American Jews know anti-Semitism when they see it

By Stephen M. Flatow

 While the Jewish left keeps trying to convince us that most anti-Israel hatred is not anti-Semitism, a new poll has found that a large majority of American Jews see things such more clearly.

The poll, sponsored by the Anti-Defamation League, asked Jews whether certain types of anti-Israel statements or actions are anti-Semitic:

•  “Saying Israel should not exist as a Jewish state” — 75 percent say it’s anti-Semitic
• “Comparing Israel’s actions to those of the Nazis” — 70 percent
• “Protesting Israeli actions outside an American synagogue” — 67 percent
• “Calling Zionism racist” — 61 percent
• “Calling for companies and organizations to boycott, divest from or sanction Israel” — 56 percent
• “Calling Israel an apartheid state” — 55 percent

 Why are these results significant? Because for the past year, the U.S. Jewish left has been fighting against the acceptance of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism. According to that definition, comparing Israel to the Nazis, calling Israel’s existence racist and applying double standards to Israel are examples of anti-Semitism.

 Jewish left-wing activists have grown worried because many governments, Jewish organizations and others have embraced the IHRA definition. The Jewish left has good reason to worry since many groups and individuals in their camp indulge in precisely that kind of rhetoric. Being labeled “anti-Semitic” means that their views are illegitimate.

 So, in a desperate ploy, they organized several hundred left-wing academics to come up with their own definition, called the “Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism.” The Declaration’s extremely narrow wording effectively excuses most anti-Israel vitriol as being just “criticism of Israeli policies.”

 Obviously, no reasonable person claims that every single criticism of an Israeli policy is anti-Semitic. But it’s also clear as day to most American Jews that a lot of extreme anti-Israel rhetoric, such as the examples cited above, is indeed anti-Semitic. Most Jews don’t need a legal definition to know, instinctively, that something or somebody is anti-Semitic. We’ve all experienced enough in our lives to know that if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck …

 This is a problem for several of the leading Jewish left-wing organizations, which in recent months have been edging closer and closer to the positions that most U.S. Jews consider to be anti-Semitic.

Calling for sanctions against Israel, for example. According to the ADL poll, 56 percent of Jews think that’s anti-Semitic. Well, in April, J Street and Americans for Peace Now publicly endorsed legislation that would stop U.S. aid to Israel if the Israeli army arrests Palestinian-Arab terrorists who are younger than 18 years old. That’s what we call a sanction.

 And just last week, the head of Americans for Peace Now went beyond that one bill and announced that there should be “U.S. aid reductions” if Israel is guilty of any “human-rights violations.” And who, exactly, will be the judge of what constitutes a “human-rights violation”? The United Nations? Amnesty International? Jimmy Carter? Clearly, the new Americans for Peace Now position is setting up Israel to be sanctioned.

Or the apartheid charge—most American Jews say that’s anti-Semitic, too. In recent weeks, J Street has publicly defended the outrageous Human Rights Watch report that accuses Israel of apartheid. While not directly using the “A” word, J Street has skated right up to the edge, by praising the report for “raising critical concerns,” and declaring that all criticism of the report is “vitriol” and “profoundly harmful to Israel’s survival.”

 J Street is now loudly complaining about the rejection of its recent application to join the American Zionist Movement. The J Streeters need only look in the mirror to understand why. Calling for sanctions on Israel and praising those who promote the apartheid smears are the kinds of positions that most American Jews consider anti-Semitic. And not too many Jewish communal umbrella groups are likely to admit an organization that advocates anti-Semitic policies.

 

(Stephen M. Flatow is a vice president of the Religious Zionists of America, an attorney in New Jersey and the father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered in an Iranian-sponsored Palestinian terrorist attack in 1995. He is the author of “A Father’s Story: My Fight for Justice Against Iranian Terror.”)

This column first appeared on jns.org. 

Ilhan Omar and her inability to say truly "I am sorry"

 My latest column appearing on JNS.ORG focuses on the inability of Rep. Ilhan Omar to say "I'm sorry" for another anti-Israel outburst.

Ilhan Omar and the art of not apologizing.

By Stephen M. Flatow

Ilhan Omar has perfected the art of not apologizing.

It takes considerable skill to come up with the words to sound just apologetic enough to get your critics off your back, but without actually apologizing. It took Omar several tries, but the U.S. congresswoman from Minnesota seems to have finally figured out the formula.

First, she tried the tactic of pleading ignorance. This goes back to 2012 when Omar was serving as campaign manager for a Minnesota state senator. During that year’s Hamas missile jihad against Israel, Omar was furious that the international community, which was criticizing and pressuring Israel for defending itself, was not criticizing and pressuring it strongly enough. So, she tweeted: “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”

Nobody complained about it at the time because Omar was, literally, a political nobody. But in January 2019, soon after she was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, the tweet resurfaced, and she issued what was to become the first in a series of non-apologies.

According to Omar, she didn’t know that the words she used in 2012 would bother anybody. It was only afterwards, she said, “that I heard from Jewish orgs” that there was anything offensive about her language.

It was a classic shifting of responsibility. What she was saying, in effect, was that she couldn’t possibly have known, on her own, that anybody would be offended by her saying that Israel is “evil” and controls the world. Those tardy Jewish organizations told her only after she said it, not before!

She added defiantly, “I will not shy away of [sic] criticism of any government when I see injustice.” Of course, saying the Jewish state controls the world is not “criticism of a government,” but that’s how Omar deflects.

Omar’s second non-apology came in February 2019 after she tweeted that the support of many U.S. congress members for Israel is “all about the Benjamins baby.” In other words, her colleagues support Israel only because they are paid off. And in a follow-up tweet, she named AIPAC as the one doing the bribing.

The uproar was so intense across the political spectrum that this time Omar had to actually use the word “apologize.” This is the defense strategy in which you use the A-word, but you don’t mean it because, in the same breath, you assure your supporters that you will continue saying the same things that got everybody mad in the first place.

“I unequivocally apologize,” she said in a statement, but then vowed to continue attacking what she called “the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics.” In other words, she will continue accusing Jewish lobbyists of bribing members of Congress.

Last week, Omar found herself in search of a new formula for not apologizing. The controversy began when she asserted during a congressional hearing that the United States and Israel have committed “crimes against humanity,” just as Hamas and the Taliban have.

Twelve Jewish Democrats in Congress publicly condemned her despicable analogy, and some other prominent Democrats reportedly complained to Omar behind the scenes. This time, she didn’t even bother using the word “apologize.” Instead, she responded to her critics: I didn’t say it. You misinterpreted me. And also, you’re a bunch of racists.

Naturally, she led with the racism accusation. That’s usually a sure-fire argument-stopper. In a tweet, Omar accused her critics of using “Islamophobic tropes.” Because that allegation was so obviously contrived, it did nothing to stifle her critics. So, the representative then issued a second statement: “I was in no way equating terrorist organizations with democratic countries with well-established judicial systems.”

Of course, she was equating them. That was obvious to anybody who can read and understand English. It was just a rhetorical strategy for Omar to blame everybody else instead of taking responsibility for her own words.

It was actually quite a calculated little formulation of words. Look closely at her sentence. Notice how she left herself just enough wiggle room to in effect assure her followers: “Don’t worry; I’m not really retracting the analogy. I don’t believe that Israel is either democratic or has a well-established judicial system. So, all I’m saying that terrorists—Hamas, the Taliban and Israel—are different from the U.S., which does have a judicial system, even though it’s flawed.”

It was both clever and effective. Omar’s latest non-apology was just enough to satisfy her Jewish Democratic critics, and with that, the controversy has subsided—until next time.

But that leaves the rest of us to ponder several important questions. How is it that only 12 of the 25 Jewish members of Congress were willing to publicly challenge Omar’s equation of America and Israel with terrorist groups? And how is it that only 12 of the 223 Democrats in Congress spoke out? Do they agree that America and Israel are terrorist regimes? Or are they just completely intimidated by the fear of being accused of racism or Islamophobia? And what does that say about the future of the Democratic Party and its positions on Israel and anti-Semitism?

Stephen M. Flatow is a vice president of the Religious Zionists of America, an attorney in New Jersey and the father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered in an Iranian-sponsored Palestinian terrorist attack in 1995. He is the author of “A Father’s Story: My Fight for Justice Against Iranian Terror.”

 

Charles Schumer, a "watchman" no more

US Senator Charles Schumer has lost his claim to be a "watchman," a protector, of Israel.  His silence in the face of the Hamas attacks against Israel and his senate colleagues Warren and Sanders condemning Israel is deafening.

My letter to Schumer:

May 20, 2021

Senator Charles E. Schumer

Senate Majority Leader 

322 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

 

 

Re       Support of Israel

Dear Senator Schumer:

I have personally heard you remind everyone that Schumer is a derivation of the Hebrew word shomer – watchman, and that you would always look out for the interests of the State of Israel.  Thus, I am at a loss to understand why you have remained publicly silent in the face of antisemitic and slanderous comments made by certain Democrat members of the House of Representatives, e.g., Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, et al, who call Israel an apartheid and non-democratic state.

At this time of crisis for the citizens of Israel, your voice must be heard.  I urge you to publicly condemn those who publicly utter such calumnies and show your support for the people and State of Israel.

 Sincerely yours,

Stephen M. Flatow

 

Via Fax:  (202) 228-3027

 

 

 What is it with J Street and anti-Semites?

One would think that J Street, an avowed pro-Israel organization would distance itself from anti-Semites. Yet, it just can't seem to stay away.

I don’t pretend to know what goes on inside the heads of Jews so committed to bullying Israel that they will honor and even defend individuals who have made anti-Semitic remarks, as long as those individuals further the cause of undermining Israel.

This is my latest column from JNS.ORG.

Why does J Street keep honoring and defending individuals who have made anti-Semitic remarks?

 The latest is former President Jimmy Carter, who will receive an award from J Street at its upcoming convention on April 18. I’m not saying that Carter’s numerous attacks on Israel—as ugly and unfair as they were—constituted anti-Semitism. Not even his accusation that Israel’s treatment of Palestinian Arabs is worse than the Rwandan genocide in which 800,000 people were massacred.

No, I am referring to what Professor Deborah Lipstadt wrote in her essay, “Jimmy Carter’s Jewish Problem,” in The Washington Post, on Jan. 20, 2007. She wrote that in his responses to criticism of his anti-Israel book, Carter “has relied on anti-Semitic stereotypes in defense.”

 Lipstadt continued: “Carter has repeatedly fallen back—possibly unconsciously—on traditional anti-Semitic canards. … Carter reflexively fell back on this kind of innuendo about Jewish control of the media and government. Even if unconscious, such stereotyping from a man of his stature is noteworthy. When David Duke spouts it, I yawn. When Jimmy Carter does, I shudder.”

 Lipstadt was referring to the media appearances by Carter in 2006 in which he repeatedly suggested that all criticism of his book emanated from attempts by Jews to control the media and silence him. On “Larry King Live” on Nov. 26, 2006, Carter claimed that he had “witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts.” On “Meet the Press” on Dec. 3, 2006, Carter specifically singled out what he called “the Jewish lobby” as “part” of the alleged conspiracy to silence him.

 Before Carter, J Street’s favorite ex-politician was James Baker.

 The former Secretary of State was the keynote speaker at J Street’s 2015 convention. At first, it must have seemed odd that the overwhelmingly liberal and Democratic members of J Street would be honoring and applauding a lifelong conservative Republican. But apparently, Baker’s views on abortion and taxes were forgiven and forgotten in J Street’s enthusiasm for Baker’s harsh anti-Israel policies.

 Evidently, J Street was not bothered by the fact that Baker’s hostility to Israel sometimes crossed over into hostility to Jews.

 There was, of course, Baker’s infamous 1992 outburst, “F*** the Jews. They don’t vote for us anyway.” (The quotation came from unimpeachable sources. It was first revealed by former New York City Mayor Ed Koch, who later said his source was then-Secretary of Housing Jack Kemp, who heard Baker say it firsthand.)

 But that wasn’t all. Baker was also reliably reported to have said: “Jews remember the Holocaust, but they forget insults as soon as they smell cash.” (The source was David Bar-Ilan, then one of the editors of The Jerusalem Post, quoted in Ma’ariv March 5, 1992.)

 And according to The Los Angeles Times (March 7, 1992), Baker also referred to pro-Israel members of Congress as “the little Knesset.”

 We need to add Linda Sarsour to the list of prominent individuals whose anti-Semitism has not deterred J Street from embracing them.

 Sarsour’s hostile statements about Israel and Zionism have been as vicious as they come. She actively promotes the anti-Semitic BDS movement. She tweeted (in 2012): “Nothing is creepier than Zionism.” She told The Nation that “There can’t be … room [in the feminist movement] for people who support the State of Israel.” She calls for the replacement of Israel with a “State of Palestine.” Sarsour shared a stage with Rasmea Odeh, the convicted murderer of two Hebrew University students, and declared that she was “honored to be on this stage with Rasmea.”

 Does this record constitute anti-Semitism? ADL national director and CEO Jonathan Greenblatt has said that Sarsour’s BDS advocacy “encourages and spreads anti-Semitism.” Greenblatt’s predecessor, Abraham Foxman, has called Sarsour “bigoted.”

 Yet J Street founder and president Jeremy Ben-Ami signed a 2017 letter declaring that criticism of Sarsour is “dangerous, disingenuous and counterproductive,” charging that she has been “falsely maligned, harassed and smeared.” The letter’s only caveat was this tepid sentence: “We may not agree with Sarsour on all matters.”

 Ben-Ami “doesn’t agree” with anti-Semitism? Can anyone imagine him saying merely that he “doesn’t agree” with white supremacist David Duke or Holocaust-denier David Irving?

 So, what’s going on here? What is it with J Street and anti-Semites? I’m not a psychiatrist. I don’t pretend to know what goes on inside the heads of Jews who are so committed to bullying Israel that they will honor and even defend individuals who have made anti-Semitic remarks, as long as those individuals further the cause of undermining Israel. All I can say is that the decision by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and other umbrella groups to reject J Street’s applications for membership has been proven right time and again.

 (Stephen M. Flatow is a vice president of the Religious Zionists of America, an attorney in New Jersey and the father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered in an Iranian-sponsored Palestinian terrorist attack in 1995. He is the author of “A Father’s Story: My Fight for Justice Against Iranian Terror.”)

 Anthony Blinken called the wrong guy

By Stephen M. Flatow

 

  

Sec. Anthony Blinken

In a phone call with a Middle East leader last week, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that Palestinian Arabs are entitled to “freedom, security, prosperity and democracy.” Can’t disagree with a word of that. Every human being deserves those things.

 

The problem is that Mr. Blinken called the wrong guy.

 

The Secretary of State made his remarks about the Palestinians in a conversation with the foreign minister of Israel, Gabi Ashkenazi.

 

But Israel doesn’t rule over the Palestinian Arabs. The Palestinian Authority does. Blinken should have called the P.A.’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Riad Al-Malki. According to the P.A.’s website, the phone number at his Ramallah office is 972-02-2943140. 

 

Since 1995, the P.A. has governed the 40 percent of Judea and Samaria where 98 percent of the Palestinian Arabs reside. Their lack of freedom, security, prosperity and democracy” is due to the policies of their government, the P.A.—not Israel.

 

Freedom? It’s the P.A. and not Israel that crushes Palestinian strikers and arrests dissidents, including members of its own Legislative Council. It’s the P.A. that tortures its critics, intimidates unions, and treats women as second-class citizens. It’s the P.A. that has a “Cyber Crime Law” mandating prison sentences and fines for anyone who establishes a website that could “undermine the safety of the state.”

 

Security? It’s the P.A. that shelters terrorists and gives them plum government jobs and allows terrorist groups to maintain vast networks of arms depots and safe houses. A society filled with terror gangs that freely brandish their weapons, terrorize their rivals and invite reprisals from Israel by murdering Israelis is not a secure society—thanks to the P.A.

 

Prosperity? The P.A. government is deeply steeped in corruption. Nepotism, graft and bribery are rampant. To make matters worse, it pours huge amounts of money into salaries and rewards for terrorists—a whopping $153 million last year alone. Average Palestinians can never expect prosperity when their government has vastly different priorities.

 

Democracy? P.A. chief Mahmoud Abbas is now in the 14th year of his four-year term, and the last time that elections were held for the P.A.’s legislative body, the Palestinian Legislative Council, was in 2005. Why is Blinken complaining to Israel’s foreign minister about Palestinians not enjoying democracy? Why not speak to Palestinian leaders about why they are denying their citizens democracy?

 

Abbas has tentatively set May 22 as the date for a new election to the legislative council and July 31 for an election to his own position. Whether or not those elections will actually be held remains to be seen. He has set dates and then canceled them before.

Even if the elections are held, however, one wonders what kind of “democracy” will result. Terrorist groups such as Hamas and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) will be competing. In fact, the PFLP’s list of candidates is headed by Ahmad Sa’adat, who is presently serving a life sentence for murdering an Israeli cabinet minister.

 

The main challenger to Abbas is a convicted mass murderer—Marwan Barghouti, who is in jail for the murders of five Israelis. Of course, Abbas himself is responsible for many more murders than that during his decades as the deputy head of the PLO and Fatah under Yasser Arafat, and then as Arafat’s successor.

 

The last two times that the United States supported allowing terrorists to compete in Arab elections in the name of “democracy,” Hamas won a majority of seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council, which was then suspended by Abbas; took power in Gaza; and the Muslim Brotherhood was elected in Egypt. Maybe the lesson is that these societies need to ban terrorists from running as part of the sweeping reforms necessary to move them away from centuries of violence, extremism and totalitarianism.

 

To encourage those reforms, the Biden administration needs to start by speaking to the right people. Which means our secretary of state needs to be calling the P.A. to talk about its lack of democracy, not reflexively assume that Israel is somehow to blame for how the P.A. governs its people.

 

Stephen M. Flatow is a vice president of the Religious Zionists of America, an attorney in New Jersey and the father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered in an Iranian-sponsored Palestinian terrorist attack in 1995. He is the author of “A Father’s Story: My Fight for
Justice Against Iranian Terror.”

This column originally appeared on JNS.ORG.