Jews Should Walk Away

Michael Lumish 

{Also published at Jews Down Under.}

There is a small social-media movement known as #walkaway that is annoying the Washington Post.

In a piece by Abby Ohlheiser awkwardly entitled, "The #WalkAway meme is what happens when everything is viral and nothing matters," the Post laments:

"The pro-Trump Internet is really good at convincing its audience that going viral signals popular opinion, that its movement is and always will be #winning. In this case, #WalkAway is the answer to the possibility of a Blue Wave in the 2018 midterms. It doesn’t need to be true to be effective. After all, the hashtag has now become an article in The Washington Post."

{I do not know about you, but I find all these #hashtags annoying.}

In truth, the foundation of the Walk Away Movement - to the extent that you can even call it a "movement" - is the idea that decent Democrats should leave the party not out of allegiance toward Donald Trump or conservatism or the Republican Party, but because the party simply no longer represents their interests. Some people, like Ohlheiser, see it as an opportunistic ploy for the Republicans.

I see the Walk Away Movement as an expression of disgust.

The #WalkAway Facebook page describes itself as follows:

This group is for people who can no longer support the tyrannical groupthink of the "Politically Correct" Left.

It is NOT a group that supports the Right, the GOP, or Trump.

There's a difference. A rejection of the Left should not imply an embrace of the Right; that's a false binary that gets us nowhere. 

After about twenty-five years I walked away from the Democratic Party and the American-Left because I could no longer bare the hypocrisy. This is because I absolutely refuse to support any political party, or any political movement, that demands - with great self-righteous indignation - that they stand for anti-racism and anti-sexism and liberalism, when, in truth, they stand for none of those things.

One of the great friends of Israel and the Movement for Jewish Freedom (i.e., Zionism) is Fred Maroun. Maroun is a Canadian of Lebanese-Christian descent and a regular contributor to discussions within the Times of Israel and many places throughout pro-Jewish venues. He will also be contributing in panel discussions, along with Métis indigenous rights activist, Ryan Bellerose, and Professor of Philosophy, Andrew Pessin, at the 3rd Annual Israel Today Community Symposium on Sunday, August 12 at Temple Shalom in Dallas, Texas.

Fred disagrees with me concerning the Jewish aspect to the Walk Away Movement. He writes:

Those who use the #WalkAway tag should realize they're doing no favors to Israel, and they're putting their partisanship above Zionism.

Zionists who are Democrats should stay in the Democratic Party and fight tooth and nail for Israel within that party. Abandoning the party to antisemites is a terribly bad idea.

What do you think would happen? Whether anyone likes it or not, the Democrats will eventually be back power. That's just the way it works. If the party has only a weak rump of Zionists left by then, Israel will pay the price. No doubt about it.

So if you're an American Democrat Zionist, don't even think about walking away. Stay and fight for your values. If you must vote Republican sometimes, just keep it quiet. But don't abandon the party to the anti-Semitic sharks.

Do it for Israel, not for me.

Maroun's point is one that requires serious consideration, although I disagree with him.

My stance is that Jewish people and friends of Israel do not want the Democratic Party to take us for granted.

The truth is - much to my ongoing horror and disgust - the Democratic Party can kick around Jews from now until Yom Kippur and we will still pound on their doors to give them our money, our votes, and our support.

And this is why I do not believe that either Fred Maroun, or Alan Dershowitz, for that matter, have much to worry about.

Jewish Americans, including myself, voted for Barack Obama in 2008 by around 80 percent.

Jewish Americans, not including myself, voted for Barack Obama in 2012 by around 70 percent. And they did so despite the fact that Obama honestly believed as President of the US that he had every right to tell Jewish people where we may, or may not, be allowed to live within the very land of our ancestry.

No one needs to concern themselves with American Jews abandoning the Democratic Party. Given the malicious and childish reaction to the Trump Administration throughout both the grassroots and the mainstream media, social pressure will tamp down any meaningful defection of Jews.

American Jews are blinkered, for good historical reasons, by partisan loyalty. Look at these numbers. According to 2018 Pew Research polling only 27 percent of Democrats sympathize with Israel over their tormentors.

27 percent.

Yet they will still get our support.

What a shame.

Sacha Baron Cohen, while you're at it, could you ...

Sar Shalom

Anyone paying attention this past week knows about Sacha Baron Cohen's latest fictional character interacting with real people in Who is America? Among his exploits was convincing Congressmen and gun lobbyists to go on the record advocating for providing assault rifles to toddlers.

Without getting into the merits of Cohen's lampooning gun aficionados, there's one target I would particularly like to see hit by this antic, Linda Sarsour. The interview would start with discussion of the recent Gaza protests. It would its way up to the Palestinians having the right to march on the settlements, such as Kisufim and Nirim. It would continue with what should be done about the settlers. She should be goaded with statements about how those settlers have stolen Palestinian land leading to her agreeing that the settlers deserve to be killed. The more brutal the method she can be induced to endorse, the better.

Sacha, are you up to it?

Linda Sarsour and the Rejection of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Michael Lumish

{Also published at the Algemeiner.}

On a recent MSNBC news discussion show, Democratic Party anti-Zionist activist, Linda Sarsour claimed:

"Dr. Martin Luther King warned us about people like Chuck Schumer. He said it wasn't the Ku Klux Klan and white citizen counselors who were the obstacles towards justice. It was people calling for ‘civility' and people that were telling us when to protest and at what time and how to protest."

I find it fascinating that "progressives" like Linda Sarsour have the chutzpah to evoke Martin Luther King, Jr. when the very last thing that MLK stood for is Sarsour's brand of ideological racism.

The primary admonition of Dr. King was to judge people according to their individual character rather than immutable characteristics, like ethnicity. This was the fundamental message of his "I Have a Dream" speech on the National Mall on August 28, 1963. How someone who represents the American-left could not understand this requires explanation.

Anti-racism was the essential message of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States following World War II.

Yet Sarsour insists, “If you’re in a movement and you’re not following a woman of color, you’re in the wrong movement.”

This notion contradicts the teachings of King, and of the entire movement for social justice from Abolitionism to Abbie Hoffman, because it is racist on its face. What Sarsour is saying, in no uncertain terms, is that the quality of one's character is directly determined by one's ethnicity and gender.

This is turning the ideals of the Civil Rights Movement inside-out and backwards.

Sarsour also claimed, as the Elder of Ziyon noted in a piece entitled, The amazing color-changing Linda Sarsour (September 4, 2017):

When I wasn't wearing hijab I was just an ordinary white girl from New York City. 

Wearing hijab made you know that I was a Muslim. 

Generally, when we speak of a person's "color" we are talking about ethnicity, not ideology, religious or otherwise.

As long ago as the late 1970s it was primarily backward-thinking racists and knuckleheads who considered "race" as indicative of character. This is because the United States has come a long way in an exceedingly short period of time via ethnic relations.

It is sad that so long after 1968, and the assassination of Dr. King, that many of his spiritual-political heirs cannot stand the idea that the United States is actually among the least racist, least prejudicial, countries in the world.

The great irony in Sarsour's misthinking on the subject of King's legacy is that she wholeheartedly agrees with the racist notion, as put forth by the Women's March on Washington in 2017, that they needed to "follow women of color."

The cognitive dissonance is almost too painful to cognify.

The fundamental point of King's legacy, and, indeed, of the Civil Rights Movement prior to the rise of mid-late 1960s Black Nationalism, was that we should not judge people according to their skin color or ethnicity or gender. To do so is both racist and illiberal.

Sadly, Linda Sarsour and her allies are both.

If you want to understand how it is that Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the last US national election understand the significance of politically-correct overreach. Within it you will find many liberal workers of European descent who do not appreciate being castigated as racist for no other reason than being "white."

An opportunity, if we grab it, and then get lucky

Sar Shalom

Within the past week, the Democratic nominee for Congress in New York's 14th District, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes, gave an interview in which she excoriated Israel and then admitted that she is not an expert on geopolitics. While it still would have been preferable to keep Crowley, her understated admission about her lack of knowledge about the Middle East exposes a possible opening through which to educate her. Trying to educate her may have no effect, but we know what the effect of not acting will be, and successfully educating her would create a prominent Kasim Hafeez.

The first thing to note in how to educate her is that the standard practice of talking about Israel's contributions in technology, gay rights, or international relief are not going to cut. They simply do not answer the charge that Israel is arbitrarily denying the Palestinians basic life provisions, rather they argue that other aspects of Israel's actions should outweigh that. What's needed is to directly attack the notion that Israel is that sort of oppressor. With that objective, Ocasio-Cortes should be offered a tour of COGAT where she would be able to see what provisions Israel makes to provide the Palestinians with water and relief supplies. After that, she should get a tour of the IDF's MAG headquarters to learn about the IDF's rules of engagement and the role of the MAGs in micromanaging the soldiers' targeting of Palestinian terrorists.

A final stop on her tour would be to meet Meira Ovadia, who at one point at least, if not currently, worked for Palestinian Media Watch. She could tell Ms. Ocasio-Cortes how she grew up in Egypt believing all the tales Ocasio-Cortes does about Israel's evil, because that what was how everyone indoctrinated her. However, her family was Jewish. Even though her family kept that fact so secret that she did not know until vigilantes uncovered their secret. The fact that she adopted their attitudes towards Israel and that her family was secretive about being Jewish was no protection, they could not remain in Egypt and made plans to leave for Israel three days after. After high school in Israel, she start to work at PMW where she was saturated with Palestinian news and entertainment shows. It was only through her PMW-coworkers that she learned how Israel's supposed persecution of the Palestinians for no purpose, as depicted PA TV broadcasts about a 13 year old shot by the IDF, left out the fact that this Palestinian "victim" had stabbed someone just before being shot. Through stories like this, she could show Ocasio-Cortes how the narrative of the persecuting Israeli is a pack of lies.

This full package might fail to change Ocasio-Cortes' approach. However, the lack of cost if it does not, and the potential benefit if it does, suggest it worth trying.

This Week on Nothing Left

Michael Lumish

For the first hour this week, Michael Burd and Alan Freedman focus on the plight of the Jewish community in the UK as it is facing a rise in antisemitism and a hostile Labour Party – Michael is overseas and was recently in London, and he sat down with English blogger Richard Millet in London to get his views on these issues.

Then the fellahs speak with academic Denis MacEoin concerning an article written by an English bishop, and move on to discuss Jeremy Corbyn.

In the second hour we hear from Israeli commando Daniel K from the Duvdevan Unit of the IDF (the TV series Fauda was based on this unit) and then catch up with Tamar Yonah from Israel News Talk Radio who runs a program that discusses issues in a similar way to Nothing Left.

Michael and Alan also have something to say about the ABC’s coverage of the Gaza conflict and what the Australian Jewish Association did in response.

Here is this week's episode of Nothing Left ...

3 min Editorial:  UK Labour Party antisemitism

8 min Michael speaks to Richard Millet in London on the situation facing UK Jewry

23 min Denis MacEoin part 1, on Bishop Tomlin

34 min Denis MacEoin part 2, on UK Labour

50 min Daniel K, Israeli commando from Duvdevan Unit {FAUDA}

1 hr 12 Discussion on ABC bias, David Adler on Outsiders

1 hr 20 Tamar Yonah, Israel News Talk Radio


NOTHING LEFT can be heard live each Tuesday 9-11am on FM 87.8 in the Caulfield area, or via the J-Air website www.j-air.com.au

Contact Nothing Left at:

michael@nothingleft.com.au


alan@nothingleft.com.au

A fight for the soul of the Democratic Party

Liz Wagner

A fight for the soul of the Democratic Party is underway, with the far left minority coalition poised to make it the party of socialists.

Jews have been tolerated in this coalition up till now, but our presence has been contingent on our cooperation in the undoing of Israel.

Had Jews fought ferociously, as we should have, against the lies that form the basis of the anti-Israel position of the far left—for example, that Israel is “white,” colonial, expansionist, apartheid and guilty by association with American imperial power—we would have been booted from the coalition long ago.

We maintained limited rights within the coalition through weak resistance to, and sadly for many the active embrace of, every one of those lies. Jews like Greenblatt remain desperate and deluded enough to think they can earn us a place at the new power table that is forming. But there is no place for Jews there.

We failed to fight, and now the Palestinians and Islamists are displacing us.

The only thing that might stop what is happening is for Jews to mount our own campaign of resistance, both inside and outside the Democratic Party.

Unfortunately, Greenblatt reflects the state of Jewish leadership on the left.

Completely co-opted, with little if any understanding of what is happening from a Jewish point of view that isn’t diluted to meaninglessness.