Uprising

On this date in 1943, several hundred Jewish prisoners at Treblinka, the Nazi death camp in Poland, rose in revolt and attempted escape.  About three hundred avoided the gunfire from camp guards and made it to the surrounding woods.  Somewhere between 50 and 70 were still alive at the end of the war in May 1945.

Treblinka was one of three major death camps, the others being Sobibor and Belzec, along with some smaller sites, built by the Nazis for the extermination of Jews living in the Government General of Poland, the area of that former country not absorbed into the Reich.  

Unlike concentration camps like Dachau and Buchenwald, where prisoners were housed under horrible conditions, starved, used as forced labor, and subject to arbitrary violence, dying at terrible rates, the death camps were designed to receive and quickly kill as many people as possible, keeping alive only the bare minimum to help keep the camp running.  In most cases, those arriving by train transport were dead within one to two hours of arriving.  During just over a year in operation, approximately 800-850,000 were murdered at Treblinka, 450,000 at Belzec (with only two known survivors), and 170,000 at Sobibor (which had several dozen survivors after an uprising in September 1943).

Auschwitz was a mixed camp with an industrial side using forced labor, opened in 1940, as well as an area constructed in 1942 for the the murder of Jews. About 1.1 million Jews died at Auschwitz, along with more than 100,000 Poles, Gypsies, and Russian prisoners of war.

At Treblinka, in addition to Polish Jews, about 8,000 Jews from the former Czechoslovakia and 11,000 from Thrace and Macedonia, along with 2,000 Romani were also killed. 

In addition to the German commanders and German and East European guards, each death camp also had a contingent of Jewish prisoners who were spared immediate death in order to keep the camp running.  At Treblinka this amounted to between 600 and 1,000 men divided into three groups.  The first to manage the unloading of those arriving on the train transports, including the undressing process before they were herded into the "showers".  The second sorted through belongings left behind so they could be collected and sent to Germany for civilian use.  The final group removed the dead from the gas chambers, burying them, and later, in 1943, digging up the corpses so they could be incinerated.  Every few weeks those in the three groups, with a few exceptions needed for continuity, would be murdered and replaced by new prisoners.

In 1943 as the number of arrivals dwindled and the digging up and incineration of the dead accelerated the workers were aware that the day of their termination was approaching, leading to the planning for the breakout.  They were also inspired by the news of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in April.  Under very difficult circumstances planning proceeded and a key to the German arsenal was forged, allowing the group to access guns and grenades. 

During the August 2 breakout, several guards were killed and the main gate and fences destroyed allowing about 300 to cross the antitank obstacles and ditches to reach the forest.  Though many were hunted down by the Germans or died under other circumstances a few dozen were to survive and bear witness.

Fire set during the breakout. Photo by railway worker.

 

Treblinka was finally closed in September 1943.

Names of Some of the Survivors 

Samuel Rajzman

Yankiel Weirnik 

Abraham Kolski

Richard Glazar

Chaim Sztajer

Dov Freiburg

Kalman Teigman 

Samuel Willenberg (the last survivor, died in 2016)

 

Grants from the Association of the Jewish Historical Institute, the Capital City of Warsaw and Wolf & Dora Rajcher Memorial Found have enabled a Book of Names database to be assembled of those who perished at Treblinka, many of whom had no surviving family to remember them.  The database currently has 130,859 names. 

Common And Uncommon Interests

Mayor Mamdani gave a brief address denouncing Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu as a war criminal and genocide perpetrator but announced that, regretfully, he cannot order his arrest if he attends the annual UN meeting in New York City in September.  However, he did encourage his followers to commit violent acts if Netanyahu shows his face.

Oddly, the Mayor and the Prime Minister have some interests in common regarding the upcoming UN meeting and Netanyahu's potential visit because of the upcoming Israeli elections in October.  Current polling shows Netanyahu's coalition losing to the opposition.  If Netanyahu comes to NYC in September and faces more outrage from Mamdani and protestors it will help his reelection chances.  It is in the Prime Minister's interest that such demonstrations occur and the worse, the better for him. 

For Mamdani, who knew all along he had no authority to arrest the PM, he gets to level a factually inaccurate but inflammatory set of accusations which pleases his supporters.  It is also in his interest to foment unrest in the city if Netanyahu comes in September, precisely because his goal and the PMs are similar.  They both want Netanyahu to be reelected.  From Mamdani's perspective, Netanyahu is the perfect villain and having him continue in office advances the Mayor's objectives - the isolation and eventual destruction of Israel.  Many of those who have taken the pro-Hamas side blame everything on Netanyahu, including experienced but delusional types like Tom Friedman and Chuck Schumer, thinking if only he were gone everything would be nice and calm.  Mamdani knows the truth that when it comes to Hamas there is not a lot of difference between Netanyahu and his opposition.  Mamdani and the groups that support him want Israel destroyed.  They do not want a two-state solution.  They recognize that continuing to personalize the enemy via Netanyahu is to their advantage.  

The mayors of the two next largest American cities, Karen Bass in LA and Brandon Johnson in Chicago, are incompetent and not very smart (Johnson is downright stupid).  Mamdani is an evil man but he is clever, charismatic, and dangerous. Mamdani claims it was his hatred for Israel that set him on the path to becoming a socialist.

My paternal grandfather Louis came to the U.S. in 1905 after deserting the Russian army.  He promptly joined the U.S. army, serving two 3-year enlistments, being discharged as a sergeant and gaining his citizenship (we still have his discharge and citizenship papers).  Louis spoke six languages but insisted that only English be spoken in his presence.  As a Jew he encountered prejudice but he was proud to be an American.  This was his country.

My maternal grandfather Nate was born in the U.S. three years after his parents emigrated from Russia.  Unlike Louis, who passed before I was born, I had the opportunity to know Nate and learned his hero was Abraham Lincoln.  As a Jew he encountered prejudice but was proud to be an American.  This was his country.

My parents were the same.  They taught me to be grateful for the opportunities we had in America.  Yes, they had some criticisms of conditions but they were proud to be Americans which they considered the best country in the world.

What about Zohran Mamdani and his upbringing?

His father is Mahmood Mamdani, an Indian born Muslim who grew up in Uganda, but was educated in the United States, obtaining a doctorate from Harvard (the worst anti-Americans are created by Ivy League universities).  Mamdani and his family were expelled from Uganda in 1973 by the crazy Idi Amin, returning in 1980 after Amin's overthrow.  Since then Mamdani has spent most of his time in the United States and Uganda where he has a villa. He remains a citizen of Uganda and is not an American citizen.

After serving as director of Columbia's Institute of African Studies, in 1999 he became the Herbert Lehman Professor of Government at Columbia, a position he still holds.(1)  From 2010 to 2022 he was also executive director of the Makerere Institute of Social Research at Kampala University in Uganda. 

Professor Mamdani's life work can best be summarized as blaming every problem in the Third World on Western Colonialism.  In his work, people and institutions in the Third World have no agency or ability to influence events, even after colonialism ended.  This requires tortuous convoluted "logic", leading to writing that the genocide in Darfur was not a genocide but whatever bad that did happen there was the fault of the U.S.

He's argued that America pioneered "settler-colonialism" and genocide and ethnic cleansing, which influenced later projects, including Nazi Germany.  And who was the American figure most responsible for these atrocities?  None other than my grandfather Nate's hero!  Mamdani claimed:

"With the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln generalized the solution of reservations. they herded American Indians into separate territories.  For the Nazis, this was the inspiration - Hitler realized two things: one, that genocide is doable.  Second thing Hitler realized is that you don't have to have a common citizenship."

Mahmood married film maker Mira Nair in 1991 after they met in Uganda.  Zohran is their only child.  Born and raised in India, Nair attended (surprise!) Harvard in the mid-70s and is a naturalized U.S. citizen. She's had a very successful career making theatrical (we enjoyed Mississippi Marsala) and TV films as well as documentaries.  She opposes the existence of Israel.

A very affluent, privileged couple given education, refuge, and acclamation in America, a country they despise.  In their view both Israel and America are settler-colonialist societies which deserve to be destroyed. 

Regarding her son, Nair gave an interview in 2013 in which she stated:

"He is a total desi [South Asian].  Completely.  We are not firangs [Westerners] at all.  He is very much us.  He is not an American at all.  He was born in Uganda, raised between India and America. He is at home in many places.  He thinks of himself as a Ugandan and as an Indian." 

Until 8th grade Zohran attended the expensive tuition Bank Street School for Children, which proudly announces its progressive bona fides on its website.  After attending the Bronx High School for Science, Zohran went to Bowdoin College, a small progressive liberal arts school in Maine where he majored in Africana Studies (one of those new majors that is about indoctrination) and founded the college's Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapter. SJP calls for the dissolution of Israel and celebrated Hamas' October 7 attack as a "historic win for the Palestinian resistance".

Zohran was designed from birth by his parents as a weapon against Israel and the United States.  His purpose is to gain the political power that allows him to accomplish those goals. He's learned to be slicker than his parents about how he shows his contempt for America but it shines through when he speaks about Israel.(2)

Zohran Mamdani became a naturalized American citizen in 2018.  He should never have been allowed to become a citizen with this background and he perjured himself by taking the oath of citizenship requiring him to defend the Constitution.  This points out the importance of this country becoming more diligent and responsible in deciding who is granted the privilege of citizenship.  Screening is essential because once citizenship is granted, the person is entitled to all the rights, privileges, and due process of his fellow citizens.  Zohran makes a powerful case for enhanced immigration and naturalization restrictions.  

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

 (1) That Mahmood Mamdani holds an endowed chair from the family of Herbert Lehman is an insult to a real American and a sign of how degraded Columbia University has become. Lehman served as Governor and Senator of the state of New York.  The Jewish Lehman also served on the boards of the American Jewish Committee and the Anti Defamation League.

(2)  Mamdani plays a word game in which he always refers to Judaism as a religion but not to Jews as a people.  We are both. From his perspective a religion should not have a country; I know that is inconsistent with the 22 Arab Muslim states and the 50+ state members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation but never mind. In his world view, Jews would be fine practicing their religion as long as they are subordinate to his politics and would be tolerated as long as they follow his rules.  It is a rejection of the idea of toleration as not something bestowed, but that which we owe to each other, as George Washington expressed in his letter to the Jewish congregation of Newport, Rhode Island.  Just another aspect of Mamdani's reject of American ideals.

The Understanding

 On April 4 I wrote about the latest iteration of the Iran War in Further on Mastering The Tides Of The World.  I refer to it as the latest iteration because Iran declared war on the United States in 1979 and that declaration remains in effect.

We are at war once again, this time with Iran.  Before it started I did not know what the right course of action was.  Now that it has commenced I think it essential we achieve victory along the lines outlined by Secretary of State Rubio.  This is a circumstance where, having started the task, failure to achieve these outcomes will have serious long-term negative consequences for the United States.  I am aware of the sunk cost fallacy but, in this case, we need to continue.  I'm also painfully aware of the potential for unforeseen consequences, a theme that has prompted a number of THC posts.

We now have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the U.S. and Iran.  In 2015 I wrote several posts on the Iran Nuclear Deal, which, as a reminder, was a "political commitment", not a treaty, Executive Agreement, signed document, or legally binding, so thought I'd take a look at the MOU, which is also just a political commitment (though in this case signed by the parties).

Beyond that, I am not sure how to characterize the document.  Partly because it reads more like a 60-day ceasefire agreement pending a final deal and partly because Donald Trump is one of the parties.  Point 3 of the 14 Point agreement reads:

The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran commit to negotiating and achieving the final deal in maximum 60 days, extendable with mutual consent. 

In April, after mentioning my uncertainty about whether to initiate another phase of the Iran conflict, I stated the need to achieve victory along the line mentioned by Marco Rubio, including elimination of the nuclear and ballistic missile threats.  I did not reference President Trump because I could not find a coherent set of demands by the President, other than blustering and often contradictory outbursts.  Nor did the President ever set forth for the American people a clear explanation of why now and what his goals were, a necessity if you are entering a prolonged conflict.

Moreover, we know from the past decade that Trump has a short attention span, is often fuzzy in his language, improvises as he goes along, is subject to bouts of pettiness, and corrupt, making it impossible to predict where he will end up on any issue or, indeed, if there is any final ending.

Trump has now said many things about Iran and given different and conflicting messages.  He did the same regarding tariffs, where his justifications changed on almost a daily basis.  It's why I always wait a while to comment on anything involving Trump.  Reacting to anything he says on Monday is useless because he often completely changes his tune on Tuesday and then switches again on Wednesday.

He also seems to regard every negotiation as a form of commercial real estate deal.  When it comes to foreign policy that can sometimes works (see Venezuela and, perhaps, Cuba(1)) where ideology does not play a significant role.  But it does with the Iranian regime which has consistently, since it came to power in 1979, acted in accordance with its ideology, even at great cost to the welfare of its people.  Trump seems to think the enticement of dollars and business will lead it to change its ideology.  I believe he is mistaken, just as FDR was when it came to the Soviet Union (see Personal Handling). 

For all of those reasons, I had reservations, because with Trump you never know where you stand. 

Let's start by looking at the situation pre and post this latest round:

1.  The Straits of Hormuz were open to transit for all vessels.  However, Point 5 of the MOU concedes de facto veto power to Iran:

Upon the signing of this MOU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge for 60 days, only from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa. The traffic of commercial vessels will immediately start, and considering the need for removing the tactical and military obstacles and de-mining by the Islamic Republic of Iran will be instated within 30 days. The Islamic Republic of Iran will conduct dialog with the Sultanate of Oman to define the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz, in discussion with other Persian Gulf littoral states in line with the applicable international law and the sovereign rights of coastal states of the Strait of Hormuz. 

2.  The Iran regime was subject to severe sanctions.  Under the MOU those will be lifted.

The United States of America undertakes to terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the United Nations Security Council resolutions, i.e. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors resolutions and all unilateral U.S. sanctions, primary and secondary, in an agreed upon schedule. 

3.  The Iran regime was under severe financial pressure as its infrastructure and financial stability crumbled.  Under the MOU, the U.S. has pledged up to $300 billion in "other people's money" for Iranian reconstruction.  Given the U.S. was focused on military, not civilian targets including energy infrastruture, what are these reconstruction funds to be used for?  As I pointed out in the 2015 deal, money is fungible and can be used for anything, including continuing to fund Iran's terror proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas.

The United States of America undertakes with regional partners to develop a definitive, mutually agreed plan with at least $300 billion (£225 billion) for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran.  

4.  Iran's ballistic missile capabilities were unrestricted and proved to be considerable in this latest round.  They remain unrestricted.

5.  Iran had pledged not to develop nuclear weapons.  It reiterates that pledge in the MOU, adding that it will not "procure" such weapons.  No one believed this in 2015 and no one believes this now.

Under the MOU, the pre-attack status quo has not been preserved.  Iran is better off now than it was.  I would not characterize that as a U.S. victory.

In their public statements, President Trump and VP Vance are stressing the "moderation" of Iran's new leaders.  We've been down this road before as Presidents Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Obama (2) all fell for the moderation line, while Bush II passively refused to retaliate when Iranian IED's killed hundreds of U.S. soldiers during the Iraq War.   I think they will be disappointed.

I think Trump lost interest in the whole subject when Iran did not collapse in the first couple of weeks and has moved on to other things that have caught his attention like his self-generated quarrel with Italy's Meloni over whether she asked for a photo with him.  A puzzled and furious Meloni, who has generally been supportive of Trump over the years, responded:

"Donald Trump's statements are completely fabricated. I am frankly stunned. I don't ‌know why ⁠the president of the United States behaves like this toward his own allies. After all, it is not the first time."

"I can only say it's a shame he doesn't show the same resolve toward with the enemies of the West and toward the enemies of the United States — toward leaders with whom he, on the other hand, is much more accommodating. But there is one thing he should remember: Italy and I do not beg." 

While the MOU is only a cease fire I don't think Trump will have the appetite to resume force in the event of a failure to reach a final deal.  Unless he gets ticked off by something or someone. Who knows?  He certainly doesn't.

As a practical matter there are big difficulties ahead.  Gulf State sources, with the exception of Qatar, friends of the Iranians, Hamas, and the Trump family(3), are not happy with the MOU provision looking for them to fund Iran's rebuilding.  On the other hand, the U.S. proved such a feckless ally they may be forced to get closer to Iran for protection. 

Point 14 states:

The final deal will be endorsed by a binding United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution.

However,  France's Foreign Minister yesterday said it would not approve lifting current UN sanctions unless the final agreement addressed Iran's use of terrorist proxies and its ballistic missile program, neither of which are covered in the MOU.(4)

Finally, Point 1 addresses Lebanon, a country that neither the U.S. nor Iran are directly involved in:

The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war, by signing this MOU, declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon and other provisions of this paragraph. 

This is intended to address Hezbollah's recurrent attacks on Israel and the Israeli response.  However, the omission of Israel, as in language that should read "including in Lebanon and Israel" is striking, since it is Hezbollah's attacks that triggered the Israeli response.  The provision also effectively leaves the initiative with Iran, which controls Hezbollah.  Indeed, Hezbollah has continued to attack Israeli forces, killing four IDF soldiers and when Israel responded, Iran announced it was closing once again the Straits of Hormuz.  The Iranians want to see how Trump responds.  Depending on the President's mood at any particular moment he may lash out at the Israelis or the Iranians.  Who knows?  And that is the problem.  

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

(1)  Cuba remains nominally communist, but it's as ideologically dead as the Soviet Union in its final years. The country is now being run by a criminal gang. 

(2) President Obama may not have thought the Iran regime was moderating.  He just didn't care.  His foreign policy aide Ben Rhodes thought, and still thinks, the mullahs, along with Hezbollah and Hamas, are the good guys.  

(3)  The problem of Qatar, along with Russia and China, is bigger than just the Trump family.  The degree of influence the three enemies of America have attained with academic institutions, media, think tanks, politicians, influencers, and podcasters is staggering.

(4) Of course, France and our other European allies refused to help the U.S. keep the Hormuz Straits open, compounding our problems. 

Further On Mastering The Tides Of The World

Mastering The Tides of the World told of the difficulty in knowing what courses of action are the right path to take, despite our best efforts to reason our way forward and predict outcomes.

We are at war once again, this time with Iran.  Before it started I did not know what the right course of action was.  Now that it has commenced I think it essential we achieve victory along the lines outlined by Secretary of State Rubio.  This is a circumstance where, having started the task, failure to achieve these outcomes will have serious long-term negative consequences for the United States.  I am aware of the sunk cost fallacy but, in this case, we need to continue.  I'm also painfully aware of the potential for unforeseen consequences, a theme that has prompted a number of THC posts.

The Event At Sarajevo reflects on the unforeseen consequences of World War I and the lessons for future conflicts.

Japan's disastrous 1941 decision to attack the U.S. and other Western nations is the subject of Japan Decides On War. 

Dereliction Of Duty discusses the U.S. decision for escalated involvement in Vietnam in 1964-65. 

America's flawed decision to attack Iraq in 2003; Pausing At The Precipice. 

In his Second Inaugural Address (March 4, 1865), President Lincoln spoke of the unpredictable nature of war:

Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. 

We see that unpredictability in how the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union, a resolution I had not thought possible nor, for that matter, had the legions of American experts on the Soviet Union.  Perhaps Ronald Reagan was the only one with the foresight to predict that ending and he was considered delusional until it happened. 

There is also a delusion that those opposed to the use of force can fall prey to.  That inaction will allow things to continue unchanged on the same course.  They don't.  I wrote about this in the Iraq section of the essay Reflections On The Middle East Wars. 

Nor does it mean that victory is an end to history.  In his Finest Hour speech on June 18, 1940, Prime Minister Winston Churchill held out a vision of victory that would lead the world into "broad, sunlit uplands". 

The whole fury and might of the enemy must very soon be turned on us. Hitler knows that he will have to break us in this Island or lose the war. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.  

Yet only fifteen years later on March 1, 1955, merely a decade after victory over Hitler, the emergence of the Cold War and the threat of mutual annihilation by nuclear weapons led Churchill, only weeks before his resignation as Prime Minister, to address these words to Parliament:

The day may dawn when fair play, love for one’s fellow-men, respect for justice and freedom, will enable tormented generations to march forth serene and triumphant from the hideous epoch in which we have to dwell. 

Of course, being Churchill, he closed his remarks with the stirring admonition:  "Meanwhile, never flinch, never weary, never despair.” 

Haviv

Over the past few months I've been reading and listening to Israeli Haviv Rettig Gur.  He's active on twitter, YouTube, and with a podcast Ask Haviv Anything which alternates between longer in depth episodes and quick 10-15 minute explainers on a specific issue.  I find him thoughtful and able to provide some clarity to complex matters.  

I'm not sure how to categorize him politically as he's not clearly on the right or left.  This, from two days ago, gives you a flavor for his views.

Y’all know I have my disagreements with Bibi [Netanyahu]. Budget priorities, haredi welfare spending, import reforms, judicial reform, information war, avoidance of accountability, Gaza war - okay, a lot of disagreements, including on big, critical things that affect our lives and the lives of our neighbors. But the man has been planning the ayatollahs’ fall for two decades. He believes it’s why God (inasmuch as he believes in God) put him on this Earth. And damned if he isn’t seeing through this thing he has always believed was his destiny. I’ll keep criticizing the bad stuff. I’m a citizen. He works for me. That’s how the system is supposed to work. And I’ll keep praising and being grateful for this one great big huge thing. I don’t know if he’ll succeed. I can’t think of anyone else who would have been so grimly single-minded and so specifically competent in the specific skillset required to bring us to this point.  

I'll also add he's been very critical of corruption involving Netanyahu and his associates.

Some episodes I'd recommend.

Episode 69 - Israel's Great Divide - an insider's look at the judicial reform, with Moshe Koppel.  This was the first of Haviv's podcasts I listened to. Prior to 10/7/23 the issue dominating Israeli politics was Netanyahu's proposed reform of the judiciary.  From an American perspective, the power grabbed by Israel's Supreme Court over the past four decades would never be tolerated.  The lack of a written constitution has enabled the court's actions.  However, the proposed reform amounts to a reverse power grab by the executive and the lack of trust between right and left makes compromise impossible (sounds familiar, doesn't it?).  Moshe Koppel is an academic, not a politician, who was one of the authors of the reform and sounds like a man with intellectual integrity but comes across as naive about the political process.  An excellent overview of both the legal and political aspects of the dispute.

Episode 99 - Are We Winning?  Released yesterday about the Iran War.  Brings an interesting perspective not often heard in the U.S.

Episode 92 - Why does Israel hate UNRWA?  A short episode about the Palestinian relief agency.  The best quick answer to this question, which I've touched on before.

Episode 78 - Do You Still Want to Globalize the Intifada?  Short episode on the significant difference between the First and Second Intifadas and what the Globalize the Intifada means to Israelis. 

Episode 76 - How Elites drive Jew-hatred with Hussein Aboubakr Mansour.  A discussion of the situation in Western academia and in the Muslim world and why it has developed in similar ways.  Mansour is an Egyptian and Muslim, now living in the U.S.  

Episode 65 - The unseen editors rigging the information war with Ashley Rindsberg.  Rindsberg has been doing deep dive detective work on how the manipulation of information is occuring in social media, with a particular focus on Wikipedia, in which the current head of NPR played a significant role in its deterioration as a credible source of information.

I first listened to Haviv via the Unpacking Israeli History podcast of Noam Weissman, which I also recommend.  There were two particular podcasts featuring Haviv that caught my attention; the first a look back on thirty years after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin and the other on settler violence in Judea and Samaria, which I think a disgrace with not enough done to prevent and punish the perpetrators.

A Lie That Won't Die

The upsurge in anti-semitism in the West since the Hamas attack on Israel in October 2023 has been accompanied by a deluge of lies and distortions, one of which is that Israel manipulated the U.S. into attacking Iraq in 2003.  Journalist Nadav Eyal published an article on the subject today, including an off-the-record discussion he had with Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in the fall of 2002.

Before getting to that, I wanted to review my own experience on the subject.  In the early 2000s I was reading online the right-wing Jerusalem Post and left-wing Haaretz (1).  One thing I discovered was that while Israel's military and intelligence services were fanatic and effective about maintaining operational security, internal government strategic discussions often played out in the press and what I consistently read in 2002 was while Saddam Hussein was definitely a bad actor, Israel felt Iraq was in a box and the much greater threat to Israel was Iran.  If the U.S. was to go over anyone in the War on Terror, Israel's preference was Iran.

Later in the 2000s, I learned that Prime Minister Sharon had conveyed this both directly and indirectly to the Bush Administration and was told in no uncertain terms that Iraq was next after Afghanistan.  I recently came across a contemporaneous article in the Washington Post about Israel's position advising against the Iraq invasion.  In light of the administration's response, Sharon instructed his cabinet, given Israel's dependence on the U.S., that Israel would make no further efforts to change the Americans minds and would publicly support whatever decision the Bush Administration made.  In other words, causation ran precisely in the opposite direction from what Mearsheimer and others maintain; it is Israel's reliance on the U.S., not American reliance on Israel, that was the driving force in what happened.

It's actually an example refuting the linkage made between neoconservatives and Israel.  In this case, American neocons urged the Iraq invasion while Israel cautioned against it.  Another division occurred in 2011, when neocons wanted the U.S, to support the Arab Spring uprisings while Israel was much more cautious.

My initial take was reinforced as more information became available about the American decision to invade Iraq.  Perhaps the best summary can be found in Mark Mazarr's 2019 book, Leap of Faith: Hubris, Negligence, and America's Greatest Foreign Policy Tragedy.  Mazarr's book benefits from his access to participants and documents which, with the passage of time, became more available.  The Iraq decision was driven by George Bush and Dick Cheney and was made even as the early stages of the Afghanistan action were underway in late 2001.  The degree of dysfunction in the Bush foreign policy team, including Powell, Rumsfeld, and Rice is appalling, with a lot of passive-aggressive behavior involved on everyone's part.  I didn't think much of Bush when he was elected but felt reassured that steady hands like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Powell would help steer things the right way on foreign policy.  What a mistake!  Nowhere in Mazarr's account does Israel play a role in the decision making.

More recently, I've seen a lot being made of Benjamin Netanyahu's Congressional testimony in 2002, urging an attack on Iraq.  That did occur, but those using the testimony fail to note (no doubt deliberately) the point Eyal makes:

In 2002 he was a private citizen plotting a political comeback. Sharon had taken control of Likud and sidelined Netanyahu decisively. The two camps detested each other. Netanyahu had no contact with Sharon when he testified and did not speak on behalf of the Israeli government.

Eyal's article pulls together in one place, the various threads I've come across over the years on this subject and is well worth reading.  Some excerpts:

I remember his message [during the off the record conversation with Sharon on the flight back from America in 2002] with unusual clarity. Israel, Sharon said, was not lobbying for this war. He told us that he had made Israel’s position explicit in Washington: this was the wrong war. Iraq was not the central threat to the region. Iran was. His concern, as he framed it, was that an American fixation on Iraq would come at the expense of confronting Iran’s growing regional ambitions.

By “wrong war,” he was not advocating the occupation of Iran or a campaign of regime change. At the time, Iran’s nuclear program was still in its early stages — and relatively unknown to the West and Israel. The Israeli preference was for crippling sanctions that would halt it before it matured.

They added that Sharon understood Israel had to stay out of the invasion debate altogether, given how contentious the issue already was in American politics. Sharon — unlike Netanyahu — was meticulous about preserving bipartisan support in Washington. He believed Israel’s strategic relationship with the United States depended on it. For him, even if he had supported the war, lobbying for it would have amounted to a stupid mistake. So he didn’t.

You do not have to take my word for it. Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell, later recalled that senior Israeli officials warned Washington against focusing on Iraq. “The Israelis were telling us,” Wilkerson said, “Iraq is not the enemy — Iran is the enemy.” 

Eyal goes on to argue that one of the consequences of the Iraq invasion eventually led to the Hamas takeover of Gaza.

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

(1) Today I read the Times of Israel and several Israeli writers on X and Substack, though I still have a difficult time understanding the factions and parties in Israeli politics which often doesn't make much sense to me.  I rarely look at the Jerusalem Post and never at Haaretz which is today published for the benefit of those hostile to Israel since its internal very left-wing audience dramatically shrunk in the aftermath of the Second Intifada.  More recently Haaretz has been entangled in scandal as it was revealed that one of its prominent journalists was receiving payments from the Hamas supporting government of Qatar.

After Hanukkah

I've updated my December 14 post from last year with two additional footnotes with important information regarding the situation of Jews in Western countries.  Sneak preview of one note - the United Arab Emirates will no longer send its students to British universities because the Muslim Brotherhood has radicalized those academic institutions!  That's how bad things are in Europe (and elsewhere).

Hanukkah

We've lit the candles for the first night, while thinking of those murdered and wounded while celebrating the holiday at Australia's Bondi Beach.  Hanukkah celebrates the Jewish victory over those who would oppress and deny us religious freedom.

A word on the situation outside the United States (I'll have more to say on the U.S. soon) and Israel. Between 80 and 85% of the world's Jews live in the United States or Israel.  Another 8% live in three countries (about 400,000 in each); the UK, France, and Canada.  Two of those countries, the UK and Canada, have governments hostile to Jews, while France is more neutral, though Jews constitute the overwhelming majority of hate crime targets (including assaults, rapes, and murders) and, more recently, cancelled the traditional national Christmas and New Years celebrations on the Champs-Élysées in Paris because of fear of terrorist acts by its Muslim population.(1)  In all three countries the toxic combination of leftist politics and a growing Muslim population has left Jewish populations at risk.  Absent a dramatic change in political culture, the future is not good for the Jewish communities of these countries.

In the next tier are two countries each with about 100,000 Jews (together, about 1.4% of the global population); Australia and Argentina.  Australia can be placed in the same category as the UK and Canada, with a government hostile to Jews and a rapidly growing Muslim population.(2)  Argentina has an antisemitic history but its current government is led by a man who identifies as Jewish so, at least for now, it has the brightest prospects of all.

As Hussein Aboubakr Mansour wrote in the wake of Bondi Beach:

Any sober observer must be honest. Outside the United States, there is no Western political establishment with either the will or the capability to address this problem, let alone reverse its growth. The future of Western Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand is likely to be increasingly Jew-free and increasingly dysfunctional.  

One of the prayers we say when lighting the Hanukkah candles is "Blessed are you Lord our God, ruler of the universe, who performed wondrous deeds for our ancestors in those ancient days at this season."  May that happen again. 

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

(1)  France has deployed 7,000 soldiers across the country to protect “places of worship and sensitive sites.” The deployment, originally meant to be short term, has become open ended. The French Ministry of Defense states “our commitment is long-term, for as long as this situation requires.” Minister of the Armed Forces Catherine Vautrin echoed the message, “the terrorist threat is permanent.” President Macron has already admitted this is a war with no end in sight.

Interior Minister Nunez: “We’ve dealt with terrorism, we’ve dealt with separatism, now we’re tackling infiltration" and looking into “the links between representatives of political movements and organizations and networks supporting terrorist activity or propagating Islamist ideology”.

In May, Macron received a government investigative report that Islamists are infiltrating France's republican institutions and are a threat to national cohesion.  The report (leaked to Le Figaro), drawn up by two senior civil servants, found evidence for a policy of "entryism" by the Muslim Brotherhood into public bodies like schools and local government.  According to the report, "entryism means getting involved in republican infrastructure… in order to change it from the inside. It requires dissimulation… and it works from the bottom up."

The report goes on to say that the Muslim Brotherhood was losing influence in the Middle East and North Africa, and so was targeting Europe, backed by money from Turkey and Qatar.  This is not an effort limited to France.

"Having given a Western look to the ideology in order to implant themselves in Europe, (the Muslim Brotherhood) tries to lay down the roots of a Middle Eastern tradition while concealing a subversive fundamentalism."  The "Western look" the authors refer to is dressing Islamism in the robe of the fashionable academic jargon of settler-colonialism and the oppressor-oppressed framing.

The report states unequivocally that “Hatred of Jews,” is a core ideological element, often laundered through anti-Zionist slogans.  Just like American college campuses and every university Middle East Studies Program. 

According to The Free Press, "The report details a wave of online influencers—trained in Brotherhood institutions, fluent in grievance politics, and calibrated for younger audiences. Some present as activists fighting “Islamophobia”; others cloak Islamist ideology in therapeutic or entrepreneurial language." 

Interestingly, in response to the report, French intelligence agencies recommended the government get tougher on Israel in order to placate its growing and unruly Muslim population.  Macron took the advice, recognizing a Palestinian state in September.  It's not going to work.  The Muslim Brotherhood target is Western Europe, not Israel.  All that recognition does is show weakness.  

UPDATE: Jan. 17 - Further on the infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood within European institution, on January 9 the United Arab Emirates excluded UK universities from its approved list for state scholarships, citing risks of radicalization by the Muslim Brotherhood on British campuses!

SECOND UPDATE: Jan 17 - French journalist Nora Bussigny authored a new book, Les Nouveaux Antisemites (The New Antisemites).  Bussigny, who is not Jewish and has a French father and Moroccan mother, infiltrated France's anti-Israel movement.  She told Times of Israel “I saw with my own eyes to what degree Islamists, far-left so-called ‘progressive’ militants and feminist, LGBT and ecological activists are closely linked in their shared hatred of Jews and Israel."  Despite the Zionism language she found it was their shared hatred of Jews that drives their movement.

“While undercover, I identified classic antisemitic stereotypes, reformulated by simply substituting the term ‘Zionist’ for ‘Jew,’” she told the hearing. “This rhetoric was flagrantly apparent during training by the Urgence Palestine organization in which I participated. The speakers spoke of a supposed ‘Zionist conspiracy’ in France in which ‘Zionists’ control the media and have infiltrated the government. These accusations are nothing but a faithful reworking of traditional antisemitic tropes, already observed historically on the extreme right.”

She tells the paper, "My concern continues to grow regarding the future marked by the persecution of Jews . . . I’m very, very afraid for France. I think in the long run, this might be a lost cause, but I’m among those who are going to fight until the end.”  

THIRD UPDATE: Jan 28 - On Jan. 22 France’s National Assembly voted to call for the Muslim Brotherhood to be added to the European Union’s list of terrorist organizations.  It is the first major EU nation to do so. The resolution emphasizes that Hamas, already on the EU terror list, originated as the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, making the parent organization’s exclusion a logical inconsistency.

(2)  In 2000 the current Australian Prime Minister led demonstrations in Sydney in support of Yassir Arafat after he walked away from accepting a Palestinian state at the Camp David talks and prepared to launch a series of suicide bombings against Jews. After decades of Australian support for Israel by all governing parties, the current PM withdrew Australia's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.  No surprise, since his man Arafat shocked President Clinton and others at Camp David when he denied there was ever a Jewish temple on the Temple Mount! And, to this day, that is what Palestinian children learn in school.  Since Oct 7, 2023, the PM has demonstrated on numerous occasions that his animus extends to the entire Jewish people.  

For more on the lies about the Temple Mount read this THC post which provides some background, along with an account of the 2015 New York Times article propagating this fake news.  For more than a decade the Times has viewed its role as creating a permission structure to allow progressives to become anti-semites. 

An Irreconcilable Conflict Of Principles

"His Majesty's Government have thus been faced with an irreconcilable conflict of principles... For the Jews the essential point of principle is the creation of a sovereign Jewish State. For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine". 

- Ernest Bevin(1), British Foreign Minister, February 1947, explaining to the House of Commons why Britain decided to terminate the Mandate for Palestine(2) and refer the matter to the United Nations. 

I recently learned of this statement for the first time watching a Podcast by Fleur Hassan-Nahoum(3) in which she interviews Israeli politician Einat Wilf.  I've been able to confirm the accuracy of the quote and the exact language.

 

The first 6 minutes of the podcast are invaluable because it provides a succinct explanation of the reason for the conflict, though I recommend listening to the entire thing. 

 

 

Einat Wolf is a former Labor Party politician, serving as an advisor to Vice Prime Minister Shimon Peres in the 1990s and later as a member of the Knesset.  In 2011 she left Labor and is now unaffiliated politically, though she opposes Benjamin Netanyahu.  In 2012 I attended a talk by Wilf at Yale University.

 

The reason I found the first part of the podcast particularly interesting is her discussion of how, as she describes it, her "hypothesis" of how to achieve a two-state solution proved to be incorrect, and what she now believes the correct hypothesis to be which, as she states, is encapsulated in Bevin's 1947 statement, from a time before Israel existed and before there were any refugees. 

 

Her original hypothesis led her to support the Oslo Accords and the Camp David peace proposal and other two state peace proposals, which were ultimately rejected by the Palestinians.   The events of the 21st century have led her to conclude that the Palestinian cause is based on the total negation of Israel, rather than being willing to accept a two-state solution, refusing to allow Israel to exist as a Jewish state, under any terms.

 

Wilf's point has only been reinforced since October 7, 2023.  The Western academic, progressive, and NGO mob supporting Hamas are not doing so in support of a two-state solution.  They want Israel eliminated.  They are not hiding it.

 

Her transformation since the 90s is similar to mine.  Realizing the risks of Oslo but optimistic that the peace process would succeed.  In retrospect, Oslo was a disaster for Israel because it got the peace process backwards, believing that small "confidence-building" measures would lead to peace, rather than insisting that the big and fundamental disputes be resolved before proceeding to confidence building measures that would eventually allow a full and lasting settlement to be implemented.

 

Nonetheless, the 2000 Camp David talks, the unilateral withdrawal from South Lebanon the same year, and in 2005 from Gaza, along with Prime Minister's 2008 peace proposal, were all attempts to reach peace.  All were rejected and instead there was the Second Intifada from 2001-3 in which 1,000 Israelis were killed and the Hamas takeover of Gaza in 2006.

 

The result was the political destruction of what was once a political powerful Israeli peace camp.  At this point there is not much difference between Israeli parties regarding national security.  While there is much internal disagreement over how to bring the current war in Gaza to a close, virtually no one in Israel thinks a two-state solution along the lines proposed at Camp David is practical any more.  I'll add that I have no idea what the right strategy is regarding Gaza at this point.  My only observation is that Netanyahu's strategy seems increasingly more focused on maintaining his political coalition than in ending this phase of the conflict.

Wilf's argument in her recent book, The War Of Return, is that the actions of the United Nations, and of Western Nations, and the peculiar nature of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) has led to the inability to resolve the conflict.  UNRWA created a unique category of refugee for Palestinians, unlike that of the tens of millions of other refugees around the world created in the wake of WW2.  UNRWA has become a facilitator of Palestinian rejectionism.  

 

The only way to create even a chance, however slim, for a peaceful solution is to dissolve UNRWA, and for the Western nations to stop trying to solve the conflict and leave it to the Israelis and Arabs to work it out if they can.  

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

(1)  Ernest Bevin was a socialist and became foreign minister in the first Labour cabinet at the end of WW2.  A fervent anti-communist he was instrumental in the establishment of the Marshall Plan and in the creation of NATO.  He was also an anti-Zionist. [Update May 2026: Having done further reading I believe I erred in categorically declaring Bevin and anti-Zionist.  His views were more complex than I realized at the time of writing the post.]

 

(2)  The Mandate for Palestine was granted to Britain at the peace conference after WW1.  It encompassed the territories of today's Jordan, Israel, West Bank, and Gaza.  In 1922, Britain split the Mandate into two sections.  One, constituting the bulk of the territory, became Jordan and the British installed a Hashemite Arab monarch.  Jews were forbidden from living in this portion of the mandate.  The other parcel was what is known as Palestine.  During the period between the establishment of the mandate and 1948, Jews living in this region referred to themselves as Palestinians or Palestinian Jews, while the non-Jews referred to themselves as Arabs.  In his 1947 speech Bevin refers to Arabs, not Palestinians.

 

(3)  Fleur Hassan-Nahoum is a Deputy Mayor of Jerusalem.  She is descended from a Moroccan Jewish family and is an opponent of Benjamin Netanyahu.

An Urgent Problem

The entire New York Times Editorial Board published an opinion piece on anti-semitism in the June 14 issue of the paper.

It is welcome to see the Times address this issue, but how the Board chose to do so illustrates the shortcomings of its blinkered worldview and why, at the end of day, it amounts to a bunch of meaningless words because of the Board's refusal to even mention the underlying causes in today's America, including the role of the Times in fomenting that hate among its heavily progressive readership.

I also see that the structure of the editorial which, as always with the Times, starts with an attack on Trump, is done in the hope that their left-leaning readers will pay attention to what follows. 

For these reasons, the Board uses tortured language and phrasing throughout.

My interests are not in defending either party.  I've voted in every presidential election since 1972, but in 2024 left the presidential line blank because both Trump and today's Democratic Party were unacceptable to me, albeit for very different reasons.  A former long time reader, I've written about my own discouragement with the Times here.

Below is the editorial in full, with my comments entered in brackets and boldface. 

 

Antisemitism Is an Urgent Problem.  Too Many People Are Making Excuses. 

The list of horrific antisemitic attacks in the United States keeps growing. Two weeks ago in Boulder, Colo., a man set fire to peaceful marchers who were calling for the release of Israeli hostages. Less than two weeks earlier, a young couple was shot to death while leaving an event at the Jewish Museum in Washington. The previous month, an intruder scaled a fence outside the official residence of Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania and threw Molotov cocktails while Mr. Shapiro, his wife and children were asleep inside. In October, a 39-year-old Chicago resident was shot from behind while walking to synagogue.

[Important to note that all of these incidents were by supporters of Hamas, who are also linked to the Left, a fact admitted by the Times later in this article.] 

The United States is experiencing its worst surge of anti-Jewish hate in many decades. Antisemitic hate crimes more than doubled between 2021 and 2023, according to the F.B.I., and appear to have risen further in 2024. On a per capita basis, Jews face far greater risks of being victims of hate crimes than members of any other demographic groups.

American Jews, who make up about 2 percent of the country’s population, are well aware of the threat. Some feel compelled to hide signs of their faith. Synagogues have hired more armed guards who greet worshipers, and Jewish schools have hired guards to protect children and teachers. A small industry of digital specialists combs social media looking for signs of potential attacks, and these specialists have helped law enforcement prevent several.

[The Jewish population of the U.S. was at its peak in 1940 when Jews constituted about 3.7% of the nation's population. Relative to America's overall population, the Jewish population has been shrinking which has societal and political consequences.  Even with this decrease in relative population, demographic changes since WW2 have resulted in 80-85% of the world's Jews living in just two countries, the U.S. and Israel, with about equal populations.  The next three largest populations, about 400,000 each in the UK, Canada, and France, constitute about 7-8% of the world's Jews. The first two countries are governed by political parties hostile to Jews.  In France, the governing party is not hostile but although Jews constitute less than 1% of the population they are the objects of more than 60% of hate crimes.  And all three countries have large and rapidly growing Muslim populations, which the governing parties are desperate to placate.  It looks like the Jewish population will become even more concentrated in Israel and the U.S.  Overall, since the Holocaust, the global Jewish population has, at best, been restored to its pre-1940 numbers even as the world's population has more than tripled.]

The response from much of the rest of American society has been insufficient. The upswing in antisemitism deserves outright condemnation. It has already killed people and maimed others, including an 88-year-old Holocaust survivor who was burned in Boulder. And history offers a grim lesson: An increase in antisemitism often accompanies a rise in other hateful violence and human rights violations. Societies that make excuses for attacks against one minority group rarely stop there.

Antisemitism is sometimes described as “the oldest hate.” It dates at least to ancient Greece and Egypt, where Jews were mocked for their differences and scapegoated for societal problems. A common trope is that Jews secretly control society and are to blame for its ills. The prejudice has continued through the Inquisition, Russian pogroms and the worst mass murder in history, the Holocaust, which led to the coining of a new term: genocide.

In modern times, many American Jews believed that the United States had left behind this tradition, with some reason. But as Conor Cruise O’Brien, an Irish writer and politician, noted, “Antisemitism is a light sleeper.” It tends to re-emerge when societies become polarized and people go looking for somebody to blame. This pattern helps explain why antisemitism began rising, first in Europe and then in the United States, in the 2010s, around the same time that politics coarsened. The anger pulsing through society has manifested itself through animosity toward Jews.

The political right, including President Trump, deserves substantial blame. Yes, he has led a government crackdown against antisemitism on college campuses, and that crackdown has caused colleges to become more serious about addressing the problem. But Mr. Trump has also used the subject as a pretext for his broader campaign against the independence of higher education. The combination risks turning antisemitism into yet another partisan issue, encouraging opponents to dismiss it as one of his invented realities.

[What the Times describes as a "pretext" for a "campaign against the independence of higher education", is actually an attempt by the administration to stop blatant violations of the Civil Rights Act by academic institutions, violations that have led to the outbreak of antisemitic incidents at the most progressive universities in this country.  It's not Donald Trump that created a partisan issue. The partisan issue was created by progressives turning much of academia and other institutions into platforms where only their opinions are considered legitimate, where dissent is suppressed, and where discrimination is rampant against disfavored groups.  In fact, the Supreme Court case that gave birth to "diversity" used the term because of the perceived importance of diversity of opinion, which is not allowed today on most campuses. Without addressing these violations, which the Times apparently supports, antisemitism in academia will never be effectively curtailed, because it is embedded in the very essence of academia.  I discussed this at exhaustive (and probably exhausting) length in The Danger Within: Equality or Equity, Which Side Are You On?]

[Donald Trump can be, and has been, reckless and careless at times in his actions and rhetoric, as I've pointed out at length in numerous posts, but it is his administration that has tried to dismantle the ideological framework leading to the increase in antisemitism.  In contrast, while a number of Democratic politicians have voiced support for Israel and/or opposition to antisemitism, I don't know of any prominent figure in the party who objected to the Biden administration's goal of embedding this hateful ideology into the federal government and American society as a whole.]

Even worse, Mr. Trump had made it normal to hate, by using bigoted language about a range of groups, including immigrants, women and trans Americans. Since he entered the political scene, attacks on Asian, Black, Latino and L.G.B.T. Americans have spiked, according to the F.B.I. While he claims to deplore antisemitism, his actions tell a different story. He has dined with a Holocaust denier, and his Republican Party has nominated antisemites for elected offices, including governor of North Carolina. Mr. Trump himself praised as “very fine people” the attendees of a 2017 march in Charlottesville, Va., that featured the chant “Jews will not replace us.” On Jan. 6, 2021, at least one rioter attacking the Capitol screamed that he was looking for “the big Jew,” referring to Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, Mr. Schumer has said.

["Even worse, Mr Trump had made it normal to hate".  Doesn't the Editorial Board read its own newspaper?  According to the 1619 Project, which the Times published to much fanfare, America from its inception has been a nation founded on the principle of whites hating others.  According to the Times, we've always been a horrible country.  And, if you don't accept the Times characterization of this country, let's look at another indicator of hate and race relations.  Since the early 1970s the Gallup organization has been regularly polling white and blacks on the status of race relations, asking whether they are good, okay, or bad.  Over four decades, starting in 1972, those of both races responding good or okay had slowly but steadily climbed, reaching in 2012 to 72% of whites and 67% of blacks.  And then the trend began reversing, well before Trump's appearance on the scene.  By 2022, the figures were 42% for whites and 33% for blacks.  You can now look at numerous surveys of use in the media of terms like "racism", "white supremacy", and see an enormous upturn in their use during the second Obama administration.  Fomenting racial tension and resentment has been part of the declared mission of the Times over the past decade.] 

[The term "Since he entered the political scene" is doing a lot of work here.  According to the FBI data there was no increase in hate crimes for much of Trump's first term.  There is a huge surge during the George Floyd riots of summer 2020 (make of that what you will), and while it is followed by a rapid decrease, hate crimes during the Biden administration occur at a rate of about double that of the Trump administration.  The increase in Asian attacks is, uncomfortably, attributed to a highly disproportionate number of assaults by blacks, which is why it has attracted less attention after an initial outburst aimed at alleged white anti-Asian hate. Perhaps the Biden administration's relentless emphasis on race essentialism and promoting the conspiracy theory that whites and Jews have plotted to maintain White Supremacy may also have had something to do with the increase.] 

[By citing the Charlottesville quote, the Times shows it is a prisoner of its own false narrative.  It is part of the "unexamined life" of those that work at the Times.  The full transcript of Trump's remarks show that right after he says "very fine people", he goes on to state he is not talking about neo-nazis and white nationalists.  Later in the same ramblings, he restates he is not talking about neo-nazis and white nationalists, adding "they are bad people".  In the context of his remarks it is clear Trump is referring to the debate over what to do with the Lee statue and clear he condemned those the press explicitly and repeatedly  said he refused to condemn.  In 2024, the leftist "fact checker" Snopes finally acknowledged that the prevailing media use of the term was misleading and false. Nonetheless, President Biden, VP Harris, and former President Obama all used the false accusation during the 2024 campaign, with Biden saying it was the reason he decided to run in 2020.

The Charlottesville incident also demolished the last bit of lingering respect I held for the traditional news media.  While, by 2017, I mistrusted most of what I heard and read from those sources, I still felt that they could get the basics right.  My mistake.  When I first heard about Trump's Charlottesville remarks my reaction was "Well, the guy's an idiot" and assumed he said it and meant exactly what the media told me he meant.  It was only a couple of years later when I came across a full transcript of the press conference that I realized I had been lied to.] 

["On Jan. 6, 2021, at least one rioter attacking the Capitol screamed that he was looking for “the big Jew,” referring to Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, Mr. Schumer has said."  Oh, my God, one rioter!!  And the source is Chuck Schumer?  The Times is really reaching here for examples.  Here's something we do know about Senator Schumer.  In 2024, confident that the Dems would hold regain the House, and hold the Senate and the Presidency, he reassured Columbia University, in an email obtained by a Congressional committee, that it could ignore all those Republicans pestering the school about antisemitism because it would all go away after the election.  I don't think the Times wrote a story about that email.]

The problem extends to popular culture. Joe Rogan, the podcaster who endorsed Mr. Trump last year, has hosted Holocaust conspiracy theorists on his show. Mr. Rogan once said of Jews, “They run everything.” In the Trumpist right, antisemitism has a home.

It also has a home on the progressive left, and the bipartisan nature of the problem has helped make it distinct. Progressives reject many other forms of hate even as some tolerate antisemitism. College campuses, where Jewish students can face social ostracization, have become the clearest example. A decade ago, members of the student government at U.C.L.A. debated blocking a Jewish student from a leadership post, claiming that she might not be able to represent the entire community. In 2018, spray-painted swastikas appeared on walls at Columbia. At Baruch, Drexel and the University of Pittsburgh, activists have recently called for administrators to cut ties with or close Hillel groups, which support Jewish life. In a national survey by Eitan Hersh of Tufts University and Dahlia Lyss, college students who identified as liberal were more likely than either moderates or conservatives last year to say that they “avoid Jews because of their views.”

["Progressives reject many other forms of hate even as some tolerate antisemitism."  Can we please stop with this progressive self-congratulation?  How many articles has the NY Times published in the past decade about white people, that had it been done regarding any other race would be promptly denounced as racist?  Answer: A google search in October 2023 on 'NY Times Whiteness" came up with 5.6 million results. The Times supported continuing the documented Ivy League practice of discriminating against Asians in admissions and denounced the Supreme Court decision banning the practice. And have you read the outpouring of hate by some progressives against Hispanics because of their increased support for Trump in 2024?] 

[And progressives don't just "tolerate antisemitism", they encourage it with the ideology they promote.]  

[Notice how all the college examples they give are of students, none of administrators or the institutions themselves, despite many well-documented incidents.  There is no mention of the recent report on Harvard's blatant anti-semitism.  That's because mentioning antisemitism condoned or practices by the institutions would be seen as pro-Trump and lead to bigger questions about what is happening more broadly in education.  Both college and K-12 education is failing on many fronts, but regarding Jews, unless there is radical reform soon, the doctrines being taught to our children will increase antisemitism, making this country increasingly hostile to Jewish life, a point the Times refuses to address.] 

One explanation is that antisemitism has become conflated with the divisive politics of the current Israel-Hamas war. It is certainly true that criticism of the Israeli government is not the same thing as antisemitism. This editorial board has long defended Israel’s right to exist while also criticizing the government for its treatment of Palestinians. Since the current war began, we have abhorred the mass killing of civilians and the destruction of Gaza. Israel’s reflexive defenders are wrong, and they hurt their own cause when they equate all such arguments with antisemitism. But some Americans have gone too far in the other direction. They have engaged in whataboutism regarding anti-Jewish hate. They have failed to denounce antisemitism in the unequivocal ways that they properly denounce other bigotry.

[There are many Jews, including me, who don't like Netanyahu and think at least parts of the settlements policy in the West Bank are bonkers.  But there are vanishingly few Jews who do not support the existence of Israel as a Jewish state.  The small cadre of anti-Zionist Jews can be found primarily in academia or the NGO community where their real religion is Progressivism.  We see a recent example in the proud announcement of Harvard Divinity School regarding its first Professor of Modern Jewish Studies, Shaul Magid, an anti-Zionist Jew.  A reviewer accurately calls his most recent anti-Zionist book "an intellectual crime". The school boasts of Magid, “His disciplinary range stretches from Hasidic mysticism and American Judaism to critical Black studies and political theology".  We know what that phrasing really means.  This is Harvard Divinity School saying to those protesting Harvard's antisemitism, "screw you Jews, you better know your place." It also illustrates why institutions like Harvard are incapable of reforming themselves without outside pressure being brought to bear.  Otherwise they will succeed in their strategy of waiting things out until a Democratic administration, tolerant of their discrimination, is back in power.] 

["This editorial board has long defended Israel’s right to exist while also criticizing the government for its treatment of Palestinians."  This is a joke.  Yes, the Times defends Israel's right to exist but it opposes both editorially and, more importantly, in its news sections, anything Israel does to ensure its continued existence.  The slant of the Times news section regarding Israel has been evident for years.  Remember when one of their most experienced reporters wrote an article casting doubt on whether a Jewish temple ever existed on the Temple Mount, endorsing an outrageous claim made by the Palestinians?  I do. More recently, since October 7, the Times news staff credulously reports any claim made by Hamas and continues to do so no matter how many lies Hamas is caught in, while treating any Israeli claim cautiously, inserting every possible caveat and doubt.  The Times problem is not just with Israel.  The Sulzberger family have always been uneasy around "Jewish" Jews and Jews who dress "funny" and in recent years the paper launched a full scale assault on those "embarrassing" Jews, starting a jihad against Hasidic Jews, based on alleged defects in the education provided to Hasidic children.  The Times campaign is illustrative because it combines several elements.  

It targets distinctively Jewish looking Jews.  They seem odd even to many other Jews.

The created narrative is those greedy Jews (Oppressors) are stealing state education funds from black kids (Oppressed).  Well, what else do you expect from privileged Jews? (Let's ignore that the Hasidic community is poorer in general than non-Hasidic Jews).

State support should be reduced and Hasidim schools must be made to conform their instructional programs to state requirements, which include equity.  In other words, Hasidic children must be taught their parents are racist White supremacists and they should be ashamed of them and of their religion.

To allow educational flexibility by these schools would make other children feel unsafe, cause harm, and encourage racism.  It's why the progressive state must control every aspect of life.

Bigger message - all private schools must be either abolished or under close State control to ensure conformity.

Everything within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.

Looking at the support for the allegations made by the Times, I would have sent the reporters back to answer a dozen questions about methodology and have them do a comparison with the performance of New York City public schools before proceeding with publication.  The Times, interested only in creating narratives to support its preferred policies, would not take the risk of finding anything that would disrupt that narrative.] 

Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet dissident, has suggested a “3D” test for when criticism of Israel crosses into antisemitism, with the D’s being delegitimization, demonization and double standards. Progressive rhetoric has regularly failed that test in recent years. “Americans generally have greater ability to identify Jew hatred when it comes from the hard right and less ability and comfort to call out Jew hatred when it comes from the hard left or radical Islamism,” said Rachel Fish, an adviser to Brandeis University’s Presidential Initiative on Antisemitism.

["Hard right" and "hard left" are false equivalencies. The "hard left" includes the most progressive universities in this country, as well as publications like, well, like the New York Times.  And all of this antisemitism is nested within the broader race essentialism promoted as its top domestic priority by the Biden administration and embraced by many of our leading institutions. These are power centers within our country.  There is also a growing and very disturbing trend towards antisemitism in the "hard right".  Some of it from those who've gone insane over the past few years like Tucker Carlson, some from grifters like Candace Owens, some from nasty pieces of work like Nick Fuentes, among others.  They do have a lot of followers but where do they rate against the institutional strength of the "hard left"?  Another way to look at it is polling data regarding Jews and Israel, which demonstrate a lot more support from Republicans and conservatives, with less and rapidly eroding support from Democrats and progressives.] 

Consider the double standard that leads to a fixation on Israel’s human rights record and little campus activism about the records of China, Russia, Sudan, Venezuela or almost any other country. Consider how often left-leaning groups suggest that the world’s one Jewish state should not exist and express admiration for Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis — Iran-backed terrorist groups that brag about murdering Jews. Consider how often people use “Zionist” as a slur — an echo of Soviet propaganda from the Cold War — and call for the exclusion of Zionists from public spaces. The definition of a Zionist is somebody who supports the existence of Israel.

[Glad for the Times to say that last sentence clearly.  On the other hand, why does the Times consistently refer to Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia student the administration seeks to deport, and who enthusiastically supports the murder of Zionists, as simply "a Columbia pro-Palestinian activist"?  To be fair, Khalil is consistent as he also supports the destruction of the U.S. as a settler-colonist entity.  A good example of why it is important to rigorously review people before they are admitted in to this country.]

Historical comparisons can also be instructive. The period since Oct. 7, 2023, is hardly the first time that global events have contributed to a surge in hate crimes against a specific group. Asian Americans were the victims in 2020 and 2021 after the Covid pandemic began in China. Muslim Americans were the victims after Sept. 11, 2001. In those periods, a few fringe voices, largely on the far right, tried to justify the hate, but the response from much of American society was denunciation. President George W. Bush visited a mosque on Sept. 17, 2001, and proclaimed, “Islam is peace.” During Covid, displays of Asian allyship filled social media.

Recent experience has been different in a couple of ways. One, the attacks against Jews have been even more numerous and violent, as the F.B.I. data shows. Two, the condemnation has been quieter and at times tellingly agonized. University leaders have often felt uncomfortable decrying antisemitism without also decrying Islamophobia. Islamophobia, to be clear, is a real problem that deserves attention on its own. Yet antisemitism seems to be a rare type of bigotry that some intellectuals are uncomfortable rebuking without caveat. After the Sept. 11 attacks, they did not feel the need to rebuke both Islamophobia and antisemitism. Nor should they have. People should be able to denounce a growing form of hatred without ritually denouncing other forms.

["University leaders have often felt uncomfortable decrying antisemitism without also decrying Islamophobia".  This is a misunderstanding about why university leaders are uncomfortable.  They are uncomfortable because the principles of critical race theory are so embedded in curriculum and the very ethos of progressive universities that antisemitism cannot be denounced unequivocally because it would undermine the entire oppressor/oppressed analytical structure the universities have embraced without reservation.]

Alarmingly, the antisemitic rhetoric of both the political right and the left has filtered into justifications for violence. But there has been an asymmetry in recognizing the connections. After a gunman murdered 11 people at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh in 2018, observers correctly noted that he had become radicalized partly through racist right-wing social media. There has been a similar phenomenon in some recent attacks, this time with the assailants using the language of the left.

The man who burned marchers in Colorado shouted “Free Palestine!” and (awkwardly) “End Zionist!” The man charged with killing the young Israeli Embassy workers in Washington last month is suspected of having posted an online manifesto titled “Escalate for Gaza, Bring the War Home.” His supporters have since published a petition that includes “Globalize the Intifada.” The demonizing, delegitimizing rhetoric of the right bore some responsibility for the Pittsburgh massacre; the demonizing, delegitimizing rhetoric of the left bears some responsibility for the recent attacks.

Americans should be able to recognize the nuanced nature of many political debates while also recognizing that antisemitism has become an urgent problem. It is a different problem — and in many ways, a narrower one — than racism. Antisemitism has not produced shocking gaps in income, wealth and life expectancy in today’s America. Yet the new antisemitism has left Jewish Americans at a greater risk of being victimized by a hate crime than any other group. Many Jews live with fears that they never expected to experience in this country.

[These sentences reveal the Times worldview; "It is a different problem — and in many ways, a narrower one — than racism. Antisemitism has not produced shocking gaps in income, wealth and life expectancy in today’s America".  In other words, racism is America's real problem while antisemitism is a problem for Jews and one that distracts from America's real problem which is why antisemitism needs addressing.  This means that Times has learned nothing, or wants to learn nothing, about the ideology and fake history, as in the 1619 Project, it has promoted in recent years.  In that respect, the Times continues to endorse a racist ideology in which the only reason for any discrepancy between races and ethnic groups in our society is because of white and Jewish supremacy.  The Times will never escape its contradictions until it repudiates racial essentialism.]

No political arguments or ideological context can justify that bigotry. The choice is between denouncing it fully and encouraging an even broader explosion of hate.

The position of the Times reminds me of the recent book, Original Sin, by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson in which they breathlessly report how the media, including Tapper, were hoodwinked by the Biden administration into believing Joe Biden was actually functioning as president.  The truth, as anyone observing Biden during the 2020 campaign and his presidency could see, was that he had severe difficulty in functioning, leading many of us to wonder who was really running the White House.  The legacy media including Tapper, wanted to be mislead because reporting honestly would have helped the Republicans and avoiding that was much more important than the truth, and that part of the story is ignored in Original Sin.

Same thing with the Times.  This editorial studiously avoids examining the paper's role in its reporting, and that of progressive institutions, in support of the poisonous ideology of critical race theory in leading to the eruption of antisemitism among those who share the beliefs of the Times own staff.  Instead it is all attributable to this mysterious "hard left", about which the Times gives us no details as to constitutes this faction.

The closing words of the Times editorial are meaningless.  Just words.  I guess it now allows them to say they denounced antisemitism even on the left and now they can go back to doing exactly what they've been doing all along.

You can read all of my reporting on the Times here.