West Bank, after the name Jordan gave it in 1949 and which had become standard during Jordan's occupation.

Both of those terms have their problems. The problem "Judea and Samaria" is that it conveys a sense of irredentism without conveying why it is rightfully Jewish (or Judean). Furthermore, using "Judea and Samaria" to refer to the disputed territory implies that the territory from Beersheba to Ein Gedi is not part of Judea. On the other hand, "West Bank" accepts the narrative of the party, Jordan, that acquired the territory in an aggressive war.

The term I would suggest is "Jordanian Conquest." This term conveys what distinguishes the disputed territory from what is not disputed in that the territory that Jordan succeeded in conquering is now disputed between Israel and the international community and there is no dispute between Israel and the international community over any territory that Jordan failed to conquer. The following approaches as to how to allocate any given Parcel X should illustrate the consequences of the terminology.

Approach 1: Was Parcel X under Arab control prior to the 1967 war? If so, no further information is needed, it should become part of Palestine.

Approach 2: Was Parcel X conquered by Jordan during the 1948-49 Independence War? If so, no further information is needed, it should become part of Palestine.

Both lines of inquiry are affected by the preamble to UN Security Council Resolution 242, which states, "Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war ...." If you accept the framing of the first question, then the preamble to 242 almost necessarily leads to the conclusion that everything Israel conquered in 1967 belongs to the Palestinians as of right and that that can only be amended with the Palestinians' assent. However, if you accept the framing of the second question, then embracing the conclusion is outright thumbing your nose as the preamble of 242.

Calling the disputed territory the "West Bank" implicitly accepts the first frame. Calling it Judea and Samaria says nothing about which frame to accept. Since it says nothing, it accepts that anyone who previously accepted the first frame would continue to accept that frame. Calling it the Jordanian Conquest places the second frame front and center. Getting the designation Jordanian Conquest accepted would promote that second frame.

The grounding of Democratic Party racism is the progressive-left

Michael Lumish

The progressive-left is racist in three primary ways.

1) Anti-White racism.

It is both fascinating and sad that the very people who claim to stand for the ethos of Martin Luther King, Jr. no longer believe in judging people as individuals so much as part of various divisive ethnic and gendered categories as we see on the campuses as derived from "intersectionality" theory.

This is why regressives feel very free to tell "white" people to shut the fuck up.

It is because they believe in racial hierarchies.

2) Antisemitic anti-Zionism.

Democrats, such as Barack Obama, honestly believe that they have every right to tell Jewish people where we may, or may not, be allowed to live on the very land of our own history, ancestry, and culture. It gets no more racist than that.

The analogy that I like to use is comparing the Democrats to medieval Italian princes who developed the ghetto system. At least the medieval Italian princes had the modesty to keep their injustice toward Jews within Italy. The Democrats have taken it to the very land of the Jewish people, itself.

3) The condescension toward "people of color."

They seem to believe that, with the exception of Jews, people of non-European descent are like little children in need of a pat on the head and a chocolate chip cookie.

It is racist as hell and reminds me of nothing so much as late-nineteenth-century American imperial notions of "white man's burden."

Welcome To Americastan

Doodad

Almost all of last year's top-10 darlings are still favorites this year (US baby names.) with a few exceptions. Revealing a rise in Arabic names, Muhammad and Aaliyah made the top 10 for the first time, replacing Mason and Layla.
Muhammad is considered the most popular name in the world, and UK news site Independent says it is "given to an estimated 150 million men and boys.

This has happened in other countries over the years and two things happened in conjunction with that.

1. Terrorism incidents increased

2. Antisemitism increased.

They tried to hide it in 2017 but got caught lying. And we all know what is happening in the UK as terror attacks continue and the left panders to the antisemitism of Muslim voters.The same has happened in various European countries.

Will it happen in the US? It's nice to imagine that the US is different; that it has some magical ability to resist all this. But look at the Dems response to antisemitism by the squad and their fans. No censure; only inclusion and support. Two leading 2020 candidates have made it clear that Israel is in their sights if they win.

I suspect the Corbynization of the Dems and an America that has Mohammed as the 10th most popular baby name has begun. And if the Dems win in 2020, well, goodnight Irene.

And Suddenly, It Was All Whites.

Doodad

Kamala Harris has dropped out so the entire Democratic 2020 field is WHITE (shudder.) I don't see how Michelle Obama has a choice now unless she DOESN'T want to save the soul of America.

Nice going Tulsi and all you rich white guys. All blacks should vote for Trump now just out of spite; unless Michelle shows up, of course.

UN Chief Practices His Irony

Doodad

Irony: a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result.

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres on Tuesday called on Lebanon’s government to disarm Hezbollah, saying it posed a threat to the UN peacekeeping mission stationed on the Israel-Lebanon border.

First, might I say, a little late don't you think UN? UN Security Council Resolution 1701 happened in 2006. Hezbollah has been breaking it since almost the beginning, building its military strength, gaining actual seats in the Lebanese government and since 2016,

"Hezbollah has had de facto veto power on political decisions despite being a minority stakeholder in the political process. The once-formidable authority of the position of the Lebanese Sunni prime minister does not exist now without Hezbollah’s consent, and the current Christian president, Michel Aoun, is an ally of Hezbollah."

IOW's, Hezbollah IS the government of Lebanon and the UN wants the government to de-arm them. ROFLMAO.

A Little Holiday Music

Doodad

 

Ten Reasons Why the Progressive-Left may Reelect Donald Trump

Michael Lumish

1) "Progressive" anti-white racism.

2) "Progressive" antisemitic anti-Zionism.

3) Intersectionality.

4) Wimpish university "safe spaces."

5) Microaggressions.

6) Gender-neutral pronouns.

7) Men competing as women in women's sports.

8) The racist Women's March fiasco.

9) The "squad."

10) And last but not least, this never-ending constant hostility for the guy coming out of the progressive-left and the Democratic Party. What his enemies do not seem to realize is that their toxic hatred reflects far worse on them than it does on Trump.

"So, it's now antisemitic to demand that Israel treat the Palestinians humane?"

Michael Lumish

Despite 2,000 years of diaspora and the scattering of the Jews via European imperialism in the Middle East and the various pogroms and persecutions all leading to that romping good time that we call The Holocaust, the progressive-left still thinks that the Jews are the aggressors.

As a real-world acquaintance of German extraction once said to me, and I paraphrase, "So, it's now antisemitic to demand that Israel treat the Palestinians humane?"

The Arabs have been stomping on the Jews since the time of Muhammad and this individual honestly believes that the Jews are not "humane."

Let that sink in for a moment.

This is a progressive-left "anti-racist" of German ancestry who believes that the Jews of the Middle East are not "humane" and the Arabs are like tiny children in need of a chocolate chip cookie and a pat on the head.

Why does that sound just so familiar?

A Key Discussion Among Jews about Israel: Enno Raschke and Michael Lumish

Michael Lumish

Enno Raschke, Researcher / Historian
for the Holocaust Center, Jerusalem

I do not know where this conversation will lead. I know that I have considerable respect for Enno Raschke who is a researcher and historian for Yad Vashem, the World Holocaust Center, in Jerusalem.

I am a PhD in American History from the Pennsylvania State University who also writes on the unfortunate relationship between the western-left and the indigenous Judeans, i.e, the Jewish people.

I want to begin my discussion with Enno with a comment he made on a very brief Facebook post wherein I simply asked, "Are Arabs indigenous to Judea?" That was the entirety of the post.

In the comments, I referenced the fact that the denial of Jewish indigeneity is used as justification for western-left antisemitic anti-Zionism. The core anti-Zionist idea is that Jews stole Arab land. Enno quotes me directly:

"This is the core idea of Western antisemitic anti-Zionism and the driving notion behind BDS. It is, at least in part, what drives EU support for terrorism."

To which he responded:

Those two sentences are more a description of the mindset that created them than of actual reality. Antisemitic anti-Zionism has nothing to do with EU foreign policy. 

EU foreign policy has always been based on the original idea that allowed for the creation of Israel in the first place: two states for two people. You can agree with that concept or not--I don't, at least not in the form the EU imagines a 2SS. There is, however, no denying that the EU concept used to be something even mainstream Israel agreed to--before people started to increasingly follow the hollow pipe dreams of the right over the last two to three decades.

The right has no concepts to offer. It has no credible plan for the Arab population in these parts--just as the Arab right-wing has none for the Israeli-Jewish population. So they create fog with talking points like that indigenous exclusivity claim--which is of course as pointless as it is ridiculous. But it allows for some chest-bumping, some cheap feeling of superiority and the usual tales about the fraudulent, deceitful, uncivilized "other."

The problem, however, is: At the end of the day, it doesn't change anything. It's just a futile exercise. The Israeli side will still have to come up with credible concepts and negotiate. Because the "other" will remain here.

I would like to build a conversation around this comment as a starting point if it is agreeable to Enno.

I would start with Enno's claim that:

Lumish

Antisemitic anti-Zionism has nothing to do with EU foreign policy.

I am a bit surprised that Enno thinks so.

This statement can only be true if you believe that anti-Zionism is not necessarily antisemitic. I would argue that not only is anti-Zionism inherently antisemitic, but genocidally so.

And I would certainly argue that the EU is anti-Zionist when it funds the murder of Jews in Israel via "pay-to-slay."

FDR did nothing

Michael Lumish

Mike Williams is both on-target and concise:

For all my 73 years I've known that if I wanted to start a political fight with a Dem/liberal all I had to do was complain that FDR knew about the Holocaust and did nothing.

Bombers dropped bombs on Germany day and night for years, but never was the infrastructure like the railroads to the work or death camps targets. Not even as secondary targets.

Now, we see that it was more than a presidential myopic view where he didn't want to be seen fighting a world war for the Jews. He actually went out of his way to derail anything that would have slowed or stopped the mass killings.

In the last few years embarrassing letters and official documents have surfaced that showed that the Brit's didn't want the killing to stop, or to see the German's use the Mideast as a dumping ground for Europe's Jews.

Or the fact that after the war Britain worked to destroy Israel even before it declared itself to be the one and only Jewish state....Germany certainly deserves the world condemnation for its war crimes, but there is enough guilt to go around that the Western allies like the US, France, and England didn't do anything to stop the destruction of European Jewry.

Are Arabs indigenous to Judea?

Michael Lumish

Of course, Arabs are not indigenous to Judea / Israel. Arabs are conquerers indigenous to the Arabian peninsula. If one cares about "the conflict" -- or what I call The Long Arab / Muslim War against the Jews of the Middle East -- then one must recognize the Jews as indigenous and the Arabs and Muslims as imperialists and colonialists.

And, yet, the progressive-left and the Democratic Party honestly believe that the Jewish defenders of Jewish children and Jewish land are the aggressors. They honestly believe that Arabs have every right to kill Jews as a matter of "resistance." It is an intelligent rhetorical strategy on par with the propaganda skill of the National Socialists.

The brilliance behind Arab and Muslim imperialism is that they actually managed to convince the arrogant and ignorant Euros that they are the indigenous population in the lands that they conquered.

Michael Lumish

Michael Lumish

I am just sick to fucking death of non-Jews telling us where we may, or may not, be allowed to live on the very homeland of the Jewish people. Obama did it for 8 years and nobody blinked although it certainly pissed ME off.

Now Warren is pulling the same schtick. She wants to cut aid to Israel depending upon just where in Israel Jews choose to live. Who the fuck do these people think that they are?

It is time for Jews to leave the Democratic party if only to create a reasonable balance between Jewish support for Republicans versus Democrats. I am not a Republican, but I do not want the Democratic Party to take us for granted, which they most certainly do.

I am a Californian and, until fairly recently, a Democrat for over 30 years, but the party does not have our best interests in heart. The reason for this is because the influential "progressive" wing of the party honestly believes that Jews are aggressors in the Middle East.

Michael Lumish

One of the major problems that the tiny Jewish minority has is that the western-left honestly believes that the Jews of Israel -- and by extension their diaspora supporters -- are not "humane" to Palestinian-Arabs.

The EU, the UN, and the Democratic Party feel so strongly about this that they are literally willing, under "Pay-to-Slay," to finance the murder of Jews in Israel.

They give Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas and the Palestinian Authority Western tax-dollars used to pay-off Jew Killers who ram us in the streets with their vehicles, stone our children, behead Jewish babies, and knife old people in Jerusalem.

And, yet, they lecture us about "social justice" as they teach Jewish kids to despise their own people in Western universities.

Michael Lumish

Books are a pain in the ass!

Michael Lumish

I keep buying books and giving them away. You know how it is.

One of my favorite books of all time is Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, by Pirsig.

I originally read it in my teens, but at some point I was hanging with a buddy and said, "Hey man, you need to read this." And then I gave him my copy.

Then a little time goes by and I think, "I need a copy of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"! So I buy it again, usually in the form of an abused old paperback. But then some time passes and I am hanging out with a different buddy and say, "Hey man, you need to read this."

I must have given away four copies of that book over the years to different people.

But it's not just that book.

It's also Catch-22, Slaughterhouse-Five, Stranger in a Strange Land, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and on and on.

Giving a friend a book that you love is like offering them a little bit of yourself.

It's a decent and human thing.

The Kurds in Syria

Sar Shalom

Elder makes the case more eloquently than I can of what Trump's announced betrayal of the Kurds portends for us. However, I would like to call attention to another angle of the situation. In covering Turkey's plans to exploit the pending vacuum that Trump's withdrawal would create, the media describes Turkey as "deeming" the Kurdish forces to be terrorists. That terminology is wrong. Turkey certainly calls the Kurdish forces terrorists. However, that does not mean that Turkey actually considers them to be terrorists as opposed to believing that the Kurds' proper place is under the boot of Turkish and Arab oppression. What it means is that Turkey considers that the possibility that the Kurdish forces are terrorists is the most plausible explanation that could gain sympathy for its planned action. (Sort of like the Waqf describing Al Aqsa as "under threat" because it is more sympathetic than saying that it is Islam's right to deny Jews their holy sites.) Accordingly, the language that should be used to describe Turkey's motives is the Turkey "calls" the Kurdish forces terrorists.

Addendum: Trump apparently trusts Erdogan's word that he will not liquidate the Kurds wholesale in Syria. Needless to say, the Kurds in Syria do not concur in this trust, but Trump let his actions show whose views would carry the day.

Similarly, Obama trusts Abbas' that word that if he got all the land that is "rightfully Palestinian," that he would end his claims against Israel and end all attempts to pursue more. Netanyahu is cynical about such trust and acted accordingly. Obama, while he had the power to do so, let his actions show whose views would carry the day.

The White Jew

Michael Lumish

When I was growing up to be a "white" person meant to be a person of European descent. This is no longer the case.

To be "white," today, means to be a "bad" person, particularly if you tend to be of the manly persuasion.

In contemporary political parlance, "whiteness" is a signifier of racism, oppression, colonialism, imperialism, privilege, sexism, Islamophobia, transphobia, capitalism, and, most particularly, racism.

The irony is delicious.

"Progressives" -- throughout politics and the academe and, even, corporate America -- consider "white" to be a category of ethnic guilt. In the name of "social justice" they are condemning innocent young kids, particularly boys, of some sort of original sin.

They are, in fact, damaging your children and most of you are A-OK with it.

In this way, the "progressive" movement is deeply religious and increasingly medieval. The movement used to be about open-mindedness. Today it is about hysterical dogma. Mario Savio would not recognize it.

It used to be about social libertarianism and freedom of expression. Today it is about ideological conformity and a Puritanical patrolling of the borders of acceptable thought.

What, therefore, is increasingly disturbing to many of us is this association of Ashkenazi Jews with "whiteness."

Throughout Euro and American history when "whiteness" was considered good, Jews were not considered "white." Now that "whiteness" is somehow considered bad, Jews are considered "white."

What is most important, in my opinion, is for those of us of Judean descent to not buy-in to this Euro and American nonsense.

We should not allow them to impose their own historical neuroses around race upon the Judean people, the historically oppressed Jews.

Open Thread Saturday

Doodad

Cause things were getting a little crowded on one particular thread.

The March Of Return Suicide Gig

Doodad

Another Friday, another dead Gazan protester, another outraged world community, upset that Jews won't let their country be invaded by bloodthirsty Gazans who just want to kill Jews. The March of Return, originally a planned 6 week protest, was co-opted by Hamas and now goes on every Friday. When I began looking at this, I was struck how almost every single Israeli news outlet framed the event as "mostly peaceful." This, despite the fact that someone almost always dies and dozens are injured while throwing firebombs, grenades and trying to invade Israel. They do no one a service by being PC and calling the riots mostly peaceful. They only encourage them and their cheerleaders around the world.

Incendiary kites are not peaceful. Grenades and firebombs are not peaceful. Invaders with knives are not peaceful. Wanting to invade another country is not peaceful. Yet the lie remains. Israel's use of deadly force has been condemned by the usual suspects:

Israel's use of deadly force was condemned on 13 June 2018 in a United Nations General Assembly resolution.^[44] Condemnation has also been levied by human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch,^[45] B'Tselem,^[46] and Amnesty International,^[47] and by United Nations officials.^[48][49] Kuwait has proposed two United Nations Security Council statements, which have been blocked by the United States, calling for an investigation into Israel's killing of Palestinian protesters.^[50] The Israeli government has praised Israeli troops for protecting the border fence.^[48] Media coverage of the events, and what has been termed the "PR battle", has been the object of analysis and controversy.^{[51][52][53][54]} In late February 2019, a United Nations Human Rights Council's independent commission found that of 489 cases of Palestinian deaths or injuries analysed only two were possibly justified as responses to danger by Israeli security forces, deeming the rest illegal, and concluded with a recommendation calling on Israel to examine whether war crimes or crimes against humanity had been committed, and if so, to bring those responsible to trial

The world community can't understand why evil Jews want to avoid being killed and replaced by peaceful Palestinians. Geeze, they went so quietly back in WW2.

How Will Impeachment Play Out For Democrats

Doodad

Don't EVER Forget.

Doodad

The Great Jewish "Whiteness" Thing

Michael Lumish

Micha Mitch Danzig, Attorney, former IDF, Middle East analyst

The question of Ashkenazi Jewish "whiteness" is receiving increased attention.

If to be "white" means anything it means to be of European descent. But in today's western-left political culture what it really means is "bad, racist, colonialist, imperialist, hater of all-things-good."

In other words, it means to be a contemptible person.

To be "white" no longer merely suggests ethnicity, but a toxic ontology (way of being) and a toxic epistemology (way of knowing.)

Ironically, this racist view of "whiteness" primarily derives from those who claim to be the ideological descendants of Martin Luther King, Jr. If King stood for anything, however, he stood for judging people according to character, not ethnicity and not gender. Those who despise "whiteness" assign this racial category to Ashkenazi Jews in order to spread that hatred onto one of the most persecuted peoples on the planet. This tendency among "progressives" is nothing if not illiberal.

It is, at least in part, for this reason, that many American Jews are walking away from the progressive-left and the Democratic Party.

In any case, in a July, 2017, piece, Micha Mitch Danzig writes:

The reality is that the entire notion of Ashkenazi Jews as “White people” is very new (from a historical perspective) and it is also completely detached from any historical context, including in America, where, as recently as the early 1960s there were still quotas on Jewish enrollment in some Ivy League schools. Ironically, since the origin of the European pseudoscientific racial classifications (dividing humanity as White, Black, and Yellow races); Jews in Europe (both Ashkenazi and Sephardi alike) were regularly persecuted on the basis of being “non-white.”

This is worth a read because the question of Jewish "whiteness" goes to the question of Jewish indigeneity within the Land of Israel.

And the fact of Jewish indigeneity goes to the very heart of the Movement for Jewish Freedom, which we affectionately call "Zionism."

Trump versus Biden

Michael Lumish

My bet is that it will be Trump versus Biden in the presidential election of next year. It is a fairly obvious forecast. It is unlikely -- although it is possible -- that Sanders or Warren could take the Democratic nomination, but we shall see.

Biden is going to get a major headache from the "progressive-left" which has huge influence within the Party. This is mainly due to the fact that the American Left is, outside of political Islam, the most racist political movement in the United States. It is also THE most racist political movement in the US with significant political power.

Thus Biden will be derided by the Democratic Party base as too old and too "white"... whatever that means, specifically. And they will do so without recognizing their own bigotry toward the guy.

Therefore, Biden will need to hold off not only the Republican Party but the Democratic base, as well.

I neither voted for Trump, nor did I advocate for him, but my prediction is that he will win in 2020 for pretty much the same reason that he won in 2016. And this time I might vote for him as a protest vote against The Haters, i.e., those who despise "whiteness" and "toxic masculinity" and "Zionists."

If the Democratic Party loses in 2020 -- which is my prediction -- the most significant factor will be "politically-correct overreach"... particularly on the campuses, both high-tech corporate and academic.

Watch.

Vic Rosenthal and the Real Real Reason

Michael Lumish

In this piece titled, The Real “Real Reason the Left Hates Israel”, Vic Rosenthal does a concise job of breaking down the ideological backdrop and sources of contemporary western-left anti-Jewish racism and hatred for Israel.

I don't think that I would call Rosenthal "New Center," but like the New Center he identifies postmodernism, postcolonialism, and intersectionality as representing interlocked ideological constructs that, taken together, provide the justification for the never-ending harassment of Israel as the "Jew among nations."

Ultimately, without saying so directly, Rosenthal provides an explanation for how it is that the EU pays, and the Democratic Party wants to pay, the Palestinian-Arabs to keep up their ongoing war against the Jews, as it did under Barack Obama.

I wonder what percentage of the funds gifted to the Palestinian Authority go into the so-called "Martyrs' Fund"? This is when Arabs are paid by the PA, via the European Union -- and prior to Trump, by the United States -- to murder ordinary Jewish people in the streets of Jerusalem. We know it as "pay-for-slay." Within the United States, it is the Democratic Party that coughed-up those hundreds of millions of dollars for Mahmoud Abbas' mansion and the "pay-for-slay" program.

Yet, somehow -- against all reason and decency -- the Democrats still believe that they deserve American Jewish support and most American Jews are still willing to give it to them.

This is why Israeli Jews are becoming increasingly disgusted with American Jews who, for allegedly the noblest reasons, continue to support the progressive-left enemies of the Jewish people.

Does Israel Need US Weaponry?

Mike Williams

{This is a thoughtful comment by a Facebook acquaintance who agreed to allow me to publish it here. - ML.}

There is a debate about us foreign aid.

There’s the very recent, April 2019 article by Jonathan S. Tobin, in which the editor-in-chief of the Jewish News Syndicate (JNS) wrote, “the political price of accepting U.S. aid remains onerous. It limits Israel’s options and flexibility with respect to defense procurement, especially when it comes to its own industries. It also creates the impression that Israel is a beggar that requires Washington’s assistance in order to defend itself. That encourages resentment of Israel on the part of Americans who don’t like foreign aid even when, as in Israel’s case, the United States gets a great deal in return.” http://www.israelnationalnews.com.

The above statement proves at least to a degree that others are thinking about future Israeli relations with the US.

The problem with US foreign aid to Israel is that most people don't understand it. Recently a bill was introduced that help explain the plus for America, "H.Res. 551" was introduced by Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), whose leadership attracted three very powerful co-sponsors: House Foreign Affairs Committee chair Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.), the committee’s ranking Democratic member, Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), and the chair of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Non-Proliferation, and Trade, Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas). At the time of this article, it had attracted 81 co-sponsors and passed through the Foreign Affairs Committee unanimously. The resolution notes a number of successes in the U.S.-Israel alliance:

The U.S.-Israel free trade agreement (FTA) was America’s first FTA when it was signed on April 22, 1985. Over the following 30 years, trade has multiplied tenfold to over
$40 billion annually.

Through government-funded U.S.-Israel collaborative research and development programs in science, energy, agriculture, security, technology, and numerous other areas, America has become a more environmentally friendly, healthier, better fed, more advanced, and financially stronger nation. The lives of people in America and Israel have been tangibly improved because of the two countries’ alliance.

The reason Congress spent time on H.Res. 551 was simple: America derives critical and unique benefits from its economic relationship with Israel. The findings of the resolution lead to two important conclusions: First, the U.S.-Israel economic relationship matters. Second, targeting the Israeli economy also targets the American economy, with potentially devastating results that reach beyond economics and into basic quality of life." http://www.thetower.org. In the past Israel has fought wars against Russian trained and equipped foes. During those wars, Israel captured the tools of war which Israel allowed the US to have and test. In one case a pilot defected with a first line Mig, and after Israel learned all it could about the Russian plane it was given to the US for testing. The plane allowed American pilots to fly against the very plane they would see in its war against Saddam Hussein.

Israel has given to the US much to offset the foreign aid that has allowed Israel to maintain its security edge. And, of course, we appreciate that help and assistance. But, what about the future? I think over the next few years Israel will do its best not to be put in the situation that it was in during the last war in Gaza. Where a president Obama could hold Israel hostage by not allowing them to resupply smart weapons from storage facilities right here in Israel.

The agreement was that in payment for the US storing the tools of war in Israel, Israel would be able to re-arm without asking permission. Going back on that agreement was a surprise for Israel, and taught us a lesson. The lesson is, don't put your best pardner into the position where he can deny you the weapons you need to survive. Recently I read that in preparations for the next war Israel has been manufacturing, and storing bombs, missiles, ammunition, and more so that we don't put ourselves at risk. It is reported that we have 10 times the stored weapons that we had during the 2006 war in Lebanon. In the future, Israel will be less and less dependent upon the largess of the US and foreign aid. I think that we will, however, go into joint venture deals where weapons systems will be developed jointly. The US may supply the bulk of the financing, while Israel supplies the brain power, and real time testing under combat situations.

All of the above says loudly that Israel will be more like a co-equal with the US rather than a small nation dependent on the largess of a larger big brother. Never again will we be put in the position where a mission to destroy a target has to be canceled because we felt compelled to tell the US our plans. And, the US called the target to warn him. This was done by Obama, the leader of our so called greatest allie. We know that Obama isn't unique, there will be another one sometime in the future. For that reason we are more self-reliant than ever and will continue to be so.

An undiplomatic dinner guest

Sar Shalom

In February of 2008, then Sen. Biden attended a state dinner in Afghanistan. During that dinner, Biden discussed the corruption in Afghanistan and the threat it posed in allowing the Taliban to gain support from the public. Karzai responded by giving his assurance that corruption was being brought under control. After about 45 minutes of listening to Karzai deny obvious reality, Biden put down his napkin, got up, declared "this dinner is over," and instructed his accompaniment to leave with him.

In the East, denying obvious reality is an endemic part of the honor-shame mentality. One of the more notable manifestations of this is various Palestinian officials declaring that they are descended from Canaanites/Jebusites/etc., that there never were any Jewish Temples in Jerusalem, or that the Jews have no history in the Land of Israel at all. Is there anyone who might ask now candidate Biden if Abbas, or any other Palestinian official, were to insist on any of the above, whether he would respond the way he responded to Karzai in 2008? If he answers unequivocally in the affirmative, it would provide some indication that he might end the coddle-coddle-coddle attitude towards the PNM and thereby have a positive impact for Israel.

Kahane's Baby

Michael Lumish

{Also published at the Elder of Ziyon and Jews Down Under.}


In pondering the Tlaib / Omar Israel fiasco we learned that while the Democrats were throwing a fit because Netanyahu decided against allowing US Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Ilham Omer into the country, they seem to have forgotten that the US refused to issue a visa to Knesset member Michael Ben Ari in 2012 when he was part of the National Union coalition.

This, of course, smacks of hypocrisy.

Ben Ari -- a student of hard-right-wing rabbi and politician, Meir Kahane -- was denied a visa to the US on the grounds that he had been a member of Kach, Meir Kahane's now-defunct political party that was outlawed in Israel on the grounds of racism. At some point that same year he co-founded the Kahanist political party, Otzma Yehudit, which translates into English as "Jewish Power" or "Jewish Strength." (To an American ear, these have very distinct connotations. On their English-language Facebook page they go with "Jewish Strength.") Otzma Yehudit represents a break-away party from the National Union coalition of right-wing and nationalist political parties, Ben Ari's former political home and from which he first gained entrance into the Knesset in 2009.

"Progressive-left," you can be sure, this guy is not.

The Kahanists, after all, also gave us Baruch Goldstein who on February 25, 1994, entered the Cave of the Patriarchs in the heart of Hebron, wearing his army uniform, and opened fire on Arabs in worship, killing 29 people and wounding 125 others. The able-bodied survivors overcame him and beat him to death on the spot. Perhaps dragging Goldstein into this is a bit unfair to Ben Ari but the decision-makers in Washington, D.C. (with Joe Biden sitting in the Vice President's office) were not oblivious to the reputation of Kahanism from whatever political party it comes out of.

This got me wondering just how heinous is Otzma Yehudit? Among liberal and progressive-left American Jews anything that smacks of Kahane brings to mind racism and violence if not terrorism and Otzma Yehudit is ultimately Kahane's baby. It is for this reason that the United States outlawed Kahane's Jewish Defense League as a domestic terrorist organization. Most liberal and progressive-left American Jews are ashamed of Kahane.

I, therefore, decided to examine the political ideology of Otzma Yehudit in order to see what I could make of it from a personal political perspective. Before I proceed, however, I want it understood that none of my conclusions represent an endorsement of Meir Kahane and certainly not of Baruch Goldstein. All I am doing here is cross-referencing the Otzma Yehudit Wikipedia page with its English-language self-described platform (pdf) as hosted by the Jewish Community Relations Council located in the San Francisco Bay Area. The reason that I bother with Wikipedia is because, in truth, their description of the party's platform is concise and closely in line with Otzma Yehudit's stated principles.

Wikipedia describes Otzma Yehudit  as follows:

The party is considered to be Religious Zionist, Kahanist, ultra-nationalist, anti-Arab, and far-right, and has also been described as racist, though the party disputes this.

The English-language self-described platform is very close to this, although they would never describe themselves as anti-Arab. Speaking strictly for myself -- as I intend to do throughout the rest of this exercise -- this does not sound like a very pleasant platform. As someone who grew up in a Reform Jewish household in both New York and Connecticut, such an ideology is entirely alien to my political sensibilities.

Wikipedia writes:

It calls for the annexation of the West Bank, and for complete Israeli rule between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

The annexation of Judea and Samaria is not something that I have a problem with, in theory.  The question is how to balance the demographic issue with the international reaction to such a move, which obviously would be considerable. There are ways of easing the demographic issue even under the circumstances of annexation. Thus, I do not necessarily have an issue with the party on this part of the platform. The devil, as always, is in the details.

The party is against the formation of a Palestinian state, and advocates for the cancellation of the Oslo accords, as well as for imposing Israeli sovereignty over the Temple Mount.

I tend to agree on all three counts. A Palestinian-Arab state directly in the heart of the Jewish homeland would be a disaster. It would simply continue the process of what I sometimes call The Long Arab-Muslim War against the Jews of the Middle East. It would be a giant launching-pad looking down from the hills upon Tel Aviv.

The Oslo accords are, of course, dead in the water. In truth it was a chimera, to begin with. The reason for this is because the Palestinian-Arab leadership never accepted any offer for statehood. From the Peel Commission of 1937 to the offers from Ehud Barack to Yassir Arafat and Ehud Olmert to Mahmoud Abbas the answer was always an unequivocal "no." One begins to think that a free and democratic and peaceful Palestinian-Arab state next to Israel is not exactly what they had in mind.

As for the Temple Mount, I sometimes feel bad for the reputation of Moshe Dayan. He was an excellent soldier and an icon of the Movement for Jewish Freedom which we call Zionism. But the Israelis should never have offered the Jordanian Waqf authority on the holiest site of Jewish heritage. Personally, I would like to see the Temple Mount democratized for worship among all faiths under Israeli sovereignty.

So, I am good with the platform on this, as well, although with the caveat that such a move would be exceedingly sensitive and could easily cause Israel much blood and trouble, both internationally and at home. Nonetheless, the status quo is unacceptable because it is entirely unjust to everyone other than Muslims.

The party also advocates for increased teaching of Jewish history in all elementary schools to "deepen Jewish identity in students".

I find it difficult to believe that anyone who cares about the well-being, and ongoing existence, of the Jewish people, could possibly have any problem with such a proposition.

The party is against "freezing construction of Jewish settlements, releasing terrorists, or negotiating with the PA". 

As I do not necessarily oppose the annexation of Judea and Samaria, why would I oppose Jewish people living anywhere within the home of our forefathers?

Releasing terrorists, of course, is a wretched idea. It motivates Palestinian-Arab fighters to kidnap Jewish Israelis for the purpose of trading one or two of them for hundreds of terrorists who may go on to kill again.

As for the Palestinian Authority, I find it regrettable that Israel even feels the need to negotiate with those who would see the Jewish population either dead or gone. My inclination, as enemies of the Jewish people and the Jewish state, would be to make them persona non grata, but I also understand that such a thing is easier said than done and the European Union, the United Nations, and the Democratic Party would have ugly things to say, and do, concerning the matter.

The party advocates for the deportation of "Arab extremists".

I agree with this proposition, but it represents a slippery-slope. The definition of "Arab extremist" must be sharp and tight. Such a proposition could easily slide into an authoritarian position wherein Israel starts deporting people who may not deserve it. So, while I am in broad agreement, I would also keep a sharp eye for the abuse of such a policy. Here, again, the EU, the UN, and the Democratic Party would scream from the hillsides.

On 24 February 2019, party member Itamar Ben Gvir called for the expulsion of Arab citizens of Israel who are not loyal to Israel.

I disagree with this entirely because it borders on the fascistic. The standard, in my opinion, should not be one of loyalty, but of actually promoting hatred or violence toward Israel or Jews.

The party advocates for what it calls "Jewish capitalism" as its economic system...

I do not know about "Jewish capitalism" but as a classical liberal who believes in regulatory capitalism, I agree.

The party also supports aiding the elderly and disabled.

Who could possibly disagree?

The party is also opposed to abortion. 

I favor a woman's right to choose an abortion, within certain limitations around what is popularly known as "late-term" abortion. In the case of rape or the health of the mother, I would always stand with a woman's choice.

The party supports easing restrictions on the IDFs rules of engagement. The party is against price tag attacks.

I agree on both counts and the last thing that Israel needs is to employ soldiers afraid to fire their weaponry. There obviously needs to be rules of engagement, but none of us want to see Jewish soldiers dead or injured because they were paralyzed by concern over the court system.

Overall, I think the party has much to recommend for Israel and for itself.

However, there is a big distinction to be made between a party platform and the behavior of its members and leadership. I do not necessarily see much in the way of racism in the platform, but I am, nonetheless, distinctly uncomfortable with its association with Kahanism.

If I was an Israeli, one thing that might keep me from voting for them would be the matter of trust, but I would give them the opportunity to earn it.

Rashida Tlaib’s ‘Calming Feeling’

Michael Lumish

{Also published at the Algemeiner.}

I must admit that I was probably wrong when I have suggested that the Tlaib / Omar Israel fiasco was likely just a light thunderstorm that would quickly pass. I am coming to the conclusion that I was mistaken.

This story appears to have stronger legs than I thought. It could even surpass the hysteria surrounding Netanyahu's 2015 address to the US Congress concerning Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Iran.

Many people who care about Israel are scratching this story like it is a deep itch, including me. And that means we are looking at various side issues related to the primary one. The primary issue, in my view, is around the question of why the Democratic Party would side with antisemitic anti-Zionists, such as Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota) against their Jewish constituency and in opposition to Israel following its own laws. Israeli legislation from 2017 requires the government to disallow entrance into the country for those who promote BDS.

One curious aspect of the story, however, is Rashida Tlaib's claim that she got a "calming feeling" when she thought about the Holocaust. What an unusual thing to say. Given that Tlaib is, in fact, an anti-Zionist it is very easy for Jewish people, and friends of Jewish people, to take that statement in the wrong way. Tlaib was not suggesting that she got a cozy feeling inside thinking about the misery of the Jews. On the contrary.

Tlaib said this:

There’s always kind of a calming feeling I tell folks when I think of the Holocaust, and the tragedy of the Holocaust, and the fact that it was my ancestors — Palestinians — who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human dignity, their existence in many ways, have been wiped out, and some people’s passports.

And just all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post-the Holocaust, post-the tragedy and the horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that time. And I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that, right, in many ways. But they did it in a way that took their human dignity away and it was forced on them.

It is true, obviously, that many Arabs of the Mandate suffered because of the 1948 War of Independence. Many lost their homes and jobs and lives and loved-ones. The problem is that Tlaib's interpretation is ahistorical. She pretends that the Arabs were innocent in the unfolding of events when they were not. She also pretends that the Arabs were not aggressive when they most certainly were. The Jews had no nefarious intentions toward the Arabs, but Arabs could not stomach Jewish sovereignty on historically Jewish land.

It should be noted, nonetheless, that Tlaib's "calming feeling" is not coming from gratification at Jewish loss, but in her belief that her grandparents relinquished their freedom to help Jews directly after the Shoah.

I cannot know if Tlaib is deceiving herself or if she is outright lying. The historical record does not reflect the notion that the Arabs in the British Mandate struggled to "create a safe haven for Jews" at great cost to their own well-being during World War II. The very idea of it is laughable. This is a falsehood so gross in its distortions that it is amazing that Tlaib could utter these words without her tongue falling out of her mouth.

The truth is that the Arabs in the mandate did everything they could to keep Jews out of the Jewish ancestral homeland even as the Holocaust was happening. Between 1936 and 1939 the Arabs launched the "Arab Revolt." These ongoing Arab riots concluded with the British issuing its infamous "White Paper" agreeing to Arab demands and thus keeping hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Jews trapped in Europe. These Jewish semi-Holocaust survivors were caught between the Nazis who were determined to kill them and the British who wanted to lock them up in camps.

And who among us can possibly forget the participation of Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem during World War II, who went to Berlin to strategize with Adolf Hitler on how best to bring the Holocaust to the Holy Land.

So, Representative Tlaib please do not deceive yourself into thinking that the Arabs of the mandate helped the Jews during the Holocaust. You are spreading what can be fairly described as a self-serving historical falsehood for the purpose of creating sympathy for the Palestinian-Arabs at the expense of the indigenous Jewish population. And if you are not aware of this perhaps your time would be better spent tending to the needs of your constituency rather than making life even more difficult for Israelis.

The Eyes of Earth

Michael Lumish

Chabot Space Center's original 1883 refractor scope.
Oakland, California

I tend to have a different view of humanity than many. Most people do not know what to make of our role on the planet and are simply living their lives and taking care of their families, without worrying about such an arcane issue.

Some, however, tend to think of humanity as a sort-of virus on the planet. We are undermining the health and well-being not only of people but of Earth, itself. We do so through climate change, and pollution, and war, and the ruining of the oceans by over-fishing, toxic waste, spilled oil-tankers, and the unintended creation of great islands of plastic swirling about the oceans, which further contributes to the decline of the fish population.

I have a different view.

While it is obviously true that we have the ability to ruin life on the planet, we are also the eyes of Earth through the development of the scientific method. Despite our worst inclinations and most hideous potential, we are also the way in which Earth comes to know itself. We are not, somehow, separate from nature. We are not separate from Earth but emerged out of Earth via the evolutionary process.

So, while humanity can be absolutely awful, we also, on a macro-level, look toward the stars and on a micro-level examine neutrons and protons and electrons. We are the means by which the Earth comes to know itself. We are the ones who orient our home planet within the solar system and within the galaxy and thus begin the process of understanding Earth's position within the universe.

We are the ones who examine the natural world around us. As much as we may be the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or the spiritual children of Jesus or Muhammad, we are also, nonetheless, the children of Aristotle, the "Father of Biology." We are also the children of Leonardo da Vinci who designed (but never built) a flying machine, called an "ornithopter," in the fifteenth-century.

I, therefore, recommend giving humanity a small break. We should not look upon ourselves with the kind of toxic cynicism which is far too common. We are but children. We are only now beginning to understand the human potential in fulfilling our role as the eyes of the planet. We are only now beginning to understand the human potential as the cognition of the planet in its most sophisticated form.

It should be understood that there is nothing in such a view that automatically contradicts the teachings of the world's major religions.

{If in your opinion I am wrong on this, please tell me why.}

It is, however, to acknowledge a certain nobility at the heart of the human experience and -- as difficult as it may be to imagine -- at the heart of world history, as well.

The anti-Zionist "Dynamic Duo" and the Brazilian Toxic Cartoonist

Michael Lumish

{Also published at The Jewish Press.}

Carlos Latuff is the most prominent antisemitic anti-Zionist cartoonist in the world and has recently done a scribble lionizing everyone's favorite American racists, Representatives Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota). For at least a decade his work was (and is) featured in various publications including The Globe Post, Le Monde diplomatique, The Toronto Star, the Islamic Front for the Iraqi Resistance (JAMI) magazine, Mondoweiss, and even the Brazilian version of Mad magazine.

As a Lebanese-Brazilian proponent of BDS and Jew-Hatred, his scratchings persistently equate Israel with Nazi Germany. The overall body of his work suggests that Nazi Germany is to Israel as Jews in Nazi concentration camps during World War II are to contemporary Palestinian-Arabs.

A piece by Yaron Steinbuch for the New York Post quotes Latuff directly defending this malignant comparison:

“'Of course Israel isn’t building gas chambers in the West Bank, but surely we can find some similarities (my emphases) between the treatment given to Palestinians by the [Israel Defense Forces] and the Jews under Nazi rule,' Latuff said, according to Fox News."

“'My cartoons have no focus on the Jews or on Judaism. My focus is Israel as a political entity,'” he said without explaining why it was necessary to use anti-Jewish tropes to attack the Jewish state."

Yes, surely we can find some similarities between Nazi Germany and Israel and if there are none we can just manufacture whatever malicious nonsense we want.

As an anti-Zionist, needless to say, Latuff does not believe that the Jewish people deserve a state.

It is fine for Italians to have Italy or the French to have France -- to the extent that they still do -- but Latuff considers a Jew building housing for himself and his family in Judea, beyond the so-called "Green Line," if not within the so-called "Green Line," an abomination before humanity.

Ilhan Omar, the Cutesy anti-Zionist -
Credit Fox News

His most recent cartoon comes directly on the heels of Tlaib and Omar's Israel fiasco, wherein Tlaib actually refused to visit her 90-something-year-old grandmother in a town just west of Ramallah if the Israelis insisted that she could not take it as an opportunity to kick Jews in the teeth by promoting BDS. This particular cat-scratch shows Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, putting a forefinger on his lips while covering Tlaib's mouth with his other hand. Beneath that we see the exact same posture but with Donald Trump endeavoring to silence the cute-as-a-little-anti-Zionist button, Omar. Above the image are the words of Tlaib from a tweet reading, “The more they try to silence us, our voices rise. The more they try to weaken us, the stronger we become. The more they try to discredit us, the truth prevails.”

Oh, sure.

The basic message of the cartoon is that Tlaib and Omar are honest actors who represent truth, justice, and the Palestinian / Somalian way, while Netanyahu and Trump are covering for the heinous crimes of the Jews. I would suggest "Israeli Jews," but we all know that antisemitic anti-Zionists, such as Latuff, Tlaib, and Omar, hold the pro-Israel Jewish diaspora as complicit in the supposed crimes of our brothers and sisters in Israel.

Among other such gems, we have a 2007 thing showing a tremendous American Bald Eagle straddling Africa. The claws of the monstrous bird bleed that continent while its enormous beak rips a gaping crimson hole out of north-eastern South America around the location of Venezuela. This obviously shows us what he thinks of the United States.

A recent 2019 scratch shows Israeli soldiers off-boarding a jet in Brumadinho, Brazil in order to assist in the saving of Brazilian lives after a toxic waste dam collapsed killing at least eighty-four people and displacing hundreds of others in January of this year. The Israeli soldiers are greeted on the tarmac by a figure representing Jair Bolsonaro, the President of that country, saying "Welcome to Brumadinho!" In response, a smiling Israeli soldier says, "Sorry for our delay! We're busy killing Palestinians!" The headline preceding the scratch reads, "Brumadhinho: Israel's Publicity Stunt in Brazil." Thus, when Israel undertakes a humanitarian operation within Latuff's country, he uses it as a cynical opportunity to defame the Jewish State, if not the Jewish people of Israel, more generally.

In a blurb directly above the malicious scratch, Latuff wrote:

"Now this contingent of the Israeli army (IDF) was sent to Brazil as “humanitarian aid”, coming from an army which routinely oppresses, brutalizes and kills Palestinians in the occupied territories. It may sound like a joke. A joke in bad taste! Like “pinkwashing” and other PR strategies, this is just another stunt in order to whitewash Israel’s gross human rights violations in the occupied territories of Palestine."

Carlos Latuff (2012)
Credit Wikipedia

Latuff, it must also be noted, came in second place with a scratching for Iran's International Holocaust Cartoon Competition equating Palestinian-Arabs with Jews in Nazi concentration camps, a theme which is a specialty for Latuff. It should not, therefore, surprise the fans of the Democratic Party's anti-American, anti-Zionist, antisemitic "dynamic duo" that they were proud to share the recent defamatory Latuff cartoon with the world on their Instagram accounts.

Ronn Blitzer, of FOX News, tells us, "It is unclear whether Tlaib or Omar were aware of Latuff’s history when they shared the recent cartoon. Fox News reached out to both lawmakers, but they did not immediately respond."

Perhaps by the time you read this they will have responded, although it is highly unlikely that they would do so on or for FOX. Nonetheless, there is no possible way that people as up to their necks in the antisemitic anti-Zionist cause could possibly have been unaware of Carlos Latuff. He is famous for delicious hatred in their circles.