#us national strategy to combat antisemitism

[daughterofthetwopomegranates]

Please reblog this!

These are testing times for Armenian-Israeli relations, but we should navigate these rough waters to harness our many shared assets.

Last week, Armenia became the 145th country to recognize the state of Palestine – even as Israel continues its difficult fight against Hamas in Gaza. Last year, Armenians suffered a terrible ethnic cleansing at the hands of Azerbaijan, which was armed to a significant degree by Israel. You’d think two nations are at odds – and indeed a Jerusalem Post editorial presented things that way. But look beneath the surface and a different story appears.

There is a deep sense of shared history, affinity, and like-mindedness between Armenia and Israel, which endures despite Israel’s military dealings with Azerbaijan and Turkey. There is no underlying antisemitism in Armenia, just as there is no inherent Armenophobia in Israel. Both nations have faced persecution and genocide, defining themselves not territorially but through a duality that exposes them to tough choices during international crises.

These are testing times for Armenian-Israeli relations, but we should navigate these rough waters to harness our many shared assets. Our global communities collaborate in combating extremism and in developing innovations, such as vaccines created at Moderna, a company with Armenian roots. The significant Israeli-Armenian community can serve as a bridge for mutual understanding and cooperation. There is also a growing Jewish community in Armenia, consisting of Russian and Ukrainian citizens who have fled hostility and military drafts. Many of them are contemplating settling down in welcoming Armenia and starting their new lives.

Strategically, Armenia is undergoing a dramatic geopolitical reorientation, moving closer to the United States and contemplating EU membership while joining regional integration and transport projects that will shape the future Eurasian trade. Israel should consider supporting US policies in this region to help Armenia strengthen its democratic institutions and contribute to reshaping its security strategies. This cooperation will enhance both countries' footprints in the region and beyond, including in India and the Gulf states.

So why did Armenia recognize Palestine?

This recognition came after decades of similar acknowledgments by former Soviet and Warsaw block countries, all of Armenia’s neighbors, and several EU member states. While this move may seem ill-timed, especially for those who have long advocated for closer ties with Israel, it is essential to understand the underlying principles guiding Armenia's decision.

Armenia emerged from the wreckage of the Soviet Empire as an independent nation in a challenging and hostile neighborhood. Historically, Armenia has struggled to ensure its survival and preserve its distinct identity as a representative of Western civilization in the Middle East. Poor in resources and militarily outpowered by regional rivals, Armenia has heavily relied on international legitimacy - the right to self-determination, the prevention of genocide, and the non-use of force in disputes as cornerstones of its foreign policy.

Last September, Azerbaijan attacked and invaded the ethnic Armenian-populated enclave of Artsakh, ending the self-government which had been in place since the collapse of the Soviet Union, and indeed was in effect during the communist period and indeed was in effect during the communist period and before. Heavily reliant on Israeli weaponry, the Azerbaijani forces compelled the exodus of the entire population of over 120,000 people.

But the tragic even is not, despite what Israelis might suspect, the reason for the recognition of Palestine.

Rather, this had to do with the country’s self-declared obligations regarding internationally recognized self-determination cases, including Palestine, and potentially Kosovo, South Sudan, and others in the future.

The timing of Armenia's recognition of Palestine has stirred controversy both at home and in Israel. Many perceive that the act during the Gaza conflict sends wrong signals to the belligerents. If this is the case, it is a regrettable externality not anticipated by Armenian policymakers. Armenia's decision might have been influenced by powerful regional actors, highlighting her increased susceptibility to pressures from invigorated neighbors like Turkey after the 2020 Armenia-Azerbaijan war.

The reaction in Israel has been particularly vehement, with media backlash and stern warnings from the Israeli MFA about potential deterioration in bilateral relations. This reaction contrasts sharply with the responses to similar recognitions by Spain, Slovenia, and Belgium. It raises the question of why Armenia's recognition is perceived as less forgivable than that of the 144 other countries.

Armenia’s recognition of Palestine aligns with its long-standing principles and should not be viewed as a detriment to future Armenian-Israeli relations. Instead, both nations to reaffirm their shared values and work towards a more stable and prosperous future together.

*once again please reblog!*

[schraubd]

Passing Solidarity's Acid Test

I am honored to have co-authored a piece in the Forward with Alan Solow, former chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, on how the Biden administration's national strategy for combatting antisemitism -- in particular, its focus on building solidarity among diverse groups in the fight against antisemitism -- is facing an early acid test in the aftermath of Hamas' horrific terrorist attack on southern Israel. And my honest assessment is that the focus on solidarity is bearing fruit. Yes, there have been some high-profile incidents from certain segments of the left that have excused or even valorized antisemitism. We've all seen them, and I (along with many others) haven't hesitated to call them out. But these cases -- as large as they loom -- have objectively been drowned out by a much larger and unified chorus of condemnation. The grotesque behavior of a few is important to identify, but it should not obscure the larger pattern:  Though vocal, the cadre of extremists who publicly cheer antisemitic terror finds itself increasingly isolated. Though shaken, the community of Jews and non-Jews who have committed to standing together in solidarity against terror have risen to the moment, forging a stronger and more vibrant bond with each passing day. This doesn't mean that maintaining these bonds will be easy or can be left to autopilot. The events of the last week tested us in terrible ways, and the events of the coming weeks will no doubt continue to do so. But that is exactly why plans must be put in place before the moment of reckoning, and why a politics of isolation, ostracism, exclusion, and division constitutes a luxury we cannot afford.  We're facing an acid test for solidarity, in circumstances more horrible than almost anyone could imagine. But we can, and we will, pass it. via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/1tcsRZN

[timesofinnovation]

Meta is stepping up its efforts to combat hate speech by targeting the misuse of the term "Zionist" on its platforms. This move comes in response to the growing trend of using "Zionist" as a proxy for antisemitism, which the company asserts can perpetuate hate against Jews and Israelis. Historically, "Zionist" refers to a supporter of Jewish nationalism, particularly the support for a Jewish state in the land of Israel. While this term is legitimate in political and historical contexts, it's increasingly been twisted to propagate hateful sentiments. This shift has alarmed advocacy groups and triggered the need for Meta to refine its content moderation policies. Meta will now actively remove posts that misuse "Zionist" to foster discriminatory rhetoric. The company aims to strike a balance between preserving free speech and curbing hate speech. By refining their algorithms and enhancing human oversight, Meta hopes to mitigate the spread of antisemitism masked under seemingly unrelated terms. This initiative is part of a broader strategy to maintain a safer online environment. Meta has faced criticism in the past for not doing enough to prevent hate speech, but this latest policy demonstrates their commitment to tackling the evolving tactics used by those spreading hate. The company continues to work with experts to update and enforce these guidelines effectively, ensuring their platforms do not become breeding grounds for prejudice and bigotry. https://timesofinnovation.com/meta-will-remove-content-in-which-zionist-is-used-as-a-proxy-term-for-antisemitism/?feed_id=468&_unique_id=669c0e6d75ecf&utm_source=Tumblr&utm_medium=editor15&utm_campaign=FS%20Poster

[ledenews]

Bishop Brennan - Israel-Hamas War: A Second Look

International Cooperation Needed for Peace in the Middle East Early in the Israel-Hamas War (October 17, 2023) I analyzed the conflict according to the traditional norms of the Catholic just war theory: 1.) a defensive war in response to armed aggression 2.) undertaken as the last resort 3.) with a reasonable prospect of success 4.) and likely not to cause worse evils than the one it wants to eliminate (this last criterion sometimes referred to as proportionality). I claim no infallibility for my analysis but it seemed clear to me that Israel was justified in attacking Hamas in Gaza in response to the brutal rape, murder and dismemberment of many hundreds of Israeli citizens. As we begin the new year, I am still convinced that Israel has the right to so weaken Hamas that it can no longer pose a threat to the safety of the Israeli people. But, as I said in October, Israel’s conduct of the war, including, to date, a fierce ground offensive, continued missile strikes and a sharp limitation on humanitarian aid to Gazan civilians, could backfire and cause worseevils than the one it sought to remove. Sadly, it appears that this is happening. The toll in Gaza, mostly of non-combatants and including many women and children as confirmed by independent witnesses, is staggering: more than twenty thousand dead and thousands more injured. Some humanitarian aid is allowed but far less than people need to eat and drink and hospitals need to treat the injured. Israel is losing support from its usual allies – even the United States is pressuring Israel to tone down its military offensive – and the prospects for a peaceful relationship with Palestinians and other Arabs is fading fast as hatred of Jews and resentment at Israel’s conduct of the war builds among the neighboring peoples. Antisemitism is also rising in the United States and elsewhere. How can Israeli forces crush Hamas while avoiding massive harm to civilians? It begins to look impossible. Since, as of this writing, Hamas is still sending missiles into Israel and is continuing to attack Israeli soldiers within Gaza, Hamas has not yet been defeated militarily. With its strategy of mingling with civilians, hiding in tunnels and holding hostages as a bargaining chip, Hamas may be able to fight for a long time. Israel, on the other hand, by forcing more and more Gazans into smaller and smaller spaces, only increases the likelihood of greatercivilian casualties. (The charge of genocide is false. If killing Palestinians were Isael’s aim, it could start with the more than one million living within Israel. The dead and injured Gazan civilians are the massive “collateral damage” of Israel’s vigorous pursuit of Hamas terrorists.) The Israeli government is under increasing pressure from within Israel to make deals for the release of Israeli hostages but shows no sign yet of budging. I have seen no indication that Gazan civilians are demanding that Hamas stop fighting – there would likely be repercussions if they did. Egypt, which refuses to open its borders to fleeing Gazans, has offered a peace plan but so far the two hostile parties have not accepted it. Who will govern Gaza and who will pay for it to be rebuilt? There are international actors, especially Iran and its allies, who seek to use the conflict to further their own interests. Israel’s initial response to Hamas’ October 7 attack was just; its current conduct of the war is causing greater evils than the one it seeks to eliminate. It should allow far more humanitarian aid into Gaza under strict controls and agree to stop fighting if the United Nations will send in a peace-keeping force to prevent Hamas from attacking Israel again. An international conference should also be convened to work out a solution of the whole Palestinian situation, the security of Israel and a just peace in the Middle East. May God enlighten and strengthen local and international leaders and their peoples to discover the path forward. Sincerely in Christ, +Mark E. BrennanBishop of Wheeling-Charleston Read the full article

[wintrust]

Us passport processing time

#Us passport processing time verification#

Reducing the volume of pending passport applications, shortening processing times, and increasing agency counter services remain top priorities. The Department of State is committed to processing passport applications as expeditiously as possible.

Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs.

Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs.

Bureau of International Organization Affairs.

Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs.

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs.

Office of Management Strategy and Solutions.

Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations.

Bureau of Information Resource Management.

Bureau of the Comptroller and Global Financial Services.

Office of the Science and Technology Adviser.

Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs.

Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs.

Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment.

Economic Growth, Energy, and Environment.

Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons.

Office of the Special Envoy To Monitor and Combat Antisemitism.

Office of International Religious Freedom.

Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration.

Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs.

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor.

Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations.

Under Secretary for Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights.

Civilian Security, Democracy, and Human Rights.

Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation.

#Us passport processing time verification#

Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance.Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security.Arms Control and International Security.Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy.Security Coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian Authority Special Representative for Syria Engagement.Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs.Global AIDS Coordinator and Global Health Diplomacy If you require a visa, we recommend that you apply well in advance of your intended travel date and do not make non-refundable travel arrangements until you have been issued a visa and are in receipt of your passport. All processing periods quoted are estimates only. We cannot guarantee visa issuance or visa processing times in advance. Incomplete applications will take longer. If you were advised at the interview that a waiver of ineligibility is required before the visa can be issued, you can expect your application to take between 6 to 8 months to process from the date of the interview. Please see “Administrative Processing” for further information. In some cases however, processing can take six months or longer. If you were advised at your interview that your application was refused under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) pending additional processing, you should allow approximately 60 days from the date of the visa interview for your application to be processed. Successful applications take 3 – 5 workdays to process before the passport is handed to the courier for delivery at least a further 2 workdays should be allowed for delivery. Chargé d’Affaires Reeker Thanksgiving Speech at St.Statement on the 33rd Anniversary of the Bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.Ambassador Jane Hartley presents her credentials to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.Statement by President Biden on Russia’s Unprovoked and Unjustified Attack on Ukraine.Joint Statement on Further Restrictive Economic Measures.Readout of Vice President Harris’s Calls with European Leaders.FACT SHEET: United States Bans Imports of Russian Oil, Liquefied Natural Gas, and Coal.Statement from Press Secretary Jen Psaki on Russian Aggression Towards Ukraine.The Stakes of Russian Aggression for Ukraine and Beyond.Readout of President Biden’s Video Call with European Leaders on Russia and Ukraine.How Russia conducts false flag operations.Citizens: Online Fee Payments Now Accepted for Adult U.S. Citizens: Edinburgh Passport and Citizenship Services Temporarily Unavailable (September 12-16, 2022) Chargé d’Affaires a.i Reeker at the 2021 Fulbright Reception.Chargé d’Affaires Reeker visits RAF Fairford.Chargé d’Affaires Reeker at the Pacific Futures Forum aboard HMS Prince of Wales.Chargé d’Affaires Reeker at the Remembrance Day Memorial Commemoration at Brookwood American Cemetery.

[solacekames]

Insurgent Supremacists – a new book about the U.S. far right By Matthew N Lyons |  Sunday, April 01, 2018 

My book Insurgent Supremacists: The U.S. Far Right’s Challenge to State and Empire is due out this May and is being published jointly by Kersplebedeb Publishing and PM Press. It draws on work that I’ve been doing over the past 10-15 years but also includes a lot of new material. In this post I want to highlight some of what’s distinctive about this book and how it relates to the three way fight approach to radical antifascism. I’ll focus here on three themes that run throughout the book: 1. Disloyalty to the state is a key dividing line within the U.S. right. For purposes of this book, I define the U.S. far right not in terms of a specific ideology, but rather as those political forces that (a) regard human inequality as natural, inevitable, or desirable and (b) reject the legitimacy of the established political system. That includes white nationalists who advocate replacing the United States with one or more racially defined “ethno-states.” But it also includes the hardline wing of the Christian right, which wants to replace secular forms of government with a full-blown theocracy; Patriot movement activists who reject the federal government’s legitimacy based on conspiracy theories and a kind of militant libertarianism; and some smaller ideological currents. Insurgent Supremacists argues that the modern far right defined in these terms has only emerged in the United States over the past half century, as a result of social and political upheavals associated with the 1960s, and that it represents a shift away from the right’s traditional role as defenders of the established order. The book explores how the various far right currents have developed and how they have interacted with each other and with the larger political landscape. I chose to frame the book in terms of “far right” rather than “fascism” for a couple of reasons. Discussions of fascism tend to get bogged down in definitional debates, because people have very strong—and very divided—opinions about what fascism means and what it includes. Insurgent Supremacists includes in-depth discussions of fascism as a theoretical and historical concept, but that’s not the book’s focus or overall framework. As a related point, most discussions of fascism focus on white nationalist forces and tend to exclude or ignore other right-wing currents such as Christian rightist forces, and I think it’s important to look at these different forces in relation to each other. For example, critics of the Patriot/militia movement often argue that its hostility to the federal government was derived from Posse Comitatus, a white supremacist and antisemitic organization that played a big role in the U.S. far right in the 1980s. That’s an important part of the story, but Patriot groups were also deeply influenced by hardline Christian rightists, who (quite independently from white nationalists) had for years been urging people to arm themselves and form militias to resist federal tyranny. We rarely hear about that. 2. The far right is ideologically complex and dynamic and belies common stereotypes. Many critics of the far right tend to assume that its ideology doesn’t amount to much more than crude bigotry, and if we identify a group as “Nazi” or as white supremacist, male supremacist, etc., that’s pretty much all we need to know. This is a dangerous assumption that doesn’t explain why far right groups are periodically able to mobilize significant support and wield influence far beyond their numbers. Yes, the far right has its share of stupid bigots, but unfortunately it also has its share of smart, creative people. We need to take far rightists’ beliefs and strategies seriously, study their internal debates, and look at how they’ve learned from past mistakes. Otherwise we’ll be fighting 21st-century battles with 1930s weapons. For example: because of the history of fascism in the 1930s and 40s, we tend to identify far right politics with glorification of the strong state and highly centralized political organizations. Some far rightists, such as the Lyndon LaRouche network, still hold to that approach, but most of them have actually abandoned it in favor of various kinds of political decentralism, from neonazis who call for “leaderless resistance” and want to carve regional white homelands out of the United States to “sovereign citizens” and county supremacists, from self-described National-Anarchists to Christian Reconstructionists who advocate a theocracy based on small-scale institutions such as local government, churches, and individual families. One of the lessons here is that opposing centralized authority isn’t necessarily liberatory at all, because repression and oppression can operate on a small scale just as well as on a large scale. This shift to political decentralism isn’t just empty rhetoric; it’s a genuine transformation of far right politics. I think it should be examined in relation to larger cultural, political, and economic developments, such as the global restructuring of industrial production and the wholesale privatization of governmental functions in the U.S. and elsewhere. We need to take far rightists’ beliefs and strategies seriously, study their internal debates, and look at how they’ve learned from past mistakes. Otherwise we’ll be fighting 21st-century battles with 1930s weapons. As another example of oversimplifying far right politics, it’s standard to describe far rightists as promoting heterosexual male dominance. While that’s certainly true in broad terms, it doesn’t really tell us very much. Insurgent Supremacists maps out several distinct forms of far right politics regarding gender and sexual identity and looks at how those have played out over time within the far right’s various branches. Most far rightists vilify homosexuality, but sections of the alt-right have advocated some degree of respect for male homosexuality, based on a kind of idealized male bonding among warriors, an approach that actually has deep roots in fascist political culture. In recent years the alt-right has promoted some of the most vicious misogyny and declared that women have no legitimate political role. But when the alt-right got started around 2010, it included men who argued that sexism and sexual harassment of women were weakening the movement by alienating half of its potential support base. This view echoed the quasi-feminist positions that several neonazi groups had been taking since the 1980s, such as the idea that Jews promoted women’s oppression as part of their effort to divide and subjugate the Aryan race. This may sound bizarre, but it’s a prime example of the far right’s capacity time and again to appropriate elements of leftist politics and harness them to its own supremacist agenda. 3. Fighting the far right and working to overthrow established systems of power are distinct but interconnected struggles. A third core element that sets Insurgent Supremacists apart is three way fight politics: the idea that the existing socio-economic-political order and the far right represent different kinds of threats—interconnected but distinct—and that the left needs to combat both of them. This challenges the assumption, recurrent among many leftists, that the far right is either unimportant or a ruling-class tool, and that it basically just wants to impose a more extreme version of the status quo. But three way fight politics also challenges the common liberal view that in the face of a rising far right threat we need to “defend democracy” and subordinate systemic change to a broad-based antifascism. Among other huge problems with this approach, if leftists throw our support behind the existing order we play directly into the hands of the far right, because we allow them to present themselves as the only real oppositional force, the only ones committed to real change. Insurgent Supremacists applies three way fight analysis in various ways. There’s a chapter on misuses of the charge of fascism since the 1930s, which looks at how some leftists and liberals have misapplied the fascist label either to authoritarian conservatism (such as McCarthyism or the George W. Bush administration) or to the existing political system as a whole. There’s a chapter about the far right’s relationship with Donald Trump—both his presidential campaign and his administration—which explores the complex and shifting interactions between rightist currents that want to overthrow or secede from the United States and rightist currents that don’t. During the campaign, most alt-rightists enthusiastically supported Trump not only for his attacks on immigrants and Muslims but also because he made establishment conservatives look like fools. But since the inauguration they’ve been deeply alienated by many of his policies, which largely follow a conservative script. Three way fight analysis also informs the book’s discussion of federal security forces’ changing relationships with right-wing vigilantes and paramilitary groups. These relations have run the gamut from active support for right-wing violence (most notoriously in Greensboro in 1979, when white supremacists gunned down communist anti-Klan protesters) to active suppression (as in 1984-88, when the FBI and other agencies arrested or shot members of half a dozen underground groups). This complex history belies arguments that we should look to the federal government to protect us against the far right, as well as simplistic claims that “the cops and the Klan go hand in hand.” Forces of the state may choose to co-opt right-wing paramilitaries or crack down on them, depending on the particular circumstances and what seems most useful to help them maintain social control. Insurgent Supremacists isn’t intended to be a comprehensive study of the U.S. far right. Rather, it’s an attempt to offer some fresh ideas about what these dangerous forces stand for, where they come from, and what roles they play in the larger political arena. Not just to help us understand them, but so we can fight them more effectively.

[pigeonpocket5-blog]

Auschwitz and Anti-Racism: The Past (and Racism) is Another Country

Aurelien Mondon is Senior Lecturer in Politics at the University of Bath. Working with Aaron Winter, his work looks at the relationship between the far right and the mainstream, with a particular focus on racism. Aaron Winter is Senior Lecturer in Criminology at University of East London. 

It is in the here and now that UK racism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, far-right and mainstream, are situated, embedded, and do harm. It should be tackled, not displaced and denied.

On 11 October 2018, it was reported that Chelsea Football Club has proposed sending supporters accused of anti-Semitism and racism to Auschwitz-Birkenau as an alternative to banning orders. That action was being taken by the club came as good news for those concerned about the issue in football and particularly at Chelsea, where some of their supporters are known for anti-Semitic chanting and making the ‘hissing’ sound of gas chambers when playing the traditionally Jewish supported Tottenham Hotspur and other teams.

In terms of wider football, less than a week after the Chelsea announcement, West Ham suspended Mark Phillips, who coached their under-18 team, after he attended a march organised by the far-right Democratic Football Lads Alliance.

The Chelsea plan was proposed by team owner, Roman Abramovich, who is himself Jewish, as part of the club’s ‘Say No to Antisemitism’ initiative, in partnership with the Holocaust Educational Trust, which runs the ‘Lessons from Auschwitz’ programme. According to Chelsea Chairman Bruce Buck: ‘If you just ban people, you will never change their behaviour. This policy gives them the chance to realise what they have done, to make them want to behave better’. The club sent a delegation to Auschwitz for the annual March of the Living in April 2018, and 150 staff and supporters went on a trip in June.

At this stage, it is just Chelsea doing this, but it has also been discussed as a way of approaching the prevention of far-right extremism and de-radicalisation of far-right activists in Britain. It wouldn’t be surprising to see it become more common in the context of the revival of the far-right across North America and Europe, including countries once occupied by the Nazis. However, we are unconvinced and even opposed to the idea for a number of reasons.

Educational?

While Auschwitz, as well as other concentration, labour and death camps, Holocaust museums and memorial trusts, have long served educational purposes, firstly we question the wisdom of sending racists and anti-Semites, as well as fascists, to such a place – one that is also a solemn memorial and cemetery to the victims of Nazism, and gathering place for survivors and descendants. This offers offenders a free trip to a site of sensitivity to the victims of anti-Semitism as a result of expressing anti-Semitism.

There is also a real risk as Auschwitz is not immune to anti-Semitic acts, including a recent case of three young women giving Sieg Heil salutes at the gate. Like many sites associated with Nazism, it is also a rallying point for the far-right to offend, desecrate or deny. Cases include Holocaust denier David Irving organising tours there and visits from the Magyar Guada (Hungarian Guard) and others.

Past victories

Secondly, using the Holocaust as a reference point for understanding and addressing cases of anti-Semitism today and in Britain is not unproblematic. It places anti-Semitism in the past, in the extreme and elsewhere, in a different country, locking it into a particular time and space. This can serve to negate the very contemporaneity of the act and the continuous existence of anti-Semitism, as well as its specific history and legacy in Britain, on the far-right and in the mainstream, as well as the links to a wider racism.

There have been ongoing issues throughout the post-war period (including at Chelsea), and earlier. It is not uncommon that racism, particularly in the so-called ‘post-racial’ era is reduced to the illiberal far-right, something ‘we’ in the liberal mainstream defeated, with the far-right reduced to fascism and specifically Nazism, something ‘we’ as a nation defeated in the past.

Yet, even if we have to travel back into history to learn lessons about anti-Semitism, then why not look at Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists and the way they were chased out of the East End at the Battle of Cable Street in Whitechapel on Sunday 4 October 1936; or the rise of the National Front in the 1970s and 80s and the British National Party in the 1990s and 2000s. We could go back even further to the conspiracy theories prominent in liberal circles in the nineteenth century, where Jews were blamed for fomenting revolutions; or even to King Edward I's Edict of Expulsion of Jews from the United Kingdom in 1290. They were not readmitted until 1655. No Nazis required. In the context of Brexit, the Chelsea trip also appears as somewhat ironic, with racism and the far-right seen as ‘a European problem’ historically.

Colonialism missing piece

Thirdly, while the Chelsea situation is more clearly linked to anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, the strategy not only skips British fascism and anti-Semitism, but wider racism. It fits too closely with the British use of Nazism and the Holocaust as a distraction from its own historical, foundational and institutional racism, including colonialism and its legacy.

Of particular interest is the way in which Nazism and the Second World War acts on the British popular imagination. The Blitz, D-Day and other specific battles (except Cable Street whose left-wing roots go against the national narrative and hegemonic practices) are commonly used in a hagiographic fashion on TV, in films, popular non-fiction, public ceremonies and school lessons. As such, it constantly reminds the population that ‘we’ defeated racism qua Nazism at a moment when the racist empire was still being held onto, and also when much of the politics leading to fascism had been tried out experimentally in our own liberal societies. The past, when it is dark, truly is another country.

In fact, where colonialism is acknowledged, it is widely seen in a positive manner and is celebrated both in politics and popular culture, particularly in the context of Brexit, where nostalgia for Empire played a significant role. The royal honours are still given ‘of the British Empire’ and films such as Victoria and Abdul (2017) are produced and screened alongside Second World War fare such as Dunkirk (2017) and Darkest Hour (2017). In the context of Brexit, Liam Fox called for the creation of ‘Empire 2.0’, and former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson recited Kipling in Burma (in addition to a number of other racist comments, regularly propagated on his multiple media and political platforms).

In the meantime, criticism of British colonialism and Empire, including its violence, is regularly dismissed and critics attacked as unpatriotic, overly repentant and, in some cases, subjected to racism. This was the case with Priyamvada Gopal when she challenged Nigel Biggar’s Ethics and Empire project and Kehinde Andrews when he criticised former Prime Minister, colonial racist and Nazi fighting war hero Winston Churchill on GMTV. And yet one does not have to look far to find quotes such as that in 1937, when Churchill told the Palestine Royal Commission:

"I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."

He also defended the use of poison gas, bombing and other forms of violence to maintain the Empire. In the context of discussing anti-Semitism and where to find it historically, it is also worth noting Churchill’s unpublished article ‘How the Jews Can Combat Persecution’, from 1937 during the war:

"It may be that, unwittingly, they are inviting persecution - that they have been partly responsible for the antagonism from which they suffer … There is the feeling that the Jew is an incorrigible alien, that his first loyalty will always be towards his own race."

Churchill embodies the exchange system between British racism and colonialism and Nazism, with the latter negating the former. In a similar vein, and as is the case with other colonial powers, slavery is rarely acknowledged unless to celebrate its abolition, even though the British not only played a key part in the establishment of the system, but also benefited from it massively and fought tooth and nail to uphold it.

Having said all this, the Holocaust is of course part of our universal, and particularly central to our continental history, and thus should be taught in our education system in those terms as well as part of a wider education on racism and genocide. It should also be taught in communities who espouse anti-Semitic views such as the Chelsea supporters.

Existing provision

In fact, there is excellent Holocaust educational provision in Britain for this, including from the Jewish Museum and the Weiner Library, as well as football focused anti-racist organisations and campaigns such as Show Racism the Red Card and Kick it Out. You do not need to send offenders to Auschwitz.

However, this is not enough if we do not also discuss homegrown fascism and the racism at the core to the colonial system, throughout much of British history actively, honestly and explicitly. We must also move beyond history lessons and engage with the present and the impact of a system built on racism and exclusion in our society. The Nazis were defeated, but fascism and racism were not.

The ‘hostile environment’ bites back

In addition to ongoing structural and institutional racial inequality, we are currently experiencing an increase in hate crime and far-right activism as well as a normalisation and mainstreaming of racism and the far right in Britain and across much of the west. It is not a foreign, far-right or football phenomenon. The Tory Government sent around Go Home Vans and created a ‘Hostile Environment’ for immigrants and stigmatised Muslims and legitimised Islamophobia through Prevent.

Refugees have also been subjected to suspicion, demonisation, accusations, medical tests and left to drown in the Mediterranean, locked up in detention centres or deported (including those belonging to the Windrush Generation).

This is occurring in a country that lays claim to the Kindertransport rescue of Jewish children from Nazism as part of its history. Ironically, even with the focus on the Holocaust and Nazism, the lessons have not been learned here in Britain in the mainstream.

During the Brexit campaign, Nigel Farage’s Leave.EU campaign group used a Nazi-esque image of refugees crossing from Croatia to Slovenia in 2015 with a banner reading ‘Breaking Point: the EU has failed us all’. More recently, only days after the Chelsea news, Farage discussed the disproportionate power of the ‘Jewish lobby’ in America on his radio show on LBC, one of several mainstream media platforms, including BBC, where he has done so.

While history can teach us much, it is in the here and now that racism, anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, on the far-right and in the mainstream, are situated, embedded, do harm, and should be tackled., This needs to be acknowledged and addressed, not displaced and denied.

This article was originally posted on openDemocracy, 22 October 2018.

Source: http://blogs.bath.ac.uk/iprblog/2018/10/22/auschwitz-and-anti-racism-the-past-and-racism-is-another-country/

[rabbiandrewrosenblatt]

Pride Versis Prejudice

I am not sure when I came to intensely feel the impact that centuries of slavery in different parts of the world has left on my life. I grew up in a city that was still very racially divided more than a century after slavery had been abolished. People described neighborhoods, shopping malls, and schools simply as white or black. Naming things that way was so normal that it did not at first occur to me that the act of using language to segregate people might inherently be a problem. Multiculturalism and the value of identity-based pride helped a little, but did not radically change my thought patterns as those approaches intended. There was no overnight awakening – or woking – from a dream.

Somehow, in the wake of many such movements, my understanding evolved. Maybe it was because my grandfather, a prominent Baltimore rabbi, venerated Martin Luther King Jr.. Maybe it was because I was repulsed by the weight of a number of elementary school history lessons about slavery and its aftermath. Maybe it was the Steven Spielberg movie Amistad about a slave ship that arrived in US waters without its ‘crew’ of slave traders, but with its ‘cargo’ of captured Africans. In my experience, there was no single antidote for the thought patterns that desensitize one to racism. There was a collection of intersecting lessons and experiences that informed me. Over time, I held the belief that racial inferiority is what I would later learn is called a social construct.

I also held the belief that the world would one day move itself past the pettiness of all forms of prejudice. I would reason that with enough education and enough time, antisemitism, too, will become a thing of the past. This was not such a remarkable notion, given that in my lifetime societal mores have evolved to the point that one of the most serious accusations that can be made against someone in public or private life is that they are racist.

Though widespread sensitivity and awareness are a good start, I still remain troubled by the problems of race, identity politics, and discrimination worldwide. With election cycles, we hear much about it in the United States and Europe, and soon, I imagine in Canada. However, the manifestation of race problems in Israel is driving me to distraction. Because we are defined as a nation, by nature and by Divine plan, racialized conflict hits closer to home for us, even in the Diaspora.

For me, as for many, Israel is the refuge of the entirety of the Jewish people from Yemen to Yugoslavia and from Estonia to Ethiopia. It is where Jewish identity should transcend all other identity markers, classifications, and labels. Unfortunately, that is not the case for the Ethiopian community in Israel today.

I discovered this the first time I met Ethiopian-Israelis who had moved to North America. I asked Ethiopians why they chose to leave the country that offered them refuge from brutal oppression and near extinction. Most said the answer was גזענות, the Hebrew word for discrimination. Hearing that, I was doubly shocked. First that Hebrew needed a special word for it, and second that it was a phenomenon in Israel. Somehow, nearly twenty years after the last large Ethiopian Aliyah, I had failed to apply to the Ethiopian community what I had heard about the problems encountered by Sefardic Jews in Israel. I was only now awakening to what has been evolving for multiple generations of Ethiopians in Israel.  

Last week in Israel an off-duty police officer shot a young Ethiopian man in a park. Neither the officer nor the victim were entirely innocent in this case. Nevertheless, the shooting touched on a raw nerve in the Ethiopian Israeli community. They organized in protests that closed major highways and also turned destructive on the fringes.

I believe that the media and public have lost sight of the big picture in this case. Too many people are focusing on particular issues. The details of the initial conflict and the actions of a small percentage of the protesters are not the core of the issues. The highways in Tel Aviv were shut down because 150,000 people in Israel are feeling like second-class citizens. For example, Michal Avera-Samuel - the Ethiopian-Israeli CEO of Fidel, the Association for Education and Social Integration of Ethiopian Jews who lives in the upscale neighborhood of Hod Hasharon - told the Times of Israel, “when I walk around my neighborhood, not a month goes by without a few times that women driving in SUVs [a very expensive car in Israel] stop me and offer me jobs as a cleaner. If someone is looking for a cleaning lady, I’m the obvious candidate, right?” she said. Unfortunately, her experience was a near carbon copy of that of the Ethiopians that I know who have moved to North America.

I must shed the idealism and optimism of my youth and trade it for the more nuanced and sober understandings of adulthood. There is racism among the educated and among survivors of discrimination in the country born out of the ashes of the Holocaust. Perhaps I should tone that down. Perhaps the racism is more perceived than actual.  Perhaps it’s only a few bad apples. Perhaps it is not the survivors of the Holocaust, or their children, but those with less experience and education. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

Perhaps it is time to stop saying perhaps.

The science agrees. In the scientific community the question of bias is raised not on the lines of race alone, but what they call in-group and out-group. Our brains are  configured to recognize threats in binary terms that reduce others to us and them. Infants have been shown to learn same race faces better than other race faces (Kinsler). Adopted children below the age of eight show a preference for the race of their adoptive parents (Sangrigoli). The processing of us vs them takes place in primal parts of the brain, in the insula and the amygdala which form emotional concepts of disgust toward outgroups before the higher thinking parts of the brain get a chance to fire off a thought (Robert Sapolsky, Behave; the Biology of Humans at our Best and Worst, p 400-403). Mountains of evidence show an unconscious preference for the those we internally labeled as us.

Scientifically speaking, race is as arbitrary as religion, political party membership, or sports team affiliation. Sociologically speaking, the psychology and neurobiology of us and them teach us that the rhetorical strategy of using terms like white privilege is counter-productive because dichotomies that intend to impose guilt or shame subtly and subconsciously encourage whites to defend the systems that preserve privilege. This holds true regardless of skin colour. There has been racial discrimination at times and in places where there were no white people. All humans are biologically programmed to defend their resources and status while they simultaneously construct racial dichotomies. We are better served when we recognize commonality of purpose, belief, values, or other shared identity.

I believe this is an essential realization.

We are programmed to form groups and to prefer our own group. That programming exists in the fastest, most primal, most emotional part of our brains. You can read this only because Gd gave you a prefrontal cortex.

We need the more sophisticated parts of the brain for higher thinking. That is where humans are capable of transcending the primal us vs them thinking. Much could be said about the virtue of that. The Torah emphasizes this repeatedly. לא תלחץ את הגר כי גרים הייתם בארץ מצרים - do not oppress the stranger for you were strangers in the land of Egypt is repeated in various forms more than any other directive in the Torah - 36 times according to the Tosafot.

For all of the ingroup markings of the Torah world, such as kosher food, laws about cutting and covering one’s hair, clothing, prayer, and more, the Torah privileges one thing in governing our dealings with other human beings: that they bear the image of Gd. Thus, a person bearing the physical characteristics of the Pacific Rim, the African Horn, or the Peruvian heartland bears the same image of Gd as the European Jew.

The image of Gd cannot be seen through the organs of one’s eyes. Divinely-inspired vision is not mediated by the core of the insula and amygdala. One must engage the higher thinking part of the brain, and regularly so. The Torah never promised us that we would not have dark, evil, or perverted tendencies – which are referred to as Yetzer Harah - the evil inclination. The Talmud understood that the Yetzer Harah has its place in the lower functions of the brain. The sex drive can facilitate reproduction in the healthy sense or lead to sexual abuse in its evil manifestation. The primal urge to acquire inspires productivity in its best manifestation, or greed and obsession in its evil manifestation.

The us vs them instinct is no different. Recognizing an us can bring one to great altruism and generosity. However, when it is limited to the primal control of the lower brain side, it results in Jim Crow and Nuremberg Laws. We must ensure that this discriminating aspect of our nature is used for altruism and not oppression

The human mind has a remarkable ability to reprogram. We have the power to control how we categorize us and them, because we all belong to multiple groups. I may be a Jew, a Baltimorian, a marathon runner, and Canadian all at the same time. The intersections of those groups and their rankings can be fluid for me and for those perceiving me. Higher-order thinking has been known to exploit this to transcend lower order us vs them conflict. For example, in combat, soldiers have been known to avoid needless killing when they recognize an enemy as a member of an in-group, such as a fellow Mason, or co-religionist.

The critical shift required in Israel today is the reassignment of us vs them labels for Ethiopians, and all minorities. It means that the country has to figure out how to elevate equally the labels of Jew, Israeli, member of my people, or reunited cousins from the 2,500 year-long exile of the Asseryan conquest, above skin color or place of origin as a proper identifier. This is a lesson that needs to be learned fast, not just because headlines about racism among Jews in Israel is shameful and repugnant, but because there is no end to the ethnic spectrum in Israel. Russians, Ukrainians, French, Argentinians, British, Americans, and Canadians each carry an ethnic stereotype in modern Israel. There are so many opportunities to shift from them to us.

I am reminded of the words of Joseph’s brothers in reflecting upon their own behavior when they identified Joseph as a them because of his coat of many colors, rather than seeing a brother as an us. They said to one another,

ויאמרו איש אל אחיו אבל אשמים אנחנו על אחינו אשר ראינו צרת נפשו בהתחננו אלינו ולא שמענו על כן באה אלינו הצרה הזאת

alas, we are guilty on account of our brother, because we looked on at his anguish, yet paid no heed as he pleaded with us. That is why this distress has come upon us.

The problem of shifting from them to us is as old as Joseph and as current as today’s news cycle. Modern society has come a long way since the days of legal slavery and enforced segregation. We should build on that momentum as we feel the same burden to heal the fissure between the Ethiopians and Israeli society that the brothers felt to heal the sin against Joseph.

Shabbat Shalom,

Rabbi Rosenblatt