#World Jewish Congress Foundation | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

girlactionfigure · 6 months ago

Text

Is Zionism white supremacy?

WHAT IS WHITE SUPREMACY?

White supremacy is the belief that white people are superior to all other races and should thus dominate them.

Contemporary white supremacist ideology stems from the pseudoscientific antisemitic and anti-Black racial “science” that emerged in the seventeenth century.

This racial “science” established the foundation for the Holocaust.

WHAT IS ZIONISM?

Zionism is the national movement for Jewish self-determination in the Land of Israel, the ancestral homeland of the Jewish People.

Self-determination is the concept that peoples who share a national identity — not to be confused with nationality — have a legal right to choose their own governance, rather than being forced into living under the thumb of an empire. Self-determination is a basic tenet of international law, applicable to all peoples.

In 1897, Jewish delegates from across the world met for the First Zionist Congress. There, they defined Zionism in simple terms: “Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Eretz Israel [the Land of Israel] secured under public law.”

Zionism has absolutely nothing to do with race. Zionism is a movement for self-determination for all Jews, regardless of skin color. Early Zionists included figures such as Taamrat Emmanuel, who was an Ethiopian Jew.

SCIENTIFIC RACISM, ANTISEMITISM, AND WHITE SUPREMACY

Antisemitism is foundational to white supremacy, but it is not exclusive to white supremacy. As the “world’s oldest hatred,” antisemitism predates both white supremacy and other forms of anti-minority bigotry. White supremacy built upon the already existing foundation of antisemitism.

“Scientific racism” (also known as “biological racism”) is a pseudoscientific form of racism that claims there is scientific evidence to justify racial discrimination or the belief that some races are inferior or superior to others. Scientific racism reached its peak and “legitimacy” between 1870 and the end of World War II. The Nazis applied the theories of scientific racism to antisemitism, which in turn was one of the main factors that fueled the Holocaust. Today’s white supremacist ideology stems from scientific racism.

In the 1870s, Wilhelm Marr, a scientific racist and antisemite, coined the word “antisemitism” to replace the previously used term “Jew-hatred,” as “antisemitism” sounded scientific, which “legitimized” it (as in: “I’m an antisemite, not a Jew-hater!” Sound familiar?).

There is no white supremacy without antisemitism. It’s absurd to describe the Jewish movement for self-determination as “white supremacy” when white supremacists themselves openly revile Jews (and Zionism). Marr, for example, said of Zionism, “the entire matter is a foul Jewish swindle, in order to divert the attention of the European peoples from the Jewish problem.”

WHAT DO WHITE SUPREMACISTS THINK OF ZIONISM?

White supremacists, historically, have loudly opposed Zionism. As mentioned, Marr himself called Zionism a “foul Jewish swindle.”

Arguably the most infamous white supremacist of all time, Adolf Hitler, wrote in his infamous manifesto, Mein Kampf, “For while the Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that the national consciousness of the Jew finds its satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian state, the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb Goyim. It doesn’t even enter their heads to build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organization for their international world swindle…”

Before, during, and after the Holocaust, the Nazis worked to prevent a Jewish state from establishing. The Nazis supported Palestinian Arab nationalists, most notably the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, in material ways. In November of 1933, the Nazis revealed that they had established a direct contact with the Arab leadership in Palestine, with the hopes of “adapting the Nazi program” to the Holy Land.

Between 1936-1939, the Arabs in Palestine revolted against the British and Jewish immigration, killing some 500 Jews. The British quickly suspected Nazi involvement, noticing that the Arab rioters carried smuggled Nazi weaponry. The Jerusalem police found that the Arabs had received 50,000 pounds from Germany and 20,000 pounds from Italy. The British also suspected the Germans of planning the 1938 pogrom in Tiberias.

In November of 1941, al-Husseini met with German foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop and with Hitler himself. Hitler promised al-Husseini that once the German troops reached the Arab world, “Germany’s objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere…”

In 1957, a top secret document came to light, which revealed that Germany and Italy recognized the right of the Arabs to “solve the Jewish question” in Palestine and other Arab nations. During the meeting, Hitler told the Mufti: “Germany is resolved, step by step, to ask one European nation after the other to solve its Jewish problem, and at the proper time to direct a similar appeal to non-European nations as well.”

Between 1948-1949, 1000 former Bosnian Muslim SS members joined the Palestinians in their fight against the Jews.Hundreds of members from the 13th and 23rd SS Divisions volunteered as well.

In early 1948, 30,000 army veterans from various fascist forces created an army known as Black International. Some of the members included Nazi soldiers, a pro-Nazi renegade Soviet battalion, and pro-Nazi Poles and Yugoslavs, as well as the Muslim members of a brigade that al-Husseini had organized to fight alongside the Nazis. Black International attacked Jewish towns and kibbutzim.

A source close to the group commented: “These Poles, Russians, Germans and Yugoslavs…are the Arabs fighting for national liberation…Actually their cynical joy is unbounded at the double gift which has been handed them — the opportunity to butcher Jews, and get paid for it.”

After the Holocaust and the establishment of the State of Israel, white nationalists have continued to oppose Zionism. In 1976, an American neo-Nazi, Eric Thomson, used the term “Zionist Occupation Government,” alleging that Zionist organizations, working on behalf of an international Jewish conspiracy, are controlling foreign governments. The “ZOG” conspiracy remains popular among white supremacists and white nationalists.

Just as Hitler once did, neo-Nazis have continued colluding with Palestinians in their quest to destroy Israel. In 1972, the Palestinian terrorist organization Black September carried out a massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. Black September had enlisted the help of two notorious German neo-Nazis, Willi Pohl and Wolfgang Abramowski, to carry out the attack, though apparently the neo-Nazis were unaware of their exact plans.

Specifically, Pohl aided Abu Daoud, the mastermind behind the Munich Massacre, by helping him obtain forged passports, credentials, and other documents. Even worse, he helped Daoud obtain weapons. According to Pohl himself, “[I] drove Abu Daoud around Germany, where he met Palestinians in various cities.”

Former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke, openly reviles Zionism. He’s made statements such as “the only Nazi country in the world is Israel,” echoing the sentiments of many Islamists and those on the far left today. Just recently, David Duke, along with fellow white supremacists Nick Fuentes and Jake Shields, met with a number of pro-Palestinian influencers. Duke also coined the antisemitic slur “Zio,” now popular among many in the pro-Palestine crowd.

THE ZIONISM IS RACISM LIBEL

In 1969, the United Nations passed the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Both the United States and Brazil wanted to add a clause including antisemitism. The Soviet Union, which had been heavily oppressing its Jewish population since the 1950s, worried that such a clause would be used to rebuke them for persecuting Soviet Jews. As such, they included a counter proposal, which was a clause that equated Zionism to Nazism. That way, they could say that they were (rightfully) anti-Zionists, not antisemites.Neither clause passed.

But the Soviets were never covert about the fact that their “anti-Zionism” was actually just antisemitism. In the 1960s, Soviet propaganda made blatantly antisemitic claims, including: “The character of the Jewish religion serves the political aims of the Zionists,” “Zionism is inextricable from Judaism, rooted in the idea of the exclusiveness of the Jewish people,” comparisons of Judaism to the Italian mafia, and claims that Israel was merely a means to an end of Jewish imperialism and world domination.

On November 10, 1975, on the 37th anniversary of the Nazi pogrom of Kristallnacht, the United Nations, headed by the Soviet Union, Soviet satellite states, and over countries in the Arab League, passed Resolution 3379, declaring Zionism a form of racism. Absurdly, the resolution never defined Zionism, nor did it explain, how and why, exactly, Zionism is a form of racism. In fact, the delegate for Liberia stated that, while reading the resolution, he “anxiously waited” to see a definition for Zionism, and an explanation as to how Zionism is racism. Since he found no such thing, he voted against it.

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia all but admitted that Resolution 3379 had been nothing more than a Cold War propaganda ploy, calling it “a relic of the Ice Age.” In December of 1991, UN Resolution 46/86 revoked Resolution 3379. But while Resolution 3379 was repealed, the dark shadow of its legacy lingers.

THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT IS NOT ABOUT RACE

Many people in the west, particularly in the United States, only understand oppressor-oppressed dynamics through the lens of race and white supremacy. Given the history of their country, that makes sense. Many anti-Israel activists are weaponizing this ignorance by framing the Israelis in the conflict as the “white people” and the Palestinians as the “people of color.” For example, in 2021, Yahya Sinwar, the mastermind of the October 7 massacre, compared himself and the Palestinian people to George Floyd in an interview with Vice News. Another example? Various anti-Israel groups have been pushing the “Deadly Exchange” conspiracy theory, falsely alleging that Israel is behind police brutality in America.

Unfortunately, many people are falling for it. But what they don’t realize is that they are projecting their own experience of the world onto a drastically different region of the world, where the dominant force of oppression is not white supremacy but Islamist fundamentalism.

Palestinians and Israeli Jews are both Middle Eastern people, with Middle Eastern ancestry, belonging to Middle Eastern cultures. The majority of Israeli Jews are Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews, whose ancestors spent many, many centuries continuously in the Middle East and North Africa. Ashkenazi Jews, whom many people incorrectly dub “European Jews,” can trace their genetic ancestry to Israel, have practiced a Middle Eastern culture for thousands of years, and were considered “Asiatic foreigners” for the centuries during which they were exiled to Europe.

Of course, racism and anti-Blackness exist in Israel. But they exist in the Palestinian Territories, too. Afro-Palestinians first arrived to what are now Israel and the Palestinian Territories via the Arab slave trade. The Arab slave trade laid the groundwork for the transatlantic slave trade most of us are familiar with; in other words, they established the routes.

Before October 7, some 11,000 Afro-Palestinians resided in the “Al Abeed” neighborhood in Gaza, translating, quite literally, to “slaves.” They are also derogatorily referred to as “abeed,” meaning slaves. This conflict is not between two different races, but between two opposing national movements.

MAIN SOURCES

#Israel #Zionism #Jews #White supremacy

162 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 5 days ago

Text

WASHINGTON – Four weeks before U.S. President-elect Donald Trump takes power, all his rhetoric and appointments are indicating that his campaign's vow to crack down on pro-Palestinian sentiment in America will be a defining factor of his administration's early days.

Throughout the campaign, both Trump and the Republican Party insisted that such a clampdown would be quick and complete. After Trump's speedy cabinet appointments and ahead of a Congress ruled by a GOP majority, the fight against the pro-Palestinian movement might be one of the only things that has a clear path across the government.

Once Trump's picks for the top diplomatic positions are in place, such as Marco Rubio as secretary of state and Elise Stefanik as UN ambassador, the harshest step – the deporting of pro-Palestinian protesters who have student visas – could be the first move. Both Rubio and Stefanik are well-known proponents of such a step, one of Trump and the GOP's few solid policy commitments on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during the campaign.

In October, Rubio wrote to the current secretary of state, Antony Blinken, urging him to "immediately perform a full review and coordination effort to revoke the visas of those who have endorsed or espoused Hamas' terrorist activity."

Stefanik, meanwhile, has doubled down on her star-making turn as university-president interrogator by calling for students' deportation. She told Fox News in May that these students "are pro-Hamas members of a mob who are calling for the eradication of Israel. They are calling for genocide against Jews around the world and in America. It is unthinkable that we are allowing this to happen at U.S. universities."

The blueprint is there

Other nominees more focused on domestic matters have also suggested that the pro-Palestinian protest movement will be a key issue. Among them is Pam Bondi, Trump's second attempt at a nominee for attorney general. The former Florida attorney general has called for a revocation of visas and condemned the campus protests.

The thing that's really the most troubling to me [are] these students in universities in our country, whether they're here as Americans or if they're here on student visas, and they're out there saying 'I support Hamas,'" she told Newsmax last year.

Bondi added: "Frankly they need to be taken out of our country or the FBI needs to be interviewing them right away."

Trump's choice to lead the FBI is controversial loyalist Kash Patel. While the former federal prosecutor doesn't have much of a record on campus protests, he is most notorious for his desire to remove any of Trump's critics and doubters from the national security apparatus.

Further, Patel's experience as the National Security Council's senior director of counterterrorism during Trump's first term positions him to crack down on pro-Palestinian sympathizers. A blueprint for this is detailed in Project Esther, a plan to combat antisemitism unveiled by the Heritage Foundation, which is behind Project 2025, the 922-page paper outlining conservatives' plans to fundamentally alter the government.

The underlying thesis of Project Esther – a more tractable 33 pages – is that "America's virulently anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, and anti-American 'pro-Palestinian movement' is part of a global Hamas Support Network (HSN)."

The task force's mission statement calls for a coalition to "dismantle the infrastructure" that purportedly sustains the alleged network. This would take one to two years. "Supported by activists and funders dedicated to destroying capitalism and democracy, the HSN benefits from the support and training of America's overseas enemies," the document states.

It adds that this network "seeks to achieve its goals by taking advantage of our open society, corrupting our education system, leveraging the American media, coopting the federal government, and relying on the American Jewish community's complacency."

The document suggests how a potential Trump administration would crack down on protesters, something he has promised. It also calls for the deporting of protesters in the United States on student visas and the targeting of universities' tax-exempt status. It notes laws that might "exploit [the network's] vulnerabilities," require representatives of foreign entities to disclose their connections, and target organized crime and racketeering.

Hardliner Harmeet Dhillon

One bill that will not be in the law books anytime soon is the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which is aimed at combating campus antisemitism. It also requires the Education Department to take the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism into account when determining if an action or practice that violates Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was motivated by antisemitism.

The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the act earlier this year, despite concerns on the left that criticism of Israel would be conflated with antisemitism and on the right that the bill had dramatic implications on freedom of speech. There were also tropes from far-right Republicans that the bill would state that Jews killed Jesus.

Outgoing Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has kept the bill off the Senate floor for a vote by attaching it to various other packages that he hopes to push through.

Amid this stalemate, another notable opponent has emerged: Harmeet Dhillon, Trump's choice to lead the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, which will play a major role in enforcing federal action combating antisemitism.

Dhillon, one of Trump's top legal minds behind his efforts to challenge the 2020 election results, slammed the Antisemitism Awareness Act upon its House passage. "I have been a First Amendment and religious liberties lawyer for minority and majority faith communities for decades and this bill is knee-jerk anti-constitutional dreck," she wrote on X.

She added: "Do better, think harder, and be smarter, Congress. 'Hate speech' laws are a liberal concept." But Dhillon has joined her new colleagues in being a vocal advocate for cracking down on the campus protest movement.

"Sue Yale," she wrote on X in April. "Sue every university that refuses to keep students safe based on their religion. Make them regret their choices. Deplete their endowments. Sue each and every violent protester and organizers. Drain their bank accounts. Sow salt in their career plans."

Dhillon followed that post by laying into a protest at UCLA: "I defend the right of these jackass terrorist apologists to protest, but they do NOT have the right to block access to other students or prevent them from going to class. My tax dollars are subsidizing UCLA and the Regents need to get their act together ASAP or be sued!"

Linda McMahon, Trump's education secretary nominee, has also publicly committed to prioritizing the issue, even if the incoming president has vowed to dismantle her department.

"Certainly. I don't think we should have any kind of discrimination anywhere, and I absolutely abhor any kind of violence that we have seen on campus. It should not be allowed," she told Jewish Insider without specifying what plan she supports. "We have lots of priorities that I'm going to be dealing with, and certainly anything that is against the safety and welfare of any of our students will be a priority."

The proposed defunding of the Education Department is perhaps the plank in Project 2025 that most concerns the American-Jewish community. The Office of Civil Rights, which is responsible for investigating and adjudicating allegations of antisemitism, is part of this department and has opened at least 145 investigations into such complaints.

Hardliner Brian Mast

This past summer, a rare coalition of nearly two dozen Jewish organizations across the political and denominational spectrum urged Congress to "provide the highest possible funding" for the Office of Civil Rights, despite the deep disagreements regarding antisemitism on Capitol Hill and in the Jewish world.

House Republicans, though they deemed the office's funding insufficient, voted to cut $10 million more after accusing it of failing to prioritize antisemitism. Several Trump-allied Republicans have also highlighted the office's role in culture war issues like Title IX and what they call "forcing women to compete against males in sports."

Holding a razor-thin majority and already plagued by infighting, the House GOP might find that advancing legislation relating to the Palestinians is the only influential work it can get done in the next session of Congress.

In a surprise development, Rep. Brian Mast has been slated to chair the House Foreign Affairs Committee after Trump advocated on his behalf. The Florida congressman has long been considered the U.S. lawmaker most hostile to the Palestinians. He has decried efforts to bolster humanitarian aid for Gaza and dismissed the notion of innocent Palestinian civilians.

"I don't think we would so lightly throw around the term 'innocent Nazi civilians' during World War II. It is not a far stretch to say there are very few innocent Palestinian civilians," he said in remarks that led to an unsuccessful effort in the House to formally rebuke him.

Mast, an evangelical Christian, once volunteered with the Israeli military, and he wore his uniform in Congress in the days after the October 7 attack. That was a way to protest Rep. Rashida Tlaib's placing of a Palestinian flag outside her office.

Mast has also condemned the concept of a two-state solution while spearheading legislation to permanently cut U.S. funding for the UNRWA refugee agency, among other hostile bills. He has also slammed U.S. efforts to secure a cease-fire in Gaza and advocated for expedited and expanded weapons sales to Israel.

24 notes · View notes

adarinas · 6 months ago

Text

(WIP) Resources Masterlist

*Note: a lot of these are geared toward American and/or English-speaking populations, my apologies, but plenty of them are global!

GENERAL

End Global Genocides Master Document | Another Master Doc | Tumblr Post - Links to Informational Articles/Websites

Discord: Global Strikes Against Genocide Discord Server

SUDAN

Eyes on Sudan | Sudan Solidarity Collective | Linktree - Sudanese Diaspora Network

Info: 500 days of war... | Sudan War Explained - Interview

Petitions/Letters: Stop Sudan War | Justice for Human Rights Abuse Victims in Chad and Sudan | Stop Arming Saudi Arabia and the UAE to stop the Sudan genocide

Donations: Sudan Funds | Tumblr Masterpost - Sudan Orgs/Fundraisers | Water for South Sudan

ROHINGYA

Free Rohingya Coalition

Info: CNN - Hundreds of Rohingya face drone strikes / ethnic cleansing in Myanmar

youtube

Spotify - Rohingya Culture Interview

Petitions:

Donations: Mutual Emergency Aid 4 Rohingya | Emergency Aid for Rohingya Orphans and Disabled Families

TIGRAY

Tigray Action Committee

Info: Omna Tigray - What's happening in Tigray? | Tghat News | UN Article from Sept 2023

Petitions/Letters: Petition - Demand Aid to Tigray | Stop the Tigray Genocide

Donations: Places to Donate for Tigray Tumblr Post | Ahwatna Relief

DRC

Friends of the Congo | Focus Congo | Congo Resources Tumblr Post

Info: DRC: Inside the world's forgotten war | Congo Genocide Explained - Interview

Petitions: No Tax Dollars to Fund Congo Genocide | Halt the Ongoing Genocide in Congo

Donations: SOS Congo (organized by Goma Actif) | IRC in Congo | Action Kivu

KASHMIR

Stand with Kashmir | Kashmir Masterlist Tumblr Post

Info: Kashmir - Paradise Lost (BBC)

Petitions/Letters: Stop Arming Indian Occupation of Kashmir

Donations: KASHMER

EAST TURKESTAN

Campaign for Uyghurs | Uyghur Truth Project | Camp Album Project

Info: Persecution of Uyghurs in China - Wikipedia

Petitions/Letters: Change.org - Uyghur Muslims

PALESTINE

Jewish Voice for Peace | USPCR Stop Gaza Genocide Toolkit

Info: Wizard Bisan, a Palestinian journalist

Petitions/Letters: Not Another Bomb | Amnesty - Demand a Ceasefire | Tumblr Post with Petitions | Ceasefire Now | (JVP) Tell Congress - Arms Embargo Now

Donations: Gaza Funds | Low on Funds Palestinians Fundraisers | Vetted Gaza Evacuation Fundraisers | Arab.org Daily Click | Middle East Children's Alliance

ARMENIA

Learn for Artsakh | Help Armenians Carrd | Artsakh Genocide Action Toolkit

Info: Denying Your History - Armenian Genocide

Petitions/Letters: Petition - Stop Erasing Armenian Culture | International Recognition of Artsakh

Donations: Fund for Armenian Relief | Armenia Fund | CARITAS Armenia | ARS of Eastern USA inc.

INDIGENOUS AMERICANS

MMIWG2S | Indigenous Action | NDN Collective

Petitions/Letters: Stop sterilizing Indigenous women without consent | Free Leonard Peltier

HAWAII

Info: Tourism's Negative Impact on Native Hawaiians | Noho Hewa Film (2008)

Donations: Hawaii Community Foundation

HAITI

Haiti Liberation Google Doc

Donations: Hands Together for Haitians | Haiti Outreach | Hope for Haiti | Twitter Thread of GoFundMes/Donation Links

WEST PAPUA

Free West Papua Website | West Papua Resources/Info Tumblr Post | We Need to Talk about Papua Carrd (last updated 2021 but has good info)

Info: United Nations - Indonesia: Shocking abuses against indigenous Papuans | Twitter Thread of Helpful Articles

Petitions/Letters:

ALSO:

The Kurdish Project

KEEP BOYCOTTING, PROTESTING, AND DOING EVERYTHING YOU CAN! FREE ALL OPPRESSED PEOPLES OF THE WORLD!

If you can't donate, share!

If you have any concerns with the links I've posted, please share! I tried my best to verify everything but please let me know if you are doubtful of something! Also, please please share other resources from people who are directly impacted by these genocides!!

LAST UPDATED SEPTEMBER 16 2024.

#stop global genocides #more resources can be found by looking up country names on my blog #please keep doing everything you can to help people in need the world needs you

51 notes · View notes

the-garbanzo-annex-jr · 2 months ago

Text

by Jaryn Crouson

Professors connected to anti-Israel protests head programs that received millions of taxpayer dollars, according to a report released Wednesday by government transparency group Open The Books.

The Department of Education has spent $283 million on foreign studies grants since 2020, with over $22.1 million going towards programs studying the Middle East, Open The Books found. The study analyzed the top three grant recipients, Indiana University, Columbia University and Georgetown University, and found that each highlighted anti-Israel professors as distinguished staff in their programs.

“These universities all have multibillion dollar endowments,” Amber Todoroff, deputy policy editor at Open The Books, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “They get tax breaks, government-backed student loans, and enormous sums through federal grants and contracts. Through these Title VI grants, they’re getting funding specifically for departments that have hosted radical professors, instigating shameful protests nationwide. It’s high time Congress takes a closer look at how this money is being spent, and, with so many new ways to learn languages and international culture, if it’s even necessary at all.”

Universities received these funds in the form of two different grants: National Resource Centers grants, which go directly to departmental programs, and Foreign Language and Area Studies (FLAS) grants, which can be used to give students fellowships to study foreign regions or languages, according to Open The Books.

Columbia received $2.8 million in FLAS grants from 2020 to 2024, according to the report. Its program is meant to ��examine transnational connections, develop Islamic studies, and deepen specialist expertise on the region,” according to Columbia’s 2018 grant proposal.

The 2018 application mentioned Joseph Massad, a professor in the Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies department, as a selling point for the university’s program, noting that his classes “focus on the modern history, gender, political economy, international relations, politics and culture of the region.” The university received $653,632 in an FLAS grant in the 2022-2023 school year that was used in part to fund a fellowship for a student to take Massad’s “Gender and Sexuality in the Arab World” class, according to Open The Books.

Massad was alleged by students to be biased “against both Israel and the West” in his classes, according to Open The Books, citing nonprofit group Middle East Forum. The professor published an article the day after Hamas’ attack in 2023 calling it a “stunning victory,” and he gave a talk at the university in 2002 titled “On Zionism and Jewish Supremacy.”

Columbia experienced intense anti-Israel campus protests during the spring semester that resulted in over 100 arrests and multiple safety concerns. (RELATED: Many Pro-Palestinian Protesters Remain In ‘Good Standing’ At Columbia)

🧵On October 8, Professor Joseph Massad described the Oct. 7 brutal terror attack as “awesome” and a “stunning victory.” He also happens to be the chair of an important academic approval Committee. Watch as @Columbia President claims: “he is no longer a chair of that… pic.twitter.com/rRU32HQnTv — House Committee on Education & the Workforce (@EdWorkforceCmte) April 17, 2024

Indiana University raked in $2.84 million in federal grants from 2020 to 2023 for its Middle East program, and touted professor Abdulkader Sinno its 2018 grant application for his specialization in “the evolution and outcomes of civil wars, ethnic strife and other territorial conflicts; Muslim representation in Western liberal democracies; Islamist parties’ participation in elections,” according the report. Sinno reportedly served as a faculty advisor for the university’s Palestinian Solidarity Committee, which was involved in hosting an “anti-Israel counter protest” where members confronted participants of a Hillel demonstration.

Sinno attempted to sidestep university policies to host the pro-Palestinian speaker Miko Peled for the organization, booking the speaker as an academic event rather than student event, according to the university’s students newspaper, the Indiana Daily Student. The decision led to a two-semester suspension from teaching and a year suspension from advising student groups, according to Open The Books.

Even after the suspension, Sinno gave a speech at an “alternative” graduation for anti-Israel activists during which he praised them for being part of a “proud tradition” and said that their protesting showed “empathy and caring,” according to WFYI.

More than 50 protesters were arrested on Indiana University’s campus in April after a clash with police that left multiple injured, according to Fox 59.

Georgetown received $2.64 million from the Department of Education from 2020 to 2023 in FLAS funding, and it named Associate Professor and Director of Georgetown’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies Dr. Fida Adely in its 2018 grant proposal, the report found. Adely is a member of the Faculty for Justice in Palestine’s National Advisory Board, according to Open The Books, which is a group that “encourages academic and cultural boycotts of Israel and Israeli academic institutions,” according to its website.

Hundreds rallied on Georgetown’s campus during the spring semester, hosting an encampment that lasted more than a week and scuffled with police, according to the university’s student newspaper, The Hoya. Adely participated in an October rally, calling on the university to divest from Israel-linked companies, according to a separate student paper, The Georgetown Voice.

“By funding schools that teach radical ideologies and practice a far-Left DEI philosophy, controversial professors and administrators are also gaining access to a vast ecosystem of tax dollars, and influence over impressionable young people,” the report concluded. “These funds can be used to advance their research, build their standing as credentialed academics, gain tenure, and impact international policy discussions. Meanwhile, our national interest in these grants comes into considerable question. Are we encouraging more professionals who will be credible in these fields and represent U.S. interests, or more folks who are determined to ‘dismantle’ the ‘settler colonialism’ they see all around them?”

Columbia, Georgetown, Indiana University, Massad, Sinno and Adely did not respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.

#joseph massad #department of education #taxpayers #columbia university

15 notes · View notes

a-very-tired-jew · 10 months ago

Text

Manipulation of Westerners by Hamas - A conspiracy that's not so much a conspiracy

Since the inception of the current war I have seen a number of people try to identify why Leftists are so quickly to defend Hamas's action and embrace/justify varying degrees of antisemitism. Often I see right wing authors point to DEI programs, safe spaces, and other such things. To me this is just another attempt at discrediting academia and they're using the guise of "fighting antisemitism" to push their narrative. I have found several neutral Jewish writers on the subject, such as Feldman from Harvard, who have addressed the long standing antisemitism within academia, politics, and culture. However, I have not seen anyone address the manipulation of Leftists by extremists as long standing tactic. What do I mean? Shortly after this began, Dr. Lorenzo Vidino of the George Washington University put together a small document titled The Hamas Network in America: A Short History. Dr. Vidino is considered an expert in these type of terrorist groups and has advised governments around the world for years. As such there is some contention regarding him and things he has said. However, this document is fairly clean of bias and lays out this network based upon evidence that the FBI collected through wiretaps and presented in a court case in the 00's. While it is a short document, I will not go over everything and just discuss the highlight. In 1993 a meeting was held in Philadelphia, PA, USA by senior Hamas members. The members of this meeting discussed how they could garner support from the West and protect themselves from scrutiny. One quote that stands out and highlights their intent comes from Shukri Abu Baker "I swear by Allah that war is deception, we are fighting our enemy with a kind heart. . . . Deceive, camouflage, pretend that you’re leaving while you’re walking that way. Deceive your enemy.” This statement of deception underscores the rest of the meeting and their subsequent plans. How do we know what was said? Well, the FBI had wiretapped the room the meeting was held in, so we have transcripts of their intent straight from their mouths. The strategy that the members come up with and discuss in the document has three approaches. 1) Charity & Fundraising.

In the meeting the Hamas members discuss how to raise money for their cause. They would fundraise inside and outside their respective communities, and that for every 5,000 that they raised for others they would send 100k to their allies. This type of behavior culminated in the USA's case against the Holy Land Foundation and associated groups. Many other charities have followed suit and have conducted similar behavior, hence why many charities focused on the I/P conflict are viewed suspiciously. There is not a good tract record of these groups actually getting the aid to the Palestinian civilian and instead funding terrorist groups.

2) Politics.

The members of the meeting stressed the need to influence Congress, the general American public, and to garner political support. They emphasized that they needed a neutral organization that would not publicly state it supported Hamas or other terrorist organizations and could deceive the general public into thinking they didn't. They would use neutral language and simply try to sway politics. Members of this meeting then went on to help found CAIR (specifically Omar Ahmed and Nihad Awad).

3) Research and Outreach.

Within the meeting they repeatedly emphasize that their violent rhetoric would upset the Westerners that would likely support them. As such, they needed to change the way they spoke to outsiders, change the perceptions of them, and influence progressives through coopting their language. They state that you need to use the language that the American progressive sympathizes with and couch things in terminology such as "oppressor", "colonist", and so on. One method that was suggested, and employed, was to infiltrate academia and produce research that was biased towards their ideals.

“This can be achieved by infiltrating the American media outlets, universities and research centers." - Omar Ahmed For example, The United Association for Studies and Research was created by members of this group and is a think tank outside of Chicago. The organization is considered defunct now, but its members went on to other positions in politics, academia, think tanks, and research. Think about that. Members of Hamas's network have become professors at colleges and universities. These are institutions where many young adults go to round out the beliefs they began developing in their early teens. This means that they're extremely passionate, but also easily manipulated. I personally remember the anti-GMO craze of the 00's and 10's and how every college campus was full of anti-GMO student activists claiming wild conspiracies about the danger of them. Now? That movement mostly gone and relegated to the corners where anti-science and pseudoscience believers dwell. But more importantly, a lot of that activism was manufactured by outside agitators with malicious intent disguised as benign activists.

In regards to the current group of young adult activists in the West (the majority are Zoomers and Millenials), they have been consuming material from academics with questionable intent that has been wrapped in language they resonate with. That makes the 3rd tactic of the Philadelphia Meeting the most dangerous one to me. For all the concern about academia "brainwashing our youth" there is a very real element of manipulation by academics who have allegiances and/or sympathy to terrorist groups and ideals. But they hide it in academic speak to make the general public think that they're not endorsing violent and hateful rhetoric. All of this feels like a conspiracy theory that has me linking red string to photos like Charlie from Always Sunny... but this is real. The FBI wiretapped a meeting and presented their transcripts back in the 00s. So some part of the USA knew that this was happening, knew that this manipulation was going on...and just allowed it. Bringing awareness is just a small step into addressing something that, to me, is quite scary to consider.

#israel hamas war #Holy Land Foundation #Leftist #Academia has been manipulated for decades #It now makes sense as to why certain academics justified 10/7 #Academia #Khaled Mashal thanked American college students #jumblr #leftist antisemitism

18 notes · View notes

banji-effect · 1 year ago

Text

We, the undersigned organizations, write to express our urgent concern regarding dire and escalating violence in Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territory, which continues to result in significant human suffering and loss of civilian life.

We condemn all violence against civilians by Hamas and the Israeli military. In this critical moment, we believe it is imperative that U.S. policymakers take measures to immediately de-escalate the violence to prevent the further loss of civilian life. We urge Congress and the Administration to:

Publicly call for a ceasefire to prevent the further loss of life;

Prioritize the protection of all civilians, including by urgently securing the entrance of humanitarian aid into Gaza and working to secure the release of hostages; and

Urge all parties to fully respect international humanitarian law.

We implore Congress and the Administration to abstain from rhetoric that exacerbates violence and to unequivocally condemn all violations of international law. Over the last several days, the Israeli government has cut all food, fuel, and humanitarian assistance to the Gaza Strip. On October 12, Israel issued an evacuation order for the entire northern Gaza Strip, telling residents to evacuate south of Wadi Gaza. This amounts to approximately 1.1 million people. The U.N. is calling for this order to be rescinded, warning it will have “devastating humanitarian consequences.”

We again urge Congress and the Administration to publicly call for, and help to facilitate, an immediate ceasefire to prevent the tragic loss of more innocent Palestinian and Israeli lives. Thank you for your urgent consideration.

Sincerely,

Alliance of Baptists American Baptist Churches USA American Friends Service Committee American Muslims for Palestine Americans for Justice in Palestine Anera Arab American Institute Auburn Theological Seminary Center for Civilians in Conflict Center for Jewish Nonviolence Center for Victims of Torture Church of the Brethren, Office of Peacebuilding and Policy Churches for Middle East Peace Common Defense Council on American-Islamic Relations Demand Progress Democracy for the Arab World Now The Episcopal Church Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Fellowship of Reconciliation Freedom Forward Friends Committee on National Legislation Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect Grassroots International Historians for Peace and Democracy If Not Now Institute for Policy Studies New Internationalism Project International Civil Society Action Network (ICAN) Israel/Palestine Mission Network of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Jewish Voice for Peace Action Just Foreign Policy Justice Democrats Lott Carey Baptist Foreign Mission Convention MADRE Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns Mennonite Central Committee U.S. Minnesota Peace Project MPower Change Action Fund National Council of Churches National Iranian American Council Neighbors for Peace Nonviolent Peaceforce PAX Pax Christi USA PC(USA) Office of Public Witness Peace Action Project on Middle East Democracy Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft Quixote Center ReThinking Foreign Policy Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights RootsAction September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows Sojourners The Duty Legacy The Unitarian Universalist Association The United Methodist Church - General Board of Church and Society The Zomia Center United Church of Christ United for Peace and Justice UNRWA USA Women for Weapons Trade Transparency Working Families Party World BEYOND War Yemen Freedom Council Yemen Relief and Reconstruction Foundation Yemeni Alliance Committee

5 notes · View notes

roscoebarnes3 · 2 years ago

Text

Humanities Council is a friend of Natchez

By Roscoe Barnes III

The theme song for the NBC show, “Golden Girls,” begins with the words, “Thank you for being a friend. Travel down the road and back again. Your heart is true, you're a pal and a confidant.”

As corny as these words may seem, they express the gratitude that I have for Mississippi Humanities Council and its contributions to Natchez. The council has been a friend, but even more, it has been an essential partner to Natchez, helping us to grow as we strive to tell our full history.

The council has provided many opportunities for our institutions to succeed in their areas of expertise. These institutions are telling stories, providing lectures, having dialogue, and discovering history that is preserved, presented, and publicized throughout the year. This is all being done, in part, by the resources provided by the council.

The success is no surprise when you consider the council’s mission, which is to “create opportunities for Mississippians to learn about themselves and the larger world and enrich communities through civil conversations about their history and culture.”

Just recently, the council and its board members paid a visit to Natchez for a two-day retreat. They met on Thursday and Friday, June 8 and 9, at Historic Natchez Foundation. During their stay, they conducted business and dined at local restaurants. They also toured some of our historical sites, such as Melrose, Rhythm Night Club Memorial Museum, and the Dr. John Banks House, where they held a reception.

Over the years, Dr. Stuart Rockoff, the council’s executive director, and his team have been staunch supporters of Historic Natchez Foundation, Natchez Historical Society, Visit Natchez, and Natchez National Historical Park. They also support the annual Natchez Literary and Cinema Celebration. But that isn’t all. In 2021 and 2022, the council approved six grants for three of our museums.

Here's a list of other things the council has done over the last two years in its support of Natchez:

* In August 2021, John Spann, the council’s program and outreach officer, came to Natchez and spent the day meeting with the staff of Visit Natchez and directors of three museums: Rhythm Night Club Memorial Museum, Dr. John Bowman Banks Museum, and the Natchez Museum of African American History and Culture.

* Spann returned in July 2022 to lead a symposium on the subject of “Freedom.” The event drew a large audience.

* In May 2022, the council, along with Visit Mississippi, approved our application to have Natchez listed on the Mississippi Freedom Trail and the U.S. Civil Rights Trail.

* In October 2022, Rockoff spoke at the monthly meeting of the Natchez Historical Society, where he gave a talk on the Jewish history of Mississippi.

* In 2022, the council brought the traveling Smithsonian exhibit “Voices & Votes: Democracy in America” to Co-Lin in Natchez.

* The council also provides support through its Speakers Bureau, of which our very own Jeremy Houston and Galen Mark LaFrancis are members.

This list does not include the webinars, Zoom calls, and phone calls the council used to provide guidance on grant funding.

As noted on its website, the council is “a private nonprofit corporation funded by Congress through the National Endowment for the Humanities to provide public programs in traditional liberal arts disciplines to serve nonprofit groups in Mississippi.”

By supporting us in our efforts to promote the humanities here in southwest Mississippi, the council is doing what it does best, which is exactly what it was created to do.

In the book of Proverbs, we’re told, “There is a friend who sticks closer than a brother” (ESV). Mississippi Humanities Council, I’m happy to say, has been and continues to be such a friend.

----------------

Roscoe Barnes III, Ph.D., is the cultural heritage tourism manager for Visit Natchez.

Note: This column appears on the op-ed page (4A) of The Natchez Democrat (June 14, 2023).

#NatchezCulturalLegacy #VisitNatchez #NatchezHistory #MississippiHumanitiesCouncil #MSHumanities

4 notes · View notes

ramon-balaguer · 6 months ago

Text

Based on my Belief, Faith, US Constitution and History, The United States of America 🇺🇸 Republic is an English speaking Christian✝️ Country Blessed by GOD👻 Jesus🎚️ through The Holy Spirit👻 of great Power 💥 Freedom 🗽 and Wealth 💰and in diversity of beliefs, cultures, ethnicities, languages, religions, and politics that both Divide US🇺🇸 internally and Unite US🇺🇸 under external attacks and ridiculous ridicule… But “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord…” Psalm 33:12

Is the United States a Christian nation? In 2009, President Barack Hussein Obama said speaking for himself and his Democratic Party, “…we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.”

President Obama did not echo the words of his predecessors or post POTUS (watch Pause to Pray—short video clips of former Presidents expressing their faith). However, I beg to differ and the question still remains: Is the United States a Christian nation?

To answer, this question needs to be asked. . .

What is “a Christian nation?”

First, we must state the obvious. A nation can’t be Christian because a Christian is a person. Jesus🎚️ died for individual people. He paid the penalty for mankind’s sins, and when He saves a person, He regenerates the soul. A nation doesn’t have a real soul — but people do.

Now, we must also understand that if “a Christian nation” means that everyone in the nation is a Christian, then by that definition, the United States is certainly not a “Christian nation.”

However, if “a Christian nation” means that our Founding Fathers were GOD fearing Bible-Believing Christians who practiced their Faith and laid down a government and a social order founded upon Christian ethics, morals, and values (i.e., the teachings of Jesus🎚️), then, yes, we can be considered a Christian nation — but perhaps more accurately, a nation of many Christians; actually a Majority of around 70%

Historical Support

Historical documents support the intent of our Founding Fathers in building this nation as a Republic upon a Biblically Christian foundation:

The glory of GOD👻 and the advancement of Christianity can be found in almost all of the colonial charters.

The Declaration of Independence cites:

“… the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s GOD👻 entitle them …”

“…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator👻 with certain unalienable Rights…”

“the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge👻 of the world 🌎…”

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine👻 Providence…”

The U.S. Constitution📜, which reflects the Christian✝️ worldview, recognizes Sunday as a day set apart for Honoring GOD👻 Jesus🎚️:

“If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.”

The Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 7

Personal Testimonies

John Adams, Letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813

“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were… the general principles of Christianity✝️ …I will avow that I then Believed, and now Believe, that those general principles of Christianity ✝️ are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of GOD👻.” –

Abraham Lincoln, Proclamation Appointing a National Fast Day, Washington, D.C., March 30, 1863

“It is the duty of nations as well as men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of GOD👻 and to recognize the sublime Truth🎚️ announced in the Holy Scriptures📖 and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose GOD👻 is the LORD🎚️.”

Grover Cleveland, The Public Papers of Grover Cleveland, Governor, 1883.

“Those who manage the affairs of government are by this means reminded that the Law of GOD👻 demands that they should be courageously True to the interests of the people, and that the Ruler👻 of the Universe🌌 will require of them a strict account of their stewardship.”

Teddy Roosevelt, address before the Long Island Bible Society in the Presbyterian church at Oyster Bay in 1901

“In taking a general survey of the concerns of our beloved country, with reference to subjects interesting to the common welfare, the first sentiment which impresses itself upon the mind is of gratitude to the Omnipotent👻 Disposer🎚️ of All Good for the continuance of the signal blessings of His🎚️ providence, and especially for that health which to an unusual extent has prevailed within our borders, and for that abundance which in the vicissitudes of the seasons has been scattered with profusion over our land.

Nor ought we less to ascribe to Him🎚️ the glory that we are permitted to enjoy the bounties of His🎚️ hand in peace and tranquillity — in peace with all the other nations of the earth 🌏, in tranquillity among ourselves🇺🇸. There has, indeed, rarely been a period in the history of civilized man in which the general condition of the Christian✝️ nations has been marked so extensively by peace and prosperity.”

Supreme Court Justice David Brewer in 1905:

In what sense can [America] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that the people are in any manner compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Neither is it Christian✝️ in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or name Christians✝️. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all (religions). Nor is it Christian✝️ in the sense that a profession of Christianity✝️ is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions. Nevertheless, we constantly speak of this Republic🇺🇸 as a Christian nation – in fact, as The Leading Christian✝️ nation of the world 🌍.

President Woodrow Wilson, 1911 Presidential campaign speech

“America was Born a Christian✝️ nation.”

President Franklin Roosevelt, Christmas, 1944

“Peace on earth, goodwill toward men – America🇺🇸 must cling to that message. For it is my deep conviction that democracy cannot live without that True🎚️ religion which gives a nation a sense of justice and moral purpose.”

President Ronald Reagan was very well known for speaking boldly of his Christian✝️ Faith🎚️…

August 1, 1983, At the Annual Meeting of the American Bar Association, Atlanta, Georgia

“It’s not good enough to have equal access to our law; we must also have equal access to the higher law🎚️ – The Law of GOD👻.

President George Washington warned that morality could not prevail in exclusion of religious principles. And Jefferson asked, ‘Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure, when we’ve removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of people that these liberties are the gifts of GOD👻?’ We must preserve the noble promise of the American dream for every man, woman, and child in this land. And make no mistake, we can preserve it, and we will. That promise was not created by America. It was given to America as a gift from a loving GOD👻 – a gift proudly recognized by the language of liberty in the world’s greatest charters of freedom: our Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.”

Dallas Ecumenical Prayer Breakfast, August 23, 1984, Reunion Arena, Dallas, TX

“Without GOD👻, there is no virtue, because there is no prompting of the conscience. Without GOD👻, we’re mired in the material, that flat world that tells us only what our senses can perceive. And without GOD👻, there is a coarsening of society. And without GOD👻, democracy will not and cannot long endure. If we ever forget that we’re one nation under GOD👻, then we will be a nation gone under!”

A Christian✝️ Legacy

The legacy we leave to our children will direct their future. So, we must always remember and reflect upon our blessing of freedom and the importance of protecting our freedom. Let us give thanks to the only One who offers true freedom and pray fervently for His mercy on our country. May we always be mindful of the legacy we will leave to future generations and strive to make it Godly.

We must teach our children about Jesus, tell them of our country’s biblical foundation, and share the testimonies of the “great cloud of witnesses” from the Bible📖 and history. If we don’t teach our children GOD’s👻 Truth🎚️, the world 🌎 will teach them its lies.

A Son’s Testimony

After his father’s death on June 5, 2004, Michael Reagan issued the following statement, reflecting the kind of legacy given to him by a godly father and President:

“And as I look back over Dad’s 93 years, what puts me truly at peace is knowing that my father was fully aware of Who his God is. Not only did he offer up his presidency but he offered up his life a long time ago to serve his GOD🎚️Jesus.

And so now the peace I feel is knowing that my father has gone home to be with his GOD👻 and his Lord🎚️, and that is the greatest gift that he ever gave me.” Michael Reagan, June 7, 2004

Pause to Pray

Ask yourself, “Is America a Christian✝️ nation? Is it a nation of many Christ🎚️ followers who remember, support, and defend the biblical📖 principles upon which our nation🇺🇸 was built?

Take a minute and watch testimonies from former Presidents and evangelists of our day:

https://reasonsforhopejesus.com/presidents-prayed-professed-faith/

Pause to Pray for America. <*}}}><

U.S. PRESIDENTS SPEAK JESUS🎚️:

"It would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplication to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States."-George Washington (1789-1797)

"It is essential, my son, in order that you may go through life with comfort to yourself, and usefulness to your fellow creatures, that you should form and adopt certain rules and principles, for the government of your own conduct and temper. It is in the Bible, you must learn them, and from the Bible how to practice them. Those duties are to God, to your fellow creatures, and to yourself."-John Adams (1797-1801)

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever."-Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809)

"My confidence will under every difficulty be best placed, next to that which we have all been encouraged to feel in the guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being whose power regulates the destiny of nations, whose blessings have been so conspicuously dispensed to this rising Republic, and to whom we are bound to address our devout gratitude for the past, as well as our fervent supplications and best hopes for the future."-James Madison (1809-1817)

"Voltaire spoke of the Bible as a short-lived book. He said that within a hundred years it would pass from common use. Not many people read Voltaire today, but his house has been packed with Bibles as a depot of a Bible society. The Bible rose to the place it now occupies because it deserved to rise to that place, and not because God sent anybody with a box of tricks to prove its divine authority."-James Monroe (1817-1825)

"May I never cease to be grateful for the numberless blessings received through life at His hands, never repine at what He has denied, never murmur at the dispensations of Providence, and implore His forgiveness for all the errors and delinquencies of my life!"-John Quincy Adams (1825-1829)

"We who are frequently visited by this chastening rod, have the consolation to read in the Scriptures that whomsoever He chasteneth He loveth, and does it for their good to make them mindful of their mortality and that this earth is not our abiding; and afflicts us that we may prepare for a better world, a happy mortality."-Andrew Jackson (1829-1837)

"I only look to the gracious protection of that Divine Being whose strengthening support I humbly solicit, and whom I fervently pray to look down upon us all. May it be among the dispensations of His Providence to bless our beloved country with honors and length of days; may her ways be pleasantness, and all her paths peace!"-Martin Van Buren (1837-1841

"I deem the present occasion sufficiently important and solemn to justify me in expressing to my fellow citizens a profound reverence for the Christian religion, and a thorough conviction that sound morals, religious liberty, and a just sense of religious responsibility are essentially connected with all true and lasting happiness; And to that good Being who has blessed us by the gifts of civil and religious freedom, who watched over and prospered the labors of our fathers and has hitherto preserved to us institutions far exceeding in excellence those of any other people, let us unite in fervently commending every interest of our beloved country in all future time."-William Harrison (1841-1841)

"When a Christian people feel themselves to be overtaken by a great public calamity, it becomes them to humble themselves under the dispensation of Divine Providence, to recognize His righteous government over the children of men, to acknowledge His goodness in time past, as well as their own unworthiness, and to supplicate His merciful protection for the future."-John Tyler (1841-1845)

"Under the blessings of Divine Providence and the benign influence of our free institutions, it stands before the world a spectacle of national happiness. It becomes us in humility to make our devout acknowledgements to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for the inestimable civil and religious blessings with which we are favored."-James Polk (1845-1849)

"In conclusion I congratulate you, my fellow-citizens, upon the high state of prosperity to which the goodness of Divine Providence has conducted our common country. Let us invoke a continuance of the same protecting care which has led us from small beginnings to the eminence we this day occupy."-Zachary Taylor (1849-1850)

"I rely upon Him who holds in His hands the destinies of nations to endow me with the requisite strength for the task and to avert from our country the evils apprehended from the heavy calamity which has befallen us."-Millard Fillmore (1850-1853)

"We have to maintain inviolate the great doctrine of the inherent right of popular self-government; to reconcile the largest liberty of the individual citizen with complete security of the public order; to render cheerful obedience to the laws of the land, to unite in enforcing their execution, and to frown indignantly on all combinations to resist them; to harmonize a sincere and ardent devotion to the institutions of religious faith with the most universal religious toleration....whilst exalting the condition of the Republic, to assure to it the legitimate influence and the benign authority of a great example amongst all the powers of Christendom. Under the solemnity of these convictions the blessings of Almighty God is earnestly invoked to attend upon your deliberations and upon all the counsels and acts of the Government, to the end that, with common zeal and common efforts, we may, in humble submission to the divine will, cooperate for the promotion of the supreme good of these United States."-Franklin Pierce (1853-1857)

"We ought to cultivate peace, commerce, and friendship with all nations, and this not merely as the best means of promoting our own material interests, but in a spirit of Christian benevolence toward our fellow-men, wherever their lot may be cast. In all our acquisitions the people, under the protection of the American flag, have enjoyed civil and religious liberty. I shall now proceed to take the oath prescribed by the Constitution, whilst humbly invoking the blessing of Divine Providence on this great people."-James Buchanan (1857-1861)

"That the Almighty does make use of human agencies, and directly intervenes in human affairs, is one of the plainest statements of the Bible. I have had so many evidences of His direction, so many instances when I have been controlled by some other power than my own will, that I cannot doubt that this power comes from above."-Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865)

"Let us look forward to the time when we can take the flag of our country and nail it below the Cross, and there let it wave as it waved in the olden times, and let us gather around it and inscribe for our motto: 'Liberty and Union, one and inseparable, now and forever", and exclaim: Christ first, our country next!"-Andrew Johnson (1865-1869)

"I believe in the Holy Scriptures, and whoso lives by them will be benefitted thereby. Men may differ as to the interpretation, which is human, but the Scriptures are man's best guide. Yes, I know, and I feel very grateful to the Christian people of the land for their prayers in my behalf. There is no sect or religion, as shown in the Old or New Testament, to which this does not apply."-Ulysses Grant (1869-1877)

"I am a firm believer in the Divine teachings, perfect example, and atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. I believe also in the Holy Scriptures as the revealed word of God to the world for its enlightenment and salvation."-Rutherford Hayes (1877-1881)

"My countrymen, we do not now differ in our judgement concerning the controversies of past generations, and fifty years hence our children will not be divided in their opinions concerning our controversies. They will surely bless their fathers and their fathers' God that the Union was preserved, that slavery was overthrown, and that both races were made equal before the law. Above all, upon our efforts to promote the welfare of this great people and their Government I reverently invoke the support and blessings of Almighty God."-James Garfield (1881-1881)

"It has long been the pious custom of our people, with the closing of the year, to look back upon the blessings brought to them in the changing course of the seasons and to return solemn thanks to the All-Giving Source from whom they flow."-Chester Arthur (1881-1885)

"All must admit that the reception of the teachings of Christ results in the purest patriotism, in the most scrupulous fidelity to public trust, and in the best type of citizenship. Those who manage the affairs of government are by this means reminded that the law of God demands that they should be courageously true to the interests of the people, and that the Ruler of the Universe will require of them a strict account of their stewardship. The teachings of both human and Divine law thus merging into one word, duty, form the only union of Church and state that a civil and religious government can recognize."-Grover Cleveland (1885-1889, 1893-1897)

"The importance for man and beast of the prescribed weekly rest, the sacred rights of Christian soldiers and sailors, a becoming deference to the best sentiment of a Christian people, and a due regard for the divine will demand that Sunday labor in the Army and Navy be reduced to the measure of strict necessity."-Benjamin Harrison (1889-1893)

"There is no currency in this world that passes at such a premium anywhere as good Christian character. The time has gone by when the young man or the young woman in the United States has to apologize for being a follower of Christ. No cause but one could have brought together so many people, and that is the cause of our Master."-William McKinley (1897-1901)

"Every thinking man, when he thinks, realizes that the teachings of the Bible are so interwoven and entwined with our whole civic and social life that it would be literally impossible for us to figure ourselves what that life would be if these standards were removed. We would lose almost all the standards by which we now judge both public and private morals; all the standards towards which we, with more or less resolution, strive to raise ourselves."-Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909)

"No man can study the movement of modern civilization from an impartial standpoint, and not realize that Christianity and the spread of Christianity are the basis of hope of modern civilization in the growth of popular self government. The spirit of Christianity is pure democracy. It is equality of man before God - the equality of man before the law, which is, as I understand it, the most God-like manifestation that man has been able to make."-William Taft (1909-1913)

"A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday, does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do. We are trying to do a futile thing if we do not know where we came from or what we have been about.....The Bible is the one supreme source of revelation of the meaning of life, the nature of God, and spiritual nature and needs of men. It is the only guide of life which really leads the spirit in the way of peace and salvation. America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture." -Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921)

"What doth the Lord require of thee but to do justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"-Warren Harding (1921-1923)

"The strength of our country is the strength of its religious convictions. The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country."-Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929)

"Menaced by collectivist trends, we must seek revival of our strength in the spiritual foundations which are the bedrock of our republic. Democracy is the outgrowth of the religious conviction of the sacredness of every human life. On the religious side, its highest embodiment is the Bible; on the political side, the Constitution."-Herbert Hoover (1929-1933)

"We cannot read the history of our rise and development as a nation, without reckoning with the place the Bible has occupied in shaping the advances of the Republic. Where we have been the truest and most consistent in obeying its precepts, we have attained the greatest measure of contentment and prosperity." -Franklin Roosevelt (1933-1945)

"The fundamental basis of this nation's laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and Saint Matthew, from Isaiah and Saint Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don't have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State!"-Harry Truman (1945-1953)

"The spirit of man is more important than mere physical strength, and the spiritual fiber of a nation than its wealth. The Bible is endorsed by the ages. Our civilization is built upon its words. In no other book is there such a collection of inspired wisdom, reality, and hope."-Dwight Eisenhower (1953-1961)

"We in this country, in this generation are, by destiny rather than choice, the watchmen on the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility, that we may exercise our strength with wisdom and restraint, and that we may achieve in our time and for all time the ancient vision of peace on earth, goodwill toward men. That must always be our goal. For as was written long ago, 'Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.'."-John Kennedy (1961-1963)

"If we fail now, we will have forgotten that democracy rests on faith....For myself, I ask only in the words of an ancient leader: 'Give me now wisdom and knowledge that I may go out and come in before this people'....Come now, let us reason together." -Lyndon Johnson (1963-1969)

"Today, I ask your prayers that in the years ahead I may have God's help in making decisions that are right for America, and I pray for your help so that together we may be worthy of our challenge. Let us go forward from here confident in hope, strong in our faith in one another, sustained by our faith in God who created us, and striving always to serve His purpose."-Richard Nixon (1969-1974)

"Without God there could be no American form of government, nor an American way of life. Recognition of the Supreme Being is the first - the most basic - expression of Americanism. Thus, the founding fathers of America saw it, and thus with God's help, it will continue to be."-Gerald Ford (1974-1977)

"Here before me is the Bible used in the inauguration of our first President in 1789, and I have just taken the oath of office on the Bible my mother gave me just a few years ago, opened to the timeless admonition from the ancient prophet Micah: 'He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God"-Jimmy Carter (1977-1981)

"Let us, young and old, join together, as did the First Continental Congress, in the first step, humble heartfelt prayer. Let us do so for the love of God and His great goodness, in search of His guidance, and the grace of repentance, in seeking His blessings, His peace, and the resting of His kind and holy hands on ourselves, our nation, our friends in the defense of freedom, and all mankind, now and always."-Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)

"The great faith that led our nation's founding fathers to pursue this bold experience in self-government has sustained us in uncertain and perilous times; it has given us strength and inspiration to this very day. Like them, we do very well to recall our 'firm reliance on the protection of divine providence' to give thanks for the freedom and prosperity this nation enjoys, and to pray for continued help and guidance from our wise and loving Creator."-George Bush (1989-1993)

"When our Founders boldly declared America's Independence to the world and our purposes to the Almighty, they knew that America, to endure, would have to change....And so, my fellow Americans, at the edge of the 21st century, let us begin with energy and hope, with faith and discipline, and let us work until our work is done. The Scripture says, "And let us not be weary in well-doing, for in due season, we shall reap, if we faint not." From this joyful mountaintop of celebration, we hear a call to service in the valley. We have heard the trumpets. We have changed the guard. And now, each in our way, and with God's help, we must answer the call." Bill Clinton (1993-2001)

++++++++++++

Inauguration Speech  Saturday, January 20, 2001

This peaceful transfer of authority is rare in history, yet common in our country. With a simple oath, we affirm old traditions, and make new beginnings. As I begin, I thank President Clinton for his service to our nation. And I thank Vice President Gore for a contest conducted with spirit, and ended with grace. I am honored and humbled to stand here, where so many of America's leaders have come before me, and so many will follow.

We have a place, all of us, in a long story; a story we continue, but whose end we will not see. It is the story of a new world that became a friend and liberator of the old. The story of a slave-holding society that became a servant of freedom. The story of a power that went into the world to protect but not possess, to defend but not to conquer. It is the American story; a story of flawed and fallible people, united across the generations by grand and enduring ideals.

The grandest of these ideals is an unfolding American promise: that everyone belongs, that everyone deserves a chance, that no insignificant person was ever born. Americans are called to enact this promise in our lives and in our laws. And though our nation has sometimes halted, and sometimes delayed, we must follow no other course.

Through much of the last century, America's faith in freedom and democracy was a rock in a raging sea. Now it is a seed upon the wind, taking root in many nations. Our democratic faith is more than the creed of our country, it is the inborn hope of our humanity; an ideal we carry but do not own, a trust we bear and pass along. And even after nearly 225 years, we have a long way yet to travel.

While many of our citizens prosper, others doubt the promise — even the justice — of our own country. The ambitions of some Americans are limited by failing schools, and hidden prejudice, and the circumstances of their birth. And sometimes our differences run so deep, it seems we share a continent, but not a country.

We do not accept this, and will not allow it. Our unity, our union, is the serious work of leaders and citizens in every generation. And this is my solemn pledge: I will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity.

I know this is within our reach, because we are guided by a power larger than ourselves, Who creates us equal in His image. And we are confident in principles that unite and lead us onward.

America has never been united by blood or birth or soil. We are bound by ideals that move us beyond our backgrounds, lift us above our interests, and teach us what it means to be citizens. Every child must be taught these principles. Every citizen must uphold them. And every immigrant, by embracing these ideals, makes our country more, not less, American.

Today we affirm a new commitment to live out our nation's promise through civility, courage, compassion and character. America, at its best, matches a commitment to principle with a concern for civility. A civil society demands from each of us good will and respect, fair dealing and forgiveness.

Some seem to believe that our politics can afford to be petty because, in a time of peace, the stakes of our debates appear small. But the stakes, for America, are never small. If our country does not lead the cause of freedom, it will not be led. If we do not turn the hearts of children toward knowledge and character, we will lose their gifts and undermine their idealism. If we permit our economy to drift and decline, the vulnerable will suffer most.

We must live up to the calling we share. Civility is not a tactic or a sentiment. It is the determined choice of trust over cynicism, of community over chaos. And this commitment, if keep it, is a way to shared accomplishment.

America, at its best, is also courageous. Our national courage has been clear in times of depression and war, when defending common dangers defined our common good. Now we must chose if the example of our fathers and mothers will inspire us or condemn us. We must show courage in a time of blessing, by confronting problems instead of passing them on to future generations.

Together, we will reclaim America's schools, before ignorance and apathy claim more young lives. We will reform Social Security and Medicare, sparing our children from struggles we have the power to prevent. We will reduce taxes, to recover the momentum of our economy and reward the effort and enterprise of working Americans. We will build our defenses beyond challenge, lest weakness invite challenge. We will confront weapons of mass destruction, so that a new century is spared new horrors.

The enemies of liberty and our country should make no mistake, American remains engaged in the world, by history and by choice, shaping a balance of power that favors freedom. We will defend our allies and our interests. We will show purpose without arrogance. We will meet aggression and bad faith with resolve and strength. And to all nations, we will speak for the values that gave our nation birth.

America, at its best, is compassionate. In the quiet of American conscience, we know that deep, persistent poverty is unworthy of our nation's promise. And whatever our views of its cause, we can agree that children at risk are not at fault. Abandonment and abuse are not acts of GOD👻, they are failures of love. And the proliferation of prisons, however necessary, is no substitute for hope and order in our souls. Where there is suffering, there is duty. Americans in need are not strangers, they are citizens; not problems, but priorities; and all of us are diminished when any are hopeless.

Government has great responsibilities, for public safety and public health, for civil rights and common schools. Yet compassion is the work of a nation, not just a government. And some needs and hurts are so deep they will only respond to a mentor's touch or a pastor's prayer. Church and charity, synagogue and mosque, lend our communities their humanity, and they will have an honored place in our plans and laws.

Many in our country do not know the pain of poverty. But we can listen to those who do. And I can pledge our nation to a goal: When we see that wounded traveler on the road to Jericho, we will not pass to the other side.

America, at its best, is a place where personal responsibility is valued and expected. Encouraging responsibility is not a search for scapegoats, it is a call to conscience. And though it requires sacrifice, it brings a deeper fulfillment. We find the fullness of life, not only in options, but in commitments. And we find that children and community are the commitments that set us free. Our public interest depends on private character; on civic duty and family bonds and basic fairness; on uncounted, unhonored acts of decency which give direction to our freedom.

Sometimes in life we are called to do great things. But as a saint of our times has said, every day we are called to do small things with great love. The most important tasks of a democracy are done by everyone. I will live and lead by these principles: to advance my convictions with civility; to pursue the public interest with courage; to speak for greater justice and compassion; to call for responsibility, and try to live it as well. In all these ways, I will bring the values of our history to the care of our times.

What you do is as important as anything government does. I ask you to seek a common good beyond your comfort; to defend needed reforms against easy attacks; to serve your nation, beginning with your neighbor. I ask you to be citizens. Citizens, not spectators. Citizens, not subjects. Responsible citizens, building communities of service and a nation of character.

Americans are generous and strong and decent, not because we believe in ourselves, but because we hold beliefs beyond ourselves. When this spirit of citizenship is missing, no government program can replace it. When this spirit is present, no wrong can stand against it.

After the Declaration of Independence was signed, Virginia statesman John Page wrote to Thomas Jefferson: "We know the Race is not to the swift nor the Battle to the Strong. Do you not think an Angel rides in the Whirlwind and directs this Storm?" Much time has passed since Jefferson arrived for his inaugural. The years and changes accumulate. But the themes of this day he would know: our nation's grand story of courage, and its simple dream of dignity.

We are not this story's author, who fills time and eternity with His purpose. Yet His purpose is achieved in our duty; and our duty is fulfilled in service to one another. Never tiring, never yielding, never finishing, we renew that purpose today: to make our country more just and generous; to affirm the dignity of our lives and every life.

This work continues. This story goes on. And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm. God bless you, and God bless our country.

-George W. Bush (2001-?)

Inauguration Speech  Saturday, January 20, 2001

https://youtu.be/3welTDYEfW0?si=XoKt8pz7kfQ2WmdQ

Pause to Pray for America. <*}}}>< 🙌🎚️🥰🇺🇸🙏🌎#REBTD😇

0 notes

ruminativerabbi · 8 months ago

Text

The Anti-Semitism Report Card

I get a lot of mail, especially e-mail. Some of it, I always read. Some of it, I read sometimes or just partially. A fair amount, there just being so many hours in the day, I delete without reading. But I got, unsolicited, something in my inbox this week that was so eye-opening that I resolved not only to read it all (which I did, and without getting up from my chair even once), but also to share it with you all this week. It is the first annual ADL Campus Anti-Semitism Report Card, available to all by clicking here. It was not pleasant reading.

Like all eye-opening surveys built on careful research, it is filled with little details and tiny facts that, considered entirely on their own, would sound banal or even petty. You could say the same, I suppose, of a single brick from the Taj Mahal or the Parthenon: it’s only just a brick if you consider it entirely on its own, but nothing like that when considered in the larger context of the structure of which it has survived as a single, tiny part. Obviously, not every college and university in the nation was included in the study. (That would have been too gargantuan an undertaking even for an organization as well equipped to undertake such things as the ADL.) So, instead, a sampling of eight-five of the nation’s schools were chosen for study, some because they have an especially large number of Jews in their student body and others because they are widely considered—or at least up to now have traditionally been considered—to be our nation’s finest, most desirable institutions of higher learning. When considered against the fact that there are just shy of 4000 degree-granting institutions of higher learning in the United States (click here for corroboration of that number), the number sounds low. But when the actual roster of schools included in the study is considered, that number sounds reasonable: if I had been challenged personally to make up a list of the schools that are the best-known and most popular in the Jewish community, more or less every single school that would have been on my list appears in the survey, as do also the college I myself attended and those from which two of my children got their degrees. So waving the survey away as not broad enough in scope would be, in my opinion, a huge error of judgment. As noted, you won’t enjoy your time spent reading. No normal person would. But this is something every American should read—and not just every Jewish American either. This is the social fabric of our country we’re analyzing here, the institutions that train our young people to take their place as productive citizens. To put it another way, what percentage of members of Congress in twenty-five years will be people who are in or who soon will be in college in the United States? Surely not 100%, but I’m guessing that a serious majority of our nation’s leaders in a quarter-century will be people enrolled as undergraduates in our nation’s colleges and universities in the 2020s. If they are poisoned as undergraduates with prejudice and bigotry, and if they are trained to see nothing abnormal in hating Jews or Judaism, then we are in, I fear, for a very rough ride. And be “we,” I don’t mean just we Jews. I mean we Americans, we who imagine ourselves to live in the world’s most enlightened democracy, in a nation where the civil rights of the citizenry are not only universally respected, but understood to serve, each in its own way, as the foundational principles upon which the republic rests.

Like all complex documents, this one gives up its secrets slowly. But there are also shortcuts to be taken: the ADL has actually awarded letter grades to the surveyed institutions based on their efforts to create a safe environment for Jewish students and to combat anti-Semitism on campus. A quick survey yields some surprising results and some expected ones. Some of our most prestigious institutions were awarded D’s: Cornell, Columbia, Barnard, Dartmouth, Johns Hopkins, Brown, Northwestern, Princeton, and the University of Pennsylvania. So were many others. But the list of schools awarded F’s is also interesting: some obvious institutions (Harvard, Tufts, Stanford, Swarthmore, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the University of Chicago) and some that came as a surprise to me (SUNY Purchase, for example, or the University of Virginia at Charlottesville).

Of course, these letters grades—both the high one and the failing ones—have to be approached with caution. The ADL site itself offers the following advice: “Just because a school has received a letter grade A or B…does not mean that the school does not have an antisemitism problem. It also does not mean that the school is in compliance with existing legal frameworks, including but not limited to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Similarly, just because a school has received a C or D does not mean that the school is failing to support its Jewish students. For example, some schools received lower grades relative to others due to the severity and prevalence of incidents on campus, administrative policies notwithstanding.) In other words, the grade is meant to address two simple questions that are merely two sides of the same coin: how safe would a young Jewish person be as an undergraduate or graduate student in the college in question and how rational a choice would that institution be for high school seniors having to decide now where to attend university.

Looking more carefully at the survey leads to some interesting results. Let’s consider Princeton, for example, which has always been considered one of America’s finest institutions of higher learning. When you consider Jewish life on campus, every box is checked off: active Hillel, active Chabad, kosher dining hall, Jewish studies courses, pro-Israel activities permitted, Jewish religious services held on campus, etc. Then, when you consider the school’s policies, it also sounds wonderful: Princeton publicly condemns anti-Semitic incidents when they occur, has a clear process for reporting anti-Semitic incidents, maintains an advisory council specifically charged with monitoring anti-Semitism on campus, etc. So that sounds ideal too. So how could such an ideal institution end up with a D? Well, that’s a different column, the one that takes note of the fact that the school has tolerated severe anti-Semitic and anti-Israel incidents, has permitted hostile anti-Israel student government activity, has not censured anti-Zionist student groups, and tolerates anti-Semitic guest speakers on campus. In other words, Princeton seems to have all the right councils and advisory boards in place, plus they seem not to tolerate but to foster Jewish student life. But when it comes to protecting those Jews from predatory groups whose rhetoric is clearly meant to intimidate Jewish students and to humiliate those who dare speak out as Jews or as pro-Israel advocates, the school seems to fall seriously short of its own theoretical agenda. Yet it also bears noting that things are improving: the school originally got an F, but was upgraded to a D just a few weeks ago.

The other schools I investigated were similar in many ways: all had formal policies in place decrying anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic bullying and all tolerated overt Jewish activity on campus under the aegis of the local Hillel or Chabad House. But again and again they fell down on the actual application of those policies when such decisions might anger the extreme leftist students bent on denouncing Israel and condemning any who disagree as murderers and torturers. The University of Chicago, for example, earned its F not by not formally condemning anti-Semitism or by not permitting kosher dining or on-campus religious services, but by tolerating extreme anti-Israel and anti-Semitic rhetoric on campus—rhetoric that is threatening, intimidating, and insulting to Jewish students—and not feeling obligated to deal with the matter forcefully or conclusively. To make believe that Jewish students can walk past signs condemning IDF soldiers as terrorists or see “bring home the hostage” posters vandalized but left in place by the university without feeling—to say the very least—unwelcome is just the kind of fantastical thinking that seems to be the norm in the nation’s colleges. When the president of Harvard couldn’t quite bring herself to say that calling for the annihilation of the Jewish people (i.e., the murder of every single Jewish person alive, which was Hitler’s goal as well) was not quite severe enough to warrant intervention by the Harvard administration, that weakness of moral character cost her her job. That certainly worked for me. But applying that standard to tuition-paying undergraduates seems to be the problem here: we will not see real progress until the nation’s schools can bring themselves to understand that bullying and threatening the safety of Jewish students who are not willing to condemn Israel and, in effect, join their own enemies in calling for the destruction of the Jewish state, should result, if not in the offending student being arrested, then at least with that student’s expulsion from the school. That would certainly happen if violent rhetoric were to be levelled against Black students or Latino ones, or against gay students or against Asians. But somehow violent anti-Jewish rhetoric gets a pass in the groves of academe that no other kind of prejudicial language ever would.

I strongly recommend my readers to visit the ADL site and spend time with the Anti-Semitism Report Card. (The link is above in the first paragraph of my letter. If you are reading a print copy of this letter, the URL is https://www.adl.org/campus-antisemitism-report-card.) You won’t enjoy your time there, that I can promise you. But it will remind you, as it did me, that all is not lost, that we have allies and friends, that there remains the possibility of the nation’s schools taking strong, meaningful action on behalf of Jewish students. We’re nowhere near there now, regretfully. But we could get there—I truly do believe that. And perusing the ADL’s Report Card, in addition to horrifying me, also made me feel (even I can’t explain this) slightly hopeful. What has been ruined by inattention, moral laziness, and political ineptitude, is surely fixable if the will is there to do right and to do good. Why wouldn’t it be?

#anti-Semitism #ADL

0 notes

rauthschild · 1 year ago

Text

We are on the same page with this one.

However, I would add that the goal here is to incite Iran to act. This may happen when Israel gets the upper hand or if they put US troops on the ground in Israel. There is a strong Ukrainian connection here, please watch this video:

youtube

Now we know why Zelensky was parading around the world asking for weapons and money, more on the money part later, but he was selling US made weapons all over the planet and most likely to Hamas and Hezbollah. Zelensky is supporting Israel which is serving many aspects. One he is Jewish and two, he wants the evidence destroyed that he was sponsoring terror. Best way for that to happen is to make sure Israel wins in a big way. The Biden administration will also need to make sure Israel comes out on top.

Let’s continue?

So, the Clinton Foundation and the Pope are talking “humanitarian aid”? How noble of them. I would like to ask you guys where are they getting the money to help Ukraine? US Tax payer? Or the Vatican and the Church? Try the collateral accounts and the gold backed bonds that Hillary told the Chinese to use prior to the 2016 Presidential election. “Go ahead use the bonds, I will be President soon and i will support this.” Paraphrasing. This we know from David Crayford’s writing back then and it was at least $3 trillion there.

So, how much do you want to bet that Hillary had gold backed bonds for her use? Therefore, is it reasonable to assume that she needs the Ukraine to help clean those funds? I would say a most definite YES.

On top of all this the EU has the Russian assets frozen in the amount of $300 billion, which I am sure they will confiscate and use (and mask their abuse of the collateral account bonds).

How do we stop this? Find the bank wire transfers to all the recipients in the US Congress. Lists were floating around the net, but I bet that Zelensky and Putin know exactly.”

Yes the trail leads to the Clintons who are really Rockefellers. They also control the WHO and the much of the UN. They are now making a desperate push to create a world dictatorship controlled by them.

#ados #blacklivesmatter #blackvotersmatters #donald trump #joe biden #naacp #blackmediamatters #blackvotersmatter #news #Youtube

0 notes

mortonmattd · 2 years ago

Video

youtube

Amazing Historical Events That Occurred on 4/1🎉 #shorts #history

Welcome to our look at amazing historical events that occurred on April 1st. On this day in 527 AD, Byzantine Emperor Justin I made a momentous decision: he named his nephew Justinian I as his co-ruler and successor to the throne. This decision would lay the foundations for the Byzantine Empire for centuries to come.

On this day in 1693, tragedy struck Cotton Mather's family. His four-day-old son died and was blamed on witchcraft. This event was one of the last witch-hunts in the United States.

In 1778, New Orleans businessman Oliver Pollock made a lasting contribution to the world of finance: he created the "$" symbol. This symbol has become a worldwide symbol of money and economic power.

On April 1st 1866, the US Congress rejected a presidential veto and made a landmark decision that granted all citizens equal rights in the United States. This was an important step forward in the civil rights movement and a major victory for the concept of equality.

Finally, on this day in 1933, Nazi Germany began its systematic persecution of Jews by boycotting Jewish businesses. This was the start of the Holocaust and one of the darkest periods in human history. These events are all a reminder of the importance of standing up for justice and equality.

We hope you've enjoyed this look at amazing historical events that occurred on April 1st. Be sure to stay tuned for more educational content.

https://bit.ly/freebetwithCrypto

https://splinterlands.com?ref=mortonmattd1

https://bit.ly/getonHive

https://ecency.com/signup?referral=m0rt0nmattd

https://www.risingstargame.com?referrer=m0rt0nmattd

https://exode.io/?ref=790e9e1

https://bit.ly/WinCryptoWithMe

https://bit.ly/FreeCryptoDrip

https://bit.ly/FreeZECdrip

#youtube

0 notes

emaleya · 10 months ago

Text

At Harvard and elsewhere, an old falsehood is capturing new minds.

By Dara Horn

February 15, 2024, 10:06 AM ET

By now, December’s congressional hearing about anti-Semitism at universities, during which the presidents of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and MIT all claimed that calls for the genocide of Jews would violate their university’s policies only “depending on the context,” is already a well-worn meme. Surely there is nothing left to say about this higher-education train wreck, after the fallout brought down two of those university presidents and spawned a thousand op-eds—except that all of the punditry about diversity and free speech and criticism of Israel has extravagantly missed the point.

The problem was not that Jewish students on American university campuses didn’t want free speech, or that they didn’t want to hear criticism of Israel. Instead, they didn’t want people vandalizing Jewish student organizations’ buildings, or breaking or urinating on the buildings’ windows. They didn’t want people tearing their mezuzahs down from their dorm-room doors. They didn’t want their college instructors spouting anti-Semitic lies and humiliating them in class. They didn’t want their posters defaced with Hitler caricatures, or their dorm windows plastered with Fuck Jews. They didn’t want people punching them in the face, or beating them with a stick, or threatening them with death for being Jewish. At world-class American colleges and universities, all of this happened and more.

I was not merely an observer of this spectacle. I’d been serving on now–former Harvard President Claudine Gay’s anti-Semitism advisory committee, convened after the October 7 Hamas massacre in Israel and amid student responses to it. I was asked to participate because I am a Harvard alumna who wrote a book about anti-Semitism called People Love Dead Jews. As soon as my participation became public, I was inundated with messages from Jewish students seeking help. They approached me with their stories after having already tried many other avenues—bewildered not only by what they’d experienced, but also by how many people dismissed or denied those experiences.

In Congress, all three university presidents offered some version of the platitudes that “Hatred comes from ignorance” and “Education is the answer.” But if hatred comes from ignorance, why were America’s best universities full of this very specific ignorance? And why were so many people trying to justify it, explain it away, or even deny it? Our era’s 10-second news cycle is no match for these questions, because the answers are deep and ancient, buried beneath the oldest of assumptions about what we think we know.

The through line of anti-Semitism for thousands of years has been the denial of truth and the promotion of lies. These lies range in scope from conspiracy theories to Holocaust denial to the blood libel to the currently popular claims that Zionism is racism, that Jews are settler colonialists, and that Jewish civilization isn’t indigenous to the land of Israel. These lies are all part of the foundational big lie: that anti-Semitism itself is a righteous act of resistance against evil, because Jews are collectively evil and have no right to exist. Today, the big lie is winning.

In 2013, David Nirenberg published an astonishing book titled Anti-Judaism. Nirenberg’s argument, rigorously laid out in nearly 500 pages of dense scholarship and more than 100 pages of footnotes, is that Western cultures—including ancient civilizations, Christianity, Islam (which Nirenberg considers Western in its relationship with Judaism), and post-religious societies—have often defined themselves through their opposition to what they consider “Judaism.” This has little to do with actual Judaism, and a lot to do with whatever evil these non-Jewish cultures aspire to overcome.

Nirenberg is a diligent historian who resists generalizations and avoids connecting the past to contemporary events. But when one reads through his carefully assembled record of 23 centuries’ worth of intellectual leaders articulating their societies’ ideals by loudly rejecting whatever they consider “Jewish,” this deep neural groove in Western thought becomes difficult to dismiss, its patterns unmistakable. If piety was a given society’s ideal, Jews were impious blasphemers; if secularism was the ideal, Jews were backward pietists. If capitalism was evil, Jews were capitalists; if communism was evil, Jews were communists. If nationalism was glorified, Jews were rootless cosmopolitans; if nationalism was vilified, Jews were chauvinistic nationalists. “Anti-Judaism” thus becomes a righteous fight to promote justice.

This dynamic forces Jews into the defensive mode of constantly proving they are not evil, and even simply that they have a right to exist. Around 38 C.E., after rioters in Alexandria destroyed hundreds of Jewish homes and burned Jews alive, the Jewish Alexandrian intellectual Philo and the non-Jewish Alexandrian intellectual Apion both sailed to Rome for a “debate” before Emperor Caligula about whether Jews deserved citizenship. Apion believed that Jews held an annual ritual in which they kidnapped a non-Jew, fattened him up, and ate him. Caligula delayed Philo’s rebuttal for five months, and then listened to him only while consulting with designers on palace decor. Alexandrian Jews lost their citizenship rights, though it took until 66 C.E. for 50,000 more of them to be slaughtered.

In medieval Europe, Jews were forced into disputations with Christian priests that placed Jewish texts and traditions on public trial, resulting in Jewish books being burned and Jewish disputants exiled. Later legal trials expanded on this concept, requiring Jews to defend themselves against the absurd charge known as the blood libel, in which Jews are accused of murdering and consuming non-Jewish children—a claim that has echoes in current lies about Israelis harvesting Palestinians’ organs.

The absurdity of these charges is less remarkable than the high intellectual profiles of those making them: people like Apion, a scholar of Homer and Egyptian history, as well as Christian and Muslim scholars who were among the best-read people of their time. Similarly absurd claims of Jewish perfidy were later endorsed by civilizational luminaries such as Martin Luther and Voltaire. “Anti-Judaism,” Nirenberg argues, “should not be understood as some archaic or irrational closet in the vast edifices of Western thought. It was rather one of the basic tools with which that edifice was constructed.”

I’ve been thinking about Nirenberg’s thesis in the months since the October 7 massacre in Israel, during which Hamas, an openly genocidal organization (https://archive.is/5nGvV) whose stated goal is the murder of Jews, lived up to its mission statement by torturing, raping, and murdering more than 1,200 people in southern Israel and taking more than 200 captives, including babies, children, and the elderly. Shortly after the attacks, a Cornell professor publicly proclaimed the barbarity “exhilarating” and “energizing,” while a Columbia professor called it “awesome” and an “achievement.” Comparable praise percolated through America’s top universities, coming from students and faculty alike. On campuses around the country, students began gathering regularly to chant “There is only one solution: intifada revolution!”—a reference to a suicide-bombing campaign in Israel a generation ago that maimed and murdered well over 1,000 Jews. (If there is only one solution, perhaps one could call it the Final Solution.)

Students took these rallies inside libraries and other campus buildings. They vandalized university property with such slogans as “Zionism = Genocide,” “New Intifada,” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”—referring to a geographic area that encompasses the entirety of the state of Israel, where half the world’s Jews live. (At Harvard, some students opted for chanting an Arabic version: “From water to water, Palestine is Arab.”) On some campuses, the exhilaration escalated into death threats and physical assaults against Jewish students. When a Jewish Tulane University student tried to stop an anti-Israel protester near campus from burning an Israeli flag, protesters attacked him and other Jewish students, breaking one student’s nose.

It wasn’t just universities. Crowds cheering for “intifada” gathered in cities around the country, shutting down and disrupting train stations and airport access roads. Lest their support for Hamas be mistaken for support for Palestinians in general, or for peace, U.S. rally organizers named their efforts “floods” (“Flood Seattle for Palestine,” “Flood Manhattan for Gaza”) after “Operation Al Aqsa Flood,” Hamas’s name for its October 7 butchery. The enthusiasm was hard to contain. Some people tore down or vandalized posters of Israeli hostages. Others targeted synagogues and Jewish-owned businesses, spray-painting them with swastikas and slogans like “Israel’s only religion is capitalism.” In New York City, a Jewish teacher’s online photo holding a sign that said I Stand With Israel was enough to prompt a schoolwide protest that devolved into a riot during which students destroyed school property; the teacher had to be moved to another part of the building to avoid the teenage mob screaming “Free Palestine!” In Los Angeles, a man invaded a Jewish family’s home before dawn with a knife, breaking into the parents’ bedroom while their four children slept, screaming “Kill Jewish people.” When police arrested him, he shouted, “Free Palestine!”

Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitic: Jews are now required to recite this humiliatingly obvious sentence, over and over, as the price of admission to public discourse about their own demonization, in “debates” with people who are often unable to name the relevant river or sea. The many legitimate concerns about Israel’s policies toward Palestinians, and the many legitimate concerns about Israel’s current war in Gaza, cannot explain these eliminationist chants and slogans, the glee with which they are delivered, the lawlessness that has accompanied them, or the open assaults on Jews. The timing alone laid the game bare: This mass exhilaration first emerged not in response to Israel’s war to take down Hamas and rescue its kidnapped citizens, but exactly in response to, and explicitly in support of, the most lethal and sadistic barbarity against Jews since the Holocaust, complete with rape and decapitation and the abduction of infants, committed by a regime that aims to eviscerate not only Jews, but also all hopes of Palestinian flourishing, coexistence, or peace.

But there are nuances to sadistic barbarity against Jews, we are told, and sometimes gang-raping Jewish women is actually a movement for human rights. It hardly seems fair to call people anti-Semitic if they want only half of the world’s Jews to die. The phrase “Globalize the Intifada,” currently chanted at universities across America, perhaps widens the net a tiny bit—but really, who can say? Even the phrase “Gas the Jews,” chanted at a rally organized by NYU students and faculty, is so very ambiguous. How dare those whiny Jews presume to know what’s in other people’s hearts?

Besides, American Jews had nothing to whine about: Had any of them actually died in the United States from all this exhilaration? That question was answered in November, when a Jewish man died in California after an anti-Israel protester allegedly clubbed him over the head with a bullhorn, the kind used to chant entirely non-anti-Semitic slogans—and of course that question had already been answered repeatedly with other anti-Semitic murders in recent years, some more publicized than others. (One murder even happened on campus: In 2022, an expelled University of Arizona student who repeatedly ranted about Jews and Zionists shot and killed his professor—who wasn’t Jewish, though the student thought he was.) But now the goalposts move again: Those actual murders, along with many other physical attacks against American Jews, are all just one-offs, lone wolves, mental-illness cases, entirely unrelated to the anti-Semitic rhetoric swirling through American life.

It remains unclear why anti-Semitism should matter only when it is lethal, or if so, how many unambiguously anti-Semitic murders would be necessary for anti-Semitism to be happening outside whiny Jews’ heads. A realistic estimate might be 6 million. Even then, Jews have had to spend the past 80 years collecting documentation to prove it.

One confounding fact in this onslaught of the world’s oldest hatred is that American society should have been ready to handle it. Many public and private institutions have invested enormously in recent years in attempts to defang bigotry; ours is an era in which even sneaker companies feel obliged to publicly denounce hate. But diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives have proved to be no match for anti-Semitism, for a clear reason: the durable idea of anti-Semitism as justice.

DEI efforts are designed to combat the effects of social prejudice by insisting on equity: Some people in our society have too much power and too much privilege, and are overrepresented, so justice requires leveling the playing field. But anti-Semitism isn’t primarily a social prejudice. It is a conspiracy theory: the big lie that Jews are supervillains manipulating others. The righteous fight for justice therefore does not require protecting Jews as a vulnerable minority. Instead it requires taking Jews down.

This idea is tacitly endorsed by Jews’ bizarre exclusion from discussion in many DEI trainings and even policies, despite their high ranking in American hate-crime statistics. The premise, for instance, that Jews don’t experience bigotry because they are “white,” itself a fraught idea, would suggest that white LGBTQ people don’t experience bigotry either—a premise that no DEI policy would endorse (not to mention the fact that many Jews are not white). The contention that Jews are immune to bigotry because they are “rich,” an idea even more fraught and also often false (about 20 percent of Jews in New York City, for instance, live in poverty or near-poverty), is equally nonsensical. No one claims that gay men or Indian Americans never experience bigotry because of those groups’ statistically higher incomes. The idea that money erases bigotry apparently applies only to Jews. Again and again, the ostensible reasons for not addressing anti-Semitism in DEI initiatives quickly reveal themselves to be founded on ancient, rarely examined assumptions about Jews as invulnerable villains.

The sordid history of the concept of anti-Zionism vividly illustrates this dynamic—and is particularly relevant for its success in scrambling the radar of well-meaning people. Jewish civilization has been centered for thousands of years, in ways large and small, on its homeland in Israel, where Jews have had a continuous presence since ancient times. The modern political idea of Zionism as Jewish self-determination in this homeland emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries amid many other anticolonial movements around the world, as global power dynamics shifted from empires (Habsburg, Russian, Ottoman, British, French, Japanese) toward nation-states. The large and often violent population upheavals following Israel’s creation, including the displacement of most Arabs from what became Israel and the displacement of nearly all Jews from what became Arab states, paralleled similar population upheavals around the world as new states emerged from receding empires. In this, Zionism was typical.

But anti-Zionism as an explicit political concept has a history quite independent of the actions of Jews. In 1918, 30 years before the establishment of the state of Israel, Bolsheviks established Jewish sections of the Communist Party, which they insisted be anti-Zionist. The problem, Bolsheviks argued, was that Jewish particularism (in this case, Zionism) was the obstacle to the righteous universal mission of uniting humanity under communism—just as Christians once saw Jewish particularism as the obstacle to the righteous universal mission of uniting humanity under Christ. The righteousness of this mission was, as usual, the key: The claim that “anti-Zionism” was unrelated to anti-Semitism, repeated ad nauseam in Soviet propaganda for decades, was essential to the Communist Party’s self-branding as humanity’s liberators. It was also a bald-faced lie.

Bolsheviks quickly demonstrated their supposed lack of anti-Semitism by shutting down every “Zionist” institution under their control, a category that ranged from synagogues to sports clubs; appropriating their assets; taking over their buildings, sometimes physically destroying offices; and arresting and ultimately “purging” Jewish leaders, including those who had endorsed the party line and persecuted their fellow Jews for their “Zionism.” Thousands of Jews were persecuted, imprisoned, tortured, or murdered.

Later, the U.S.S.R. exported this messaging to its client states in the developing world and ultimately to social-justice-minded circles in the United States. A thick paper trail shows how the KGB adapted its propaganda by explicitly rebranding Zionism as “racism” and “colonialism,” beginning half a century ago, when those terms gained currency as potent smears—even though Jews are racially diverse and Zionism is one of the world’s premier examples of an indigenous people reclaiming independence. Facts were irrelevant: Soviets labeled Jews as racist colonialist oppressors, just as Nazis had labeled Jews as both capitalist and Communist oppressors, and just as Christians and Muslims had labeled Jews as God-killers and Prophet-defilers. Jews were whatever a given society regarded as evil. To borrow the language of DEI, the big lie is systemic.

Even naming it—that is, calling out bigotry against Jews—can be classed as yet another sign of assumed evil intent, of Jews attacking beloved principles of justice for all. In an April 2023 lecture, David Nirenberg, the historian, presented the example of an activist with a large following whose boundary-pushing rhetoric met with accusations of anti-Semitism. The activist pointed out, as Nirenberg put it, that anti-Semitism “was merely an accusation that Jews used to silence criticism and squash free speech.” He brought libel lawsuits against newspapers that accused him of anti-Semitism, and won them. It is unfortunate for those making this argument today that this activist was named Adolf Hitler.

Two weeks after the October 7 massacre, I wrote an op-ed for a national newspaper about the intergenerational fears many Jews were feeling, describing a few choice moments from several thousand years of anti-Semitic attacks. A friendly fact-checker followed up, asking me to prove that the Russian Civil War pogroms of 1918–21 involved gang rapes, and appending a judicious reportedly in front of a detail I’d included from the Farhud pogrom in Baghdad in 1941 about attackers taking Jewish women’s severed breasts as trophies. I dutifully provided additional sources, combing through sickening testimonies about mutilated Jewish girls in 1919 and 1941, while simultaneously avoiding videos of mutilated Jewish girls in 2023.

As I piled up evidence to prove that these things happened, I remembered an oral-history interview my sister once did with our grandfather to share with our family at his 97th-birthday party, in which he described his own grandparents’ decision to leave their town in Ukraine after an aunt was attacked during a pogrom. “They raided her, et cetera, et cetera,” my sister’s notes from the interview say. Et cetera, et cetera, I thought over and over, as I hunted down sources on gang rapes of Jewish women to submit to the fact-checker, my vision going blurry. At the time, I hadn’t wondered what those sanitized et ceteras meant.

The same week I spent emailing documentation to the fact-checker of pogroms long past, the newspaper, like many other news outlets, published a banner headline about Israelis bombing a hospital in Gaza and killing 500 people inside. This was quickly proven to be a lie told by Hamas—a lie similar to the medieval blood libel, about Jews deliberately targeting and murdering innocent non-Jewish babies—and a transparent psychological projection of the crimes that Hamas had actually committed in Israel, where Hamas terrorists had deliberately targeted and murdered hundreds of adults, children, and babies, and also repeatedly fired rockets at a hospital. Israel’s military has indeed killed many innocent people in Gaza during its war to destroy Hamas, and deserves the same scrutiny as any country for its conduct in war. But scrutiny is impossible when lies are substituted for facts. The newspaper later issued a regretful editorial note acknowledging its error. Unfortunately, Hamas’s lie had already inspired mass demonstrations around the world; rioters in Tunisia were so incensed by it that they burned a historic synagogue to the ground. I had been rightfully asked to prove that the Iraqi and Ukrainian pogroms happened. But the spokespeople for Hamas were taken at their word.

Shortly after the op-ed was published, I was invited to watch video footage of the October 7 attacks that the Israeli army had compiled from security cameras, online videos, and Hamas terrorists’ GoPro cameras. This grim footage was assembled specifically for the purpose of fighting back against denial. But even this horrifying and humiliating evidence, documented largely by the perpetrators themselves, apparently isn’t enough to prove that Jewish experiences are real. At a screening of the footage in Los Angeles, someone in the audience shouted, “Show the rapes!”

The attackers themselves provided footage of a woman’s naked, mutilated corpse and of a teenager with blood-soaked pants being dragged by her hair out of a truck. Since then, it has become clear that Hamas used rape and sexual torture systematically against Israeli women. Israeli first responders and forensic scientists have found corpses of women and girls with vaginal bleeding and broken pelvises. Teenage sisters were found murdered in their bedroom, one shot in the head with her pants pulled down, covered in semen; one woman was found with nails and other objects in her genitalia, while others were found to have been shot through their vaginas. Eyewitness testimony has included details about a woman who was passed among many men, murdered while one of them was still raping her; at one point, her severed breast was tossed in the air. It’s a detail familiar from the 1941 Baghdad pogrom, just as slicing a fetus out of a pregnant Jewish woman’s body is a tactic Hamas unknowingly replicated from the Khmelnytskyi pogroms of 1648 Ukraine. Et cetera, et cetera. But who would believe it? “Show the rapes!”

Graeme Wood: A record of pure, predatory sadism

I was invited to these screenings multiple times, but never went. I didn’t want to watch people being brutalized. Also, I didn’t want to watch people being brutalized while hearing someone behind me screaming, “Show the rapes!”

On my travels around the country in recent months to discuss my work on Jews in non-Jewish societies, I met many Jewish college and high-school students who seem to have accepted the casual denigration of Jews as normal. They are growing up with it. In a Dallas suburb, teenagers told me, shrugging, about how their friends’ Jewish fraternities at Texas colleges have been “chalked.” I had to ask what “chalking” meant: anti-Semitic graffiti made by vandals who lacked spray paint. Synagogues are often chalked too. Another newly common verb among American Jews is swatting: fake bomb or active-shooter threats that force evacuations and instill fear. (The term is a reference to the SWAT teams that sometimes arrive at the scene, not knowing the threat is a hoax, and instill more fear.) These now happen so often at American Jewish institutions that they’re almost boring; nearly 200 were swatted during one December 2023 weekend alone. (When it happened at my own synagogue in November, forcing a girl’s bat-mitzvah service into a parking lot, the synagogue president warned congregants not to post any specific details about it online, in case people were tracking our evacuation procedures.)

American Jews in recent years have also developed, at great expense, a robust system of threat detection and “target hardening” to prevent or defuse actual attacks. An organization called Secure Community Network trains Jewish leaders and community members in situational awareness and self-defense; a rabbi in Texas who was held hostage with three congregants for 11 hours by a jihadist in 2022 credited this training with saving his and his congregants’ lives. Another group, Community Security Initiative, tracks threats on social media 24 hours a day; one flagged online threat to attack synagogues in 2022 led to the arrest in New York’s Penn Station of two men carrying illegal weapons, ammunition, and a swastika armband.

Unfortunately, some bad actors find a sweet spot just past the security cameras. In Los Angeles, harassment of Jews walking to synagogue became common enough in recent years that some formed walking groups with volunteer guards; in December, one street harasser there assaulted an elderly Jewish couple, hitting the husband in the head with a belt buckle, causing a head wound—which was tame compared with a previous incident, in which two Jewish men were shot on their way home from two separate synagogues in February of last year. A week after the belt attack, a man in Washington, D.C., sprayed people leaving a synagogue with what police called a “foul-smelling” substance while shouting “Gas the Jews!”

In Minneapolis, a woman who works in communications for a Jewish organization told me how “Free Palestine” had, even before October 7, become a kind of verbal swastika—not because of its meaning, but because of how it is deployed. Apart from its use in political or protest contexts, it has also been used as an online-harassment technique: Trolls tag any post with Jewish content—including material unrelated to Israel—with #FreePalestine, summoning more freedom fighters to the noble cause of verbally abusing Jewish teenagers who dare to post pictures of challah. This verbal vandalism made the jump to real life, the woman explained, and harassers now routinely scrawl it on Jewish communal buildings, shout it at their Jewish schoolmates, and scream it out of car windows at anyone wearing a kippah.

It is remarkable how little any of this has to do with anything going on in the Middle East. This harassment isn’t coming from an antiwar plea, or a consciousness-raising effort about Israeli policies, or a campaign for Palestinian independence, though those pretenses now serve as flimsy excuses. The only purpose of the chalking and swatting and taunting and assaulting and silencing is to dehumanize and demonize Jews. Every time Jews are forced to prove that they didn’t deserve this, or to hide who they are, it is already working.

This new normal for American Jews isn’t just communal, but personal. Many American Jews have quietly dropped friends in recent months after noticing those friends’ posts online casually endorsing the murders of Jews. But even more striking is the low bar for the friends who remain. I’ve seen this most clearly among the young. In upstate New York, a Jewish high schooler told me how a friend of hers regularly passed her cartoons in class. “He just thought it was really funny,” she said, and showed me a sample: a stick-figure caricature of a Hasidic Jew carrying a bag of money. “My friends,” she added, “use my Jewishness to insult me. So they’ll be like, ‘Shut up, you’re just a Jew. Shut up, Jew.’ A couple of my friends say that all the time to me.” I wanted to suggest that she find new friends.

At a Shabbat dinner I attended at one college, students went around the table sharing what they wished they could say to their non-Jewish friends: I wish I could say I want to spend a semester in Israel. I wish I could say I work at a Jewish preschool. I wish I could say I volunteered at a Jewish hospital. I sat at the table stupefied. They were in hiding.

It was during this ongoing nightmare that Harvard administrators recruited me for advice on the anti-Semitism problem on campus. Against my better judgment, I agreed to join the committee. The Jewish Harvard students who desperately shared their horror stories with me backed them up with piles of evidence. They knew they needed to prove it.

The problem at Harvard, it quickly became clear from the avalanche of documentation deposited at my feet, was not small. The night of the massacre, before the blood was dry, more than 30 Harvard student groups proudly announced that they “hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence.” The campus was almost instantly saturated with enthusiastic anti-Israel rallies, which many in the media depicted as the centerpiece of a free-speech debate.

But these protests were not merely outdoor public events that uninterested students could walk past. They also took place inside classroom buildings during lectures, inside the first-year dining hall and inside the largest campus library and other shared study spaces. Jewish students could no longer expect to be able to study in the library, eat in dining halls, or attend class without being repeatedly told by their classmates, sometimes through a bullhorn, that Jews are genocidal murderers deserving of perpetual intifada. (Civilian casualties in war, however horrific, aren’t genocide—but the demonization was the point. So was the vague romanticization of the intifada that targeted, maimed, and murdered Jewish civilians.) At the law school, hundreds of protesters marched through a classroom building during classes. Jewish students reported being targeted and chased through a building by their screaming peers. One video from the business school showed a Jewish student being physically harassed, accosted by protesters who surrounded him with their kaffiyehs.

This demonization of Jews, whether intentional or not, extended to Harvard’s teaching staff. Instructors who grade Jewish students used university-issued class lists to share information about events organized by pro-Palestine groups; at least one even canceled class so students could attend an anti-Israel rally. This pattern among Harvard instructors predated the current Israel-Hamas war. A third-party investigation conducted before the academic year began found that one professor had discriminated against several Israeli students; Harvard said it took action, but the professor rejected the findings and continued teaching. In a separate incident, one student claimed that a different professor asked her to leave his classroom in the spring of 2023 after learning that she was Israeli, because her Israeliness made people “uncomfortable.”

Jewish students who came to Harvard hoping to take courses in Arabic language or Middle Eastern studies told me they often ended up avoiding those courses entirely, wary of professors and peers who made their lack of welcome clear. One recent doctoral student in a field of study unrelated to the Middle East recounted to me that well before October 7, her fellow Ph.D.s in training (the supply pool for teaching assistants) seldom gathered socially without dropping references to “Zionist dirtbags” and “Israeli scum.” One Harvard student described how a classmate, after learning he was Jewish, told him that “there should be no more Jewish state and no more Jews.”

After October 7, social-media platforms exploded with unambiguous Jew hatred in comments such as “Harvard Hillel is burning in hell” and “Let ’em cook.” In this environment, many religious Jewish students stopped wearing kippahs on campus or swapped them for baseball hats; someone spat in the face of one kippah-wearing student as he walked down the street. In an echo of medieval disputations, one Jewish student was invited by a Harvard employee to “debate” him about whether Israel plotted the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to The Harvard Crimson. Later, the employee posted an online video featuring a screenshot from the student’s X account and the employee wielding a toy machete; the student reported the incident to the authorities and was told to file a restraining order.

Amazingly, Jewish students, whose numbers have dramatically declined at Harvard in recent years for reasons no one seems able to explain, did not respond to all this with their own hate-speech campaigns. Instead, both before and after October 7, Harvard Hillel’s students have reached out to their peers among Harvard’s anti-Israel activists—asking not for a cease-and-desist, but for a dialogue, or even just a cup of coffee. Let’s get to know each other, they offered. The anti-Israel activists refused to engage. Jewish students tried again; they were rebuffed again. And again. This was hardly surprising. For some anti-Israel activists, even merely talking to “Zionists” (a label applied to the 80 percent of American Jews who regard Israel as an essential or important part of their Jewish identity) counts as “normalization”—that is, treating Jews as if they were normal humans, rather than embodiments of evil.

Again we are obliged to prove that this matters. No one died; why complain? “Has there been actual violence against Jewish students at Harvard or on other campuses?” one tenured Harvard professor wrote to our advisory committee to inquire. (The answer was yes.) “If Jewish student worries about physical danger are, in fact, exaggerated,” the professor authoritatively continued, “then students that hold these fears should be advised to leave campus and go home.”

But a hostile environment emerges from pervasive minor incidents, even those that don’t target individuals. Imagine that you are a woman in an office where your male colleagues and bosses gather regularly by the photocopier to discuss their favorite strip clubs. You avoid the photocopier, but then they expand their discussions to the break room, the lobby, the watercooler, the conference room. You avoid those spaces too, avoid those colleagues, hide in your cubicle, and wind up not getting promoted. In such a situation, your company would be responsible for a hostile environment that discriminated against you. The company would not be absolved by pointing out that no one had raped you yet, or that these men weren’t talking to or about you. It could not defend itself by advising you that if these conversations bothered you, you should leave and go home. A hostile environment is precisely one where tenured professors advise students to leave and go home.

The mountain of proof at Harvard revealed a reality in which Jewish students’ access to their own university (classes, teachers, libraries, dining halls, public spaces, shared student experiences) was directly compromised. Compromised, that is, unless they agreed—or at least agreed to pretend, as many Jewish students who are neither religious nor Israeli now silently do—that there was nothing wrong with wallpapering America’s premier university with demonization of Jews. Coercing that silent agreement was the goal, and it was achieved not through arguments or evidence, but through the most laughably idiotic heckler’s veto: screaming at, chasing away, freezing out, or spitting on anyone who dared disagree with supporting the most successful Jew-killers since the Nazis. This left the great minds of Harvard debating the finer points of free speech for hecklers, instead of wondering why their campus was populated by hecklers. The question of why Harvard’s hecklers were heckling in favor of Hamas’s barbarism was too disturbing to consider, and so public discussions ignored it completely.

This heckling was not unrelated to the education that Harvard itself provided. Classes existed at Harvard, it turned out, that were premised on anti-Semitic lies. A course at the school of public health called “The Settler Colonial Determinants of Health” looked at case studies from South Africa, the United States, and Israel; its premise—not a topic of discussion, but the premise on which the course was built—was that Israel is a settler-colonialist state. (A Jewish student who wrote to the professor questioning what they saw as the ideological slant of the readings was told that it was “insulting” to suggest that the course had an agenda.) The “Palestine Program for Health and Human Rights” proudly announced that it “utilizes a decolonial framework in program development, leadership, and engagement”—meaning, one might reasonably assume, the “decolonizing” of Israel through the removal of its 7 million Jews. (The program is a partnership between Harvard and Birzeit University, a Palestinian institution where an Israeli journalist was expelled from an event in 2014 just because she was Israeli and Jewish.)

An astonishing number of pop-up lectures, panels, and events at Harvard both before and after October 7 were centered on the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza—a worthy topic addressed with almost no mention of Hamas, even though Hamas has ruled Gaza for 17 years. Nor was there much mention of the fact that Hamas was founded in connection with the global Muslim Brotherhood, or of its comically wealthy sponsors in the Persian Gulf. Students had many opportunities to learn about Palestinian suffering from oppression by evil Jews, but far fewer opportunities to learn, for instance, about Hamas’s success in co-opting foreign aid and crushing dissent, or the intifada that students hoped to globalize. Outside of their engagements at Harvard, some guest speakers publicly endorsed extreme anti-Semitic lies, including the straight-up blood libel that Israelis are harvesting Palestinians’ organs or that the Israeli military uses Palestinian children for weapons testing. One could hardly blame students for repeating their educators’ claims.

Out of respect for Gay’s request that our committee’s discussions with administrators remain private, I won’t share here anything that we talked about in our many meetings. But I will say that one thing we did not discuss was Gay’s congressional testimony on this topic, for which she and other administrators never asked for the advisory committee’s advice. Instead, they consulted lawyers, a choice that backfired on national television.

The horror that the hearing laid bare was something far worse than a viral gaffe. Harvard was already being investigated by the Department of Education for allegations of violating Jewish students’ civil rights under Title VI, and perhaps the president was advised against admitting any institutional failure. (In January, a group of students sued Harvard, describing the university as a “bastion of rampant anti-Jewish hatred and harassment.”) Still, the only morally tenable position would have been to admit failure, to reveal that the problem was not all in Jews’ heads; that there truly was an anti-Semitic environment at these incubators of American leadership; that these universities, along with far too many other pockets of the country, had reverted, slowly and then all at once, into what they had been a century earlier: safe spaces for high-minded Jew hatred—not in spite of their aspiration that education should lead to a better world, but because of it.

It is fairly obvious what Harvard and other universities would need to do to turn this tide. None of it involves banning slogans or curtailing free speech. Instead it involves things like enforcing existing codes of conduct regarding harassment; protecting classroom buildings, libraries, and dining halls as zones free from advocacy campaigns (similar to rules for polling places); tracking and rejecting funding from entities supporting federally designated terror groups (a topic raised in recent congressional testimony regarding numerous American universities); gut-renovating diversity bureaucracies to address their obvious failure to tackle anti-Semitism; investigating and exposing the academic limitations of courses and programs premised on anti-Semitic lies; and expanding opportunities for students to understand Israeli and Jewish history and to engage with ideas and with one another. There are many ways to advocate for Israeli and Palestinian coexistence that honor the dignity and legitimacy of both indigenous groups and the need to build a shared future. The restoration of such a model of civil discourse, which has been decimated by heckling and harassment, would be a boon to all of higher education.

Harvard has already begun signaling change in this direction: The university recently reiterated and clarified rules regarding the time, place, and manner of student protests. For Harvard to take more of these steps would be huge, but I have struggled to understand why all of them still feel so small. Perhaps it’s because the problem is a multi-thousand-year fatal flaw in the ways our societies conceive of good and evil—and also because somewhere deep within me, I know what has been lost. There was a time, not so very long ago, when we didn’t have to prove our right to exist.

Among the mountains of evidence that Jewish students sent me, one image has stayed in my mind. There are videos of crowds chanting “Long live the intifada!” inside Harvard’s Science Center, and “There is only one solution: intifada revolution!” in Harvard Yard, along with other places equally familiar from my student days. But I keep coming back to the crowds marching and screaming in front of Harvard Law School’s Langdell library, because Langdell is a sacred place for me. On my 22nd birthday, in 1999, when I was a senior at Harvard, a law student I’d met at Hillel took me up through Langdell’s maintenance passageways to the library’s rooftop, where he asked me to marry him. I said yes.

I watched the video of the students marching and screaming in front of Langdell, and in an instant I remembered everything: studying in campus libraries for my Hebrew- and Yiddish-literature courses, talking for hours with Muslim and Christian and progressive and conservative classmates, inviting friends of all backgrounds to join me at Hillel, scrupulously following the Jewish tradition of “argument for the sake of heaven” in even the most heated debates, gathering for Shabbat dinners crowded with hundreds of students—and over those long and beautiful dinners, falling in love. My classmates and I often disagreed about the most important things. But no one screamed in our faces when we wore Hebrew T-shirts on campus. No one shunned us when we talked about our friends and family in Israel, or spat on us on our way to class. No crowds gathered to chant for our deaths. No one told us that there should be no more Jews. That night, my future husband and I worried only about getting in trouble for sneaking up to the library roof.

WHY THE MOST EDUCATED PEOPLE IN AMERICA FALL FOR ANTI-SEMITIC LIES

2 notes · View notes

socialistsephardi · 4 years ago

Text

The Political History of Zionism

With everything currently going on, I’ve decided to make this post detailing the different streams of Zionism, in order to deconstruct rhetoric surrounding Zionism. I do this to aid arguments against Hasbara, which often claims that Zionism is unified and simple.

To begin, Political Zionism is generally considered to start with the writings of Theodor Herzl, in the 19th century political climate of Central and Eastern Europe. Prior to this, numerous pre-zionist movements were competing among the Jews of europe following an event called the Haskalah, or “Jewish Enlightment”. The French Revolution caused France to become the first european nation to recognize Jews as citizens with rights, which would be followed by Britain and Germany. This allowed for the formation of a new secular Jewish middle class enthrawled by enlightment principles - mainly, rationalism, romanticism, and nationalism. However, this also generated a shift from religious persecution towards ‘racial’ antisemitism. As the Jews of various countries were subjected to either intense expectations of assimilation, or reoccuring waves of pogroms, it became clear that most of europe regarded these emancipated Jews as foreign nationals of alien religion and culturally compatible. The proto-Zionists begin building a consensus pushing for immigration to Ottoman Palestine, some seeking to provide an alternative to the pogroms, some believing themselves witness to the signs of an imment messiah, etc. Moshe Hess, an associate of Karl Marx, calls for Jews to create a socialist state in Palestine (more on Hess later). Waves of European Jews arrive, and organizations aiming to support Jewish farmers and artisans in Palestine and Syria are founded. The local authorities begin to differentiate between the immigrant Jews and the Jews from the local communities. Herzl enters the Jewish public consciousness with his writings calling specifically for the creation of a Jewish majority state. appealing to the British and French empires to aid them. He rejects Hess’s socialist proposal and instead proposes a reconstruction of Jewry altogether, rejecting the diaspora entirely, arguing that only separation could ensure Jewish survival. Herzl proposes establishing this state in Argentina, but concludes that Palestine would likely have more ideological appeal. I feel it crucial to note here that in his early writings, Herzl is hostile to religious Jews, claims that the Jews of the Ghettos and Shtetls hold back the intellectual, and calls the Sephardi Jews living under France in Algeria mixed blood barbarians. These attitudes would carry over into the political zietgiest of early Zionism.

From here, Zionism begins to grow, the call for simple immigration to the land is supplanted by a demand for a Jewish majority state, and competing schools of thought emerge. The World Zionist Organization is created, and the Zionists pivot attempt including the consent of the Ottomans in the project. Herzl here also begins to explicitly call for the colonization of Palestine, in line with his admiration for the french and british empires. The first major split within the Zionist movement comes with the formation of Labor Zionism based on Hess’s writings. Wheras Herzl’s camp depended on gaining support from the empires and from prominent Jewish figures, Labor Zionism argued that only the Jewish working class could create such a nation, and sought to emphasize a progressive Jewish identity. This is also where a re-alignment for the religious backing begins. Originally, orthodox Jews are in an uneasy alliance with the entirely secular Jews in the movement, mostly because despite his early writings, Herzl emphasized a need to manufacture support from orthodox rabbis and communities. With Herzl eventual death, the orthodox separate from the mainstream movement, citing the believe that only the Messiah can reassert Jewish control over the land. Reform Jews at this time also reject Zionism, as it is perceived as a threat to Jewish citizenship in Europe and America. The Reform rejected the notion that Jews were bound by a shared nationality, a position which held true until the holocaust.

Over the next few decades, various zionist groups in palestine compete for power. Many begin attacking the Muslim and Christian Palestinian communities, often forcibly separating the local Jewry in the process. Jewish terrorist groups launch attacks on British centers following WW1. Labor Zionists rejected traditional Jewish practice, arguing that these represented a diaspora mentality. They also set up the early Kibbitzim. Jabotinsky develops a trend known as Revisionist Zionism, with the aim of territorial maximalism. Revisionist Zionism becomes ingrained as the right wing faction, and eventually becoming the ideological foundation of the current Likud party. Jabotinsky admired and borrowed core concepts from Mussolini and fascism, in particular the centrality of the state, social conservative unity, and racial supremacy. Mussolini knew of this and told the founder of the World Jewish Congress “For Zionism to succeed, you need to have a Jewish State with a Jewish flag, and Jewish language. The person who understands that is your fascist, Jabotinsky". The revisionists during this time approved of the idea of building a Mediterranean alliance and opposing British influence. In 1939, Stern forms Lehi, and they oppose Britain in WW2, instead arguing that Jews must align with the Axis, eventually going so far as to claim that if they were to take control of the mandate, they would negotiate with Hitler to see the Jews in the camps transfered in as new citizens, and in exchange join the German sphere.

Following WW2, the Nakba occurs, and the Haganah (including groups like Lehi) is reorganized into the IDF. The liberal/general Zionists are now faced with oppozing interal forces such as the labor Zionists and the revisionists. They now turn to emphasis liberalism in the new state, mostly the democratic electoral system and the free market, but largely become a backdrop to the rest of the political movements, which turn themselves into party affiliation, since the basic liberal structure had already been established. The labor Zionists become the dominant trend in Israeli politics until the 70′s. Following the Six Day Way in 67, Israel seizes control of the rest of the land from the mandate. This sets off a new movement. Previously, Religious Zionism was a minor stream mostly simply meaning religious Jews who supported Zionism. From here on, however, it becomes dominated by a right wing religious trend and becomes NeoZionism. NeoZionists combined religious and nationalist elements, specifically advocated settlements beyond the green line, and often advocate the removal of Arab people, citing Arab Israelis as a potential 5th column. Neozionists believe that the secularism of other zionist branches is a significant weak point, and usually incorporate far right orthodox talking points. Groups such as the Hebron settlers are highly influenced by Neozionism. Neozionists are also usually behind the call to establish an entirely orthodox state in the west bank if Israel were to pull out. On the opposite end, there are the post-Zionists, who believe Zionism has fulfilled its goal. Post-Zionists are not really coordiated in the same way others on this list are, but generally they are critical of the direction israel has moved, they typically seek to try to make Jews safer in the diaspora, generally support Arab Israelis and some post-zionists believe in transforming the state into an entirely liberal-democratic one. Right wing Israelis also use “post zionist“ to refer to the Israeli left after the Oslo Accords in the mid 90′s.

Finally, I’d like to take note of Kahanism. Kahanism is an extremist ideology based on the work of Rabbi Meir Kahane, and materialized as the Kach party in Israel, a party which was boycotted by every other faction the single time they were elected to the Knesset, and is now banned and labeled a terrorist organization. Kahanists believe that every single Jew should live in Israel, and that only Jews should live in Israel. They advocate for Israel to enforce traditional Jewish law at the national scale, and together with Neozionists have engaged in actions to provoke fear in diaspora communities. Kahanists believe that all Arab people are the mortal enemy of all Jews and that Israel should seize land from Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Egypt. Kahane himself proposed laws, including banning intermarriage, banning cultural meetings between Jewish and Muslim students, and re-segregating areas that had already undergone desegregation.

So that is a compressed history of the trends within Zionism. I write this not to garner sympathy for Zionism, but in hopes that this helps pick apart hasbarist simplification. At best, Zionism produced a labor movement with a terribly racist history which stole yemenite Jewish children and encouraged discrimination and segregation against sephardi and mizrachi Jews within Israel from a secular ashkenazi ‘core‘. At worst, fundamentalists and militant zealots who are overwhelmingly hostile to anyone else, groups who align with historic and current fascist and nazi movements, and a massive, overwhelming history of abuse and human rights violations against Palestinians, other Arabs, Jews of color, diaspora movements, etc. If you needed any reason beyond the sheer weight of the Palestinian cause to oppose Zionism, here you go. I hope this sways the mind of any lingering ZIonists reading this, and I hope this is used to more effectively call out Zionism for what it is - a racist, imperialist, and fascist ideology hellbent on redefining Judaism for its aims against any act of solidarity between groups, completely fueled by western interests in carving up and controlling West Asia / the middle east/ Al-Mashriq.

#zionism #antizionism #palestine #jumblr #judaism #israel

230 notes · View notes

church-history · 3 years ago

Text

Pius XII - WWII Hero, Nazi Collaborator, or Silent Bystander?

False accusations

Pius XII, Pope from 1939 to 1958, “rescued more Jews than all the Allies combined.”

During and after World War II, and again upon his death in 1958, Pope Pius XII was praised by secular and Jewish leaders for his efforts to save Jews from the Nazi-induced Holocaust. During the last forty years, however, many people, including some Catholics, have accused the Pope of “silence” and even of criminal negligence, saying he could have said and done much more to lessen the genocide that claimed millions of Jews.

These attacks against Pius XII require a false rewriting of history that does not survive honest scrutiny. Because of a defamatory work of fiction, “The Deputy”, written in 1963 by a little-known German Protestant playwright, Rolf Hochhuth, Pius XII's wartime record has been unjustly tarnished. In this play, the main protagonist, the young Jesuit Riccardo Fontana, says: “A Vicar of Christ who sees these things before his eyes and still remains silent because of state policies, who delays even one day... such a pope is a criminal.” (Ironically, as a boy, Hochhuth was a member of the Hitler Youth, and his father, an officer in the German Army.)

Pre-eminent Jews defend Pius XII

Ever since the play by Hochhuth was staged, it has become part of conventional folklore to blame Pope Pius XII for being "silent" during the Holocaust. But that is certainly not what many were saying at the time, including the World Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Committee, Golda Meir, Albert Einstein, and many others — all of whom applauded the efforts of Pius XII to do what he could to save Jews. Mainly by providing false birth certificates, religious disguises, and safe keeping in cloistered monasteries and convents, the Pope oversaw efforts that helped save hundreds of thousands of Jews from deportation to Nazi death camps.

The Israeli diplomat and scholar Pinchas Lapide concluded his careful review of Pius XII's wartime activities with the following words: “The Catholic Church, under the pontificate of Pius XII, was instrumental in saving the lives of as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands.” He went on to add that this “figure far exceeds those saved by all other Churches and rescue organizations combined.” After recounting statements of appreciation from a variety of preeminent Jewish spokespersons, he noted. “No Pope in history has been thanked more heartily by Jews.”

At the Eichmann Nazi War Crimes Trial in 1961, Jewish scholar Jeno Levai testified that the Bishops of the Catholic Church “intervened again and again on the instructions of the Pope.” In 1968, he wrote that “the one person (Pius XII) who did more than anyone else to halt the dreadful crime and alleviate its consequences, is today made the scapegoat for the failures of others.” In “The Secret War Against the Jews” in 1994, Jewish writers John Loftus and Mark Aarons write that “Pope Pius XII probably rescued more Jews than all the Allies combined.”

The Pope's efforts did not go unrecognized by Jewish authorities, even during the War. The Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem, Isaac Herzog, sent the Pope a personal message of thanks on February 28, 1944, in which he said: “The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness and his illustrious delegates, inspired by the eternal principles of religion which form the very foundations of true civilization, are doing for us unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history, which is living proof of Divine Providence in this world.”

In September 1945, Dr. Joseph Nathan —who represented the Hebrew Commission —stated: “Above all, we acknowledge the Supreme Pontiff and the religious men and women who, executing the directives of the Holy Father, recognized the persecuted as their brothers and, with great abnegation, hastened to help them, disregarding the terrible dangers to which they were exposed.”

Dr. A. Leo Kubowitzki, secretary general of the World Jewish Congress, came to present “to the Holy Father, in the name of the Union of Israelitic Communities, warmest thanks for the efforts of the Catholic Church on behalf of Jews throughout Europe during the war.”

In 1958, at the death of Pope Pius XII, Golda Meir, then Israel's Minister of Foreign Affairs, delivered a eulogy on behalf of the nation of Israel to the United Nations, stating: “We share the grief of the world over the death of His Holiness Pius XII. During a generation of wars and dissensions, he affirmed the high ideals of peace and compassion. During the 10 years of Nazi terror, when our people went through the horrors of martyrdom, the Pope raised his voice to condemn the persecutors and to commiserate with their victims. The life of our time has been enriched by a voice which expressed the great moral truths above the tumults of daily conflicts. We grieve over the loss of a great defender of peace.”

Never were the Jews and the Vatican so close as during World War II. The Vatican was the only place on the continent where they had any friends. The great Jewish physicist, Albert Einstein, who himself barely escaped annihilation at Nazi hands, stated in Time Magazine (December 23, 1940): “Being a lover of freedom, when the Nazi Revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, but the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks. Then I looked to individual writers... they too were mute. Only the Church,” Einstein concluded, “stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing the truth... I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel great affection and admiration... and am forced thus to confess that what I once despised, I now praise unreservedly.”

Israele Anton Zolli, the Chief Rabbi of Rome during the German occupation, wrote: “Volumes could be written on the multiform works of Pius XII, and the countless priests, religious and laity who stood with him throughout the world during the war.”

“No hero,” he said, “in all of history was more militant, more fought against, none more heroic, than Pius XII in pursuing the works of true charity... and thus on behalf of all the suffering children of God. What the Vatican did will be indelibly and eternally engraved in our hearts... Priests and even high prelates did things that will forever be an honor to Catholicism.”

Zolli was so moved by the Pope's efforts that he became a devoted friend of Pius XII. He eventually converted to the Catholic Faith, and took for his baptismal name, in 1945, Eugenio, in honor of Eugenio Pacelli (Pius XII). Rabbi Zolli's daughter, the psychiatrist Myriam Zolli, has issued a strong defense of Pius XII. She said the Pope was in steady contact with her father, and he worked diligently to save Jews from persecution. In an interview in the Italian daily Il Giornale, she recalled her father's prediction that Pope Pius XII would become a scapegoat for the West's silence in the face of the Holocaust. She concluded that “the world's Jewish community owes him a great debt.”

Pius XII did speak out

As a papal envoy to Germany from 1917 to 1929, Vatican Secretary of State in the 1930's, and Pope during World War II, Pius XII established a clear record of supporting the Jewish people against the Nazis. Lapide wrote: “Of the 44 speeches which the Nuncio Pacelli had made on German soil between 1917 and 1929, at least 40 contained attacks on Nazism or condemnations of Hitler's doctrines.” By their own testimony, the Nazis knew they had an enemy, and Jewish leaders, a faithful ally in Pius XII. To maximize church efforts and minimize Nazi backlash, Pius XII modified his tactics during the war, but his pro-Jewish efforts continued unabated.

As Cardinal Pacelli, he drafted the famous papal encyclical, Mit Brennender Sorge (which means “with burning anxiety” i.e. about the Nazi threat to racial minorities and specifically the Jews), which denounced Nazi paganism, racism and anti-semitism. The document was smuggled into Germany in March, 1937, and read from all Catholic pulpits. The day after Pacelli's election as Pope (March 3, 1939), the Nazi newspaper, Berliner Morganpost, stated its position clearly: “The election of Cardinal Pacelli is not accepted with favor in Germany because he was always opposed to Nazism.”

In his 1942 Christmas message, Pius XII denounced the growing Holocaust. He cried out for the “hundreds of thousands who without any fault of their own, sometimes only by reason of their nationality or race, are marked down for death or progressive extinction."

The New York Times editorial (Dec. 25, 1942) was specific: “The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas... He is about the only ruler left on the Continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all.” The Pope's Christmas message was also interpreted in the Gestapo report: “In a manner never known before... the Pope has repudiated the National Socialist New European Order [Nazism]. It is true, the Pope does not refer to the National Socialists in Germany by name, but his speech is one long attack on everything we stand for. Here he is clearly speaking on behalf of the Jews.”

Pius XII followed the Dutch Roman Catholic hierarchy's plan to name the Jews explicitly in their condemnation of Nazi deportations, and he intended to issue a similar statement himself. The Nazis threatened to arrest more Jews. The Dutch Reformed Church agreed not to protest openly, but the Roman Catholic hierarchy issued, in May 1943, their famous protest against the deportations. The Nazis then launched an all-out offensive against Jews (except those who had converted to the Dutch Protestant Reformed Church). Ironically, it was the Dutch hierarchy's letter of open condemnation which led to the arrest and execution of Saint Edith Stein, the Jewish Roman Catholic nun and philosopher.

The news of the increased persecution reached Pius XII. His own protest was due to go into L'Osservatore Romano (the Vatican newspaper) that very evening, but he had the draft burnt saying, “If the protest of the Dutch Bishops has cost the lives of 40,000 people, my intervention would take at least 200,000 people to their deaths.” Such was the result of openly naming the Jews; more death from vain gestures. There is no doubt that if Pius XII had made such a vain gesture, instead of saving more Jewish lives, he would then have been open to the criticism of having made the situation of Jews worse by vain and inopportune public statements. Those who now criticise him for not saying enough would then have attacked him for saying too much.

The Jewish historian Pinchas Lapide sums it up: “The saddest and most thought-provoking conclusion is that whilst the Catholic clergy of Holland protested more loudly, expressly and frequently against Jewish persecutions than the religious hierarchy of any other Nazi-occupied country, more Jews – some 11,000 or 79% of the total – were deported from Holland; more than anywhere else in the West.”

Thereafter, Pius XII adopted his policy of not naming the Jews explicitly. This was partly because of his experience of the diplomatic “deafness” of the allied governments, and partly because of his knowledge and experience of the increased persecution of Jews which followed the condemnatory statements made by the religious authorities. He devoted himself instead to the covert rescue operation to save Jewish lives.

Pius XII did act

The real question is, therefore, not what did the Pope say, but what did the Pope do? Actions speak louder than words. Papal policy in Nazi Europe was directed with an eye to local conditions. Hitler described himself as “a complete pagan”, and he regarded the Catholic Church as his greatest enemy, which he would destroy when he had the opportunity. Prince Sapicha, the Cardinal of Cracow in Poland, told the Pope, perfectly accurately, that if there were open public denunciations, Catholics and Jews would be massacred in Poland. It was better to try and rescue as many as possible through the religious houses, and allow the opposition army to build up.

Thousands of Jews — the figures run from 4,000 to 7,000 — were hidden, fed, clothed, and bedded in the 180 known places of refuge in Vatican City, churches and basilicas, Church administrative buildings, and parish houses. Unknown numbers of Jews were sheltered in Castel Gandolfo, the site of the Pope's summer residence, private homes, hospitals, and nursing institutions, and the Pope took personal responsibility for the care of the children of Jews deported from Italy.

Later, after the war was over, Pius XII received a large delegation of Roman Jews in the Vatican, and ordered that the Imperial Steps be opened for them to enter by. These steps were usually reserved for crowned Heads of State. The Pope received them in the Sistine Chapel and, seeing that his Jewish visitors felt uncomfortable in that place, he came down from his throne and warmly welcomed them, telling them to feel completely at home, saying, “I am only the Vicar of Christ, but you are His very kith and kin.” Such was his great love for the Jewish people, augmented by his knowledge of their terrible sufferings.

As Italian historian Monica Biffi wrote: “It is a real ‘cold war’ that Pius XII waged against Hitler.” One understands that in May, 1952, Pius XII was able to say: “What could we have done that we did not do?” Angelic pastor, master of truth, Pius XII has been a great Pope, filled with courage and wisdom; a Pope who is the glory of the Church, to whom we owe our admiration, our gratitude, and our prayer.

source: https://www.michaeljournal.org/articles/roman-catholic-church/item/pius-xii-and-the-jews-during-world-war-ii

#catholic #jewish #Christian #Protestant #wwII #WWII History #Catholic History #Pope Pius XII #october 9th #holocaust

28 notes · View notes