Looking forward: A religious time bomb waiting to happen in the USA. A wave of antisemitic fervour is developing.

maOpinion

“Scum remains scum, and antisemitism is the ideology of the scum. It is a horrible epidemic like cholera, which can neither be explained nor cured ” 

Theodor Mommsen, 1881 (Nobel Prize in Literature, 1902)

by Alan Simons

A religious backlash of massive proportion against the Jews in the USA is, in my opinion, on the brink of happening. The 2017 flood devastation in Texas will look insignificant to what America’s vibrant Jewish community might fear. There will be nowhere to run and the backlash against Jews, by the very nature of the Trumptwit racist toxic virus, will spread to many corners of the world. Racists of all kinds will feast on delivering the message. There will be no end in sight to the wanton destruction of all things that Jews bravely have stood up and fought against, including: antisemitism, hate, bigotry and intolerance. The Jewish respect for family values and life will have a different meaning to the racists in our society.

One could say the wave of destruction all started on November 26, 2016, when Wayne Allyn Root wrote on the Fox News Internet site:

“I believe Donald Trump should be called “America’s first Jewish president.” I should know. I’m an Ivy League-educated Jewish kid from New York. Trust me, Donald Trump is as close as you can come to being our first Jewish president. The very unique traits that have made him a billionaire and now President of the United States are as Jewish as you can get!”

One could say the wave of destruction continued on January 26, 2017, when  Josefin Dolsten wrote, under the headline, “Meet the Jews in Donald Trump’s administration,” on the JTA (Jewish Telegraphic Agency) website:

“American Jews are watching the beginning of Donald Trump’s presidency with both fear and hope. 

“Many have expressed worries about some of his supporters’ ties to the so-called “alt-right” movement, whose followers traffic variously in white nationalism, anti-immigration sentiment, anti-Semitism and a disdain for ‘political correctness.'”

hate (2)One could say the wave of destruction continued on February 23, 2017, when Lola Adesioye wrote, under the headline, “The rise of anti-Semitism in Donald Trump’s America,” in Britain’s New Statesman:

 “Anti-Semitism is once again on the rise in America. Since January alone, there have been 67 bomb threats against Jewish Community Centres in around 27 states around the country. On Monday, a Jewish cemetery in St Louis, Missouri was desecrated, with over 100 headstones overturned. There has been a large increase in online anti-Semitic threats and hate speechSwastikas have been spray painted on the streets of New York.”

One could say the wave of destruction continued on April 9, 2017, when Ben Schreckinger wrote, under the headline, “The Happy-Go-Lucky Jewish Group That Connects Trump and Putin,” (referring to Tevfik Arif, Felix Sater and Tamir Sapir), in Politico Magazine:

 Two decades ago, as the Russian president set about consolidating power on one side of the world, he embarked on a project to supplant his country’s existing Jewish civil society and replace it with a parallel structure loyal to him. On the other side of the world, the brash Manhattan developer [Trump] was working to get a piece of the massive flows of capital that were fleeing the former Soviet Union in search of stable assets in the West, especially real estate, and seeking partners in New York with ties to the region…

“A few years later, Trump would seek out Russian projects and capital by joining forces with a partnership called Bayrock-Sapir, led by Soviet emigres Tevfik Arif, Felix Sater and Tamir Sapir—who maintain close ties to Chabad. The company’s ventures would lead to multiple lawsuits alleging fraud and a criminal investigation of a condo project in Manhattan.”

In addition, names such as those below have been flawlessly banded about. I note, even though their specific roles may have changed since being appointed, there is one similarity of the people mentioned. They are all Jews.

Boris Epshteyn  a Russian-born American Republican political strategist, investment banker, and attorney,  was a senior advisor to Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign for President. He defended Trump on major TV networks over 100 times, according to The New York Times. TV hosts have described Epshteyn, who moved to the United States from his native Moscow in 1993, as “very combative” and “abrasive.” In 2014, he was charged with misdemeanor assault after being involved in a bar tussle. The charge was dropped after Epshteyn agreed to undergo anger management training and perform community service.

Michael Dean Cohen, an American attorney a spokesperson for Trump. 

David Friedman, a bankruptcy expert and longtime Trump attorney and currently the U.S. ambassador to Israel.

Jason Greenblatt, working as special representative for international negotiations focusing on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Stephen Miller, played a crucial role in Trump’s campaign by writing speeches.

Carl Icahn, a businessman and investor,  serving as a special adviser on regulatory reform issues. Icahn is a major giver to Mount Sinai hospital in New York City, among other philanthropic endeavors. In 2012, he donated $200 million to the renamed Icahn School of Medicine there.

Dr. David Shulkin, the undersecretary for health at the Department of Veterans Affairs, 

Reed Cordish, who is friends with Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, serves as assistant to the president for intragovernmental and technology initiatives. Cordish is a partner at his family’s real estate and entertainment firm, the Baltimore-based Cordish Companies. 

Avrahm Berkowitz, 27, a special assistant to Trump and assistant to Jared Kushner. 

Gary Cohn,  heads the White House National Economic Council. 

Steven Mnuchin. Trump picked Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs executive who worked as Trump’s national finance chairman during the campaign, to serve as Treasury secretary.

Jared Kushner, Trump’s Orthodox son-in law is serving as a senior adviser to the president. 

Jay Sekulow, a self-described Messianic Jew, a member of President Trump’s legal team, repeatedly said on four television shows June 18 that Trump isn’t under investigation by the special counsel.

Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, is playing a strange dual role in a turbulent White House, the New York Times reported.

In the Jewish diaspora world there is an undercurrent of uneasiness in reading these articles and names. Whilst not openly talking about it, one senses from the diaspora these articles have helped to stimulate racist activity, resulting in a need for silent Jewish preparedness leading to the resignation and belief the future for the family is no longer in their country of birth.

But, what is the alternative? Can Jews rely on the support of their Christian and non-Christian neighbours? Do Jewish organisations in their community have an exit plan? Will these same Jewish organisations, who for now have been so devoutly focused on Israel, have the clout to also be there for ordinary Jews? 

In my opinion, for many years Jewish communities floundered in a sea of self-importance, self-centred and swaggering declarations, that were not only communicated to death, but offended and pushed non-Jews away from them. 

Frank Luntz, the US-based political and business pollster, once said: “Non-Jews do not want to hear our complaints. They want to know our solutions.”  Jews living in North America still don’t have a clue or give a monkey’s ass as to what Luntz was talking about.

As I see it, for the most part, the vast majority of diaspora Jews and Jewish institutions continue to make sure their messages do everything to conceivably extricate a dialogue with non-Jewish communities.

The Trumptwit racist toxic virus thrives on these weaknesses. It is a weakness that today many Jewish communities in general seem to be unable to cope with, or want to accept.

Alan Simons is the publisher of jewishinfoNews.

The above content was compiled from numerous sources. No copyright infringement was intended.

Advertisements

“Charlottesville: A renewed call for moral grandeur and spiritual audacity.”

OPINION

The following article and photos, which originally appeared in The Times of Israel on August 14, 2017, is republished in its entirety in jewishinfoNews with kind permission of its author Belle Jarniewski.

Belle Jarniewski

Several months ago, in the lead up to the American election, I found myself at an interfaith conference in Montreal. Susannah Heschel addressed the audience. Her powerful words, which seemed to be a clarion call, seem all the more important after Charlottesville. Heschel reminded us that the root of the Hebrew word alimut — violence is alef lamed mem — meaning elem “silence.” She asked us how we could dare abandon God to these fanatics — and certainly the white supremacists, neo-Nazis, KKK supporters and all the alt-right haters who have sprung up like poisonous mushrooms are indeed fanatics. With our silence, we allow violence and fanatics to proliferate. And finally, Heschel excoriated us…in particular “us” meaning liberal Jews, for having become “so insipid.”

Mordechai_liebling

Rabbi Mordechai Liebling

We can be proud that rabbis such as Mordechai Liebling and other Jewish clergy and rabbinical students did not remain silent. They traveled to Charlottesville to take part in the counter-rally and spoke out. Some Jewish organizations have spoken out as well. Israeli Education Minister Naftali Bennett condemned the rally and called on US leaders to denounce anti-Semitism.

Liebling’s voice was in support of something broader: “It’s really important for Jews to be visible in this space and stand up for love and for God and for democracy… it is important to make sure that each of is us is treated as we are in the image of God.” Like Susannah Heschel’s late father, Civil Rights activist, Abraham Joshua Heschel, of blessed memory, Liebling was referring to the rights of all Americans.

But where are the voices of the rest America’s faith leaders? And what of faith leaders in Canada and the rest of the world? As a Canadian, I am all too aware that my country is not immune from the venomous hatred of white supremacists. The US Catholic bishops have spoken out in very clear terms condemning the rising tide of racism that resulted in the ugly rally. But where are the voices of the liberal Protestant social gospel tradition that have so easily found the words to criticize Israel over the complexity of the last 50 years in the West Bank?

A recent article in “The Atlantic” reveals that some faith leaders belonging to this group have been crystal clear in their condemnation, connecting white supremacy and asking their followers to rebuke it “in the name of Jesus.” Others have been oddly vague, if not veering on tepid. They speak of hope and love without condemning the hate. While some Evangelical pastors have not even mentioned the words “racism” or “white supremacy,” others (the Southern Baptists) have referred to the alt-right white-supremacist ideologies as “the anti-Christ and satanic to the core.” No mention of a response from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon) was included in the article.But where are the voices of the rest America’s faith leaders? And what of faith leaders in Canada and the rest of the world? As a Canadian, I am all too aware that my country is not immune from the venomous hatred of white supremacists. The US Catholic bishops have spoken out in very clear terms condemning the rising tide of racism that resulted in the ugly rally. But where are the voices of the liberal Protestant social gospel tradition that have so easily found the words to criticize Israel over the complexity of the last 50 years in the West Bank?

The “Atlantic” article referred only to Christian voices. It is essential that leaders of all faiths — Jewish (of all denominations) Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Baha’i, Sikh and Indigenous speak out. Make no mistake. We cannot afford to be insipid, nor can we abandon God with our silence. Don’t wait for miracles. The responsibility to speak out and to act is ours.

2015-01-17-HeschelandKingatSelma-thumb

Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel at Selma (front row second from right)

In 1963, when President Kennedy invited Abraham Joshua Heschel to the White House, he sent the following telegram: “Please demand of religious leaders personal involvement, not just solemn declaration. We forfeit the right to worship God as long as we continue to humiliate Negroes. Church and synagogue have failed. They must repent. Ask of religious leaders to call for national repentance and personal sacrifice … The hour calls for moral grandeur and spiritual audacity.”

That hour is once again upon us. It is time for all faith leaders to speak out strongly unified by a call to action. A renewed call for repentance and personal sacrifice. A renewed call for moral grandeur and spiritual audacity.

Belle Jarniewski has chaired the Freeman Family Foundation Holocaust Education Centre of the Jewish Heritage Centre of Western Canada since 2008. Since 2013, she has served on the federally appointed delegation to IHRA—the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. She is also the current President of the Board of Directors of the Manitoba Multifaith Council. 

Bigotry, hatred, and viciousness takes on a new meaning.

No where in the world can one match the bigotry, hatred, and viciousness of the antisemite. As Jews, we can clearly identify with the memories of our friends in the Rwandan Tutsi community. Their issues are our issues. Holocaust and genocide and the pure lust of slaughtering children and adults by the perpetrators must never be forgotten.
The following article explains in part how western media and NGOs today, twenty-three years after the 1994 genocide, have begun to explain the Rwandan genocide against Tutsi. The article’s content is alarming.

The Underlying Racism behind Western Media’s Anti-Rwanda Hysteria.

Dayo Ntwari JIN August 3

by Dayo Ntwari

The implicitly racist language with which western media and “NGOs” spread their anti-Rwanda hate, the closer Rwanda gets to the 2017 presidential elections is deeply disturbing. There is a lie that is being pushed in western media, one of an alleged “climate of fear” in Rwanda. As I have said before on Twitter, there’s definitely a climate of fear. But it’s not in Rwanda. There’s a climate of fear about Rwanda. The fear that Rwanda will continue to rise. Nobody’s done more damage to Africa in modern times than these “progressive” Westerners of the Economist, HRW & Amnesty school of “thought”. The fear about Rwanda is that our country is increasingly a symbol of inspiration on our continent. An example of a break from chronic subjugation. So when you’ve got a government in Rwanda that puts Rwandan interests first and will NOT be another African vassal state, OF COURSE western colonialist interests will fear this.

This video clip tweeted by The Economist follows the same racist footsteps. A central lie about President Paul Kagame is presented as fact: “Why are his people so frightened of him?”

In usual fashion, the Economist attempts to downgrade President Kagame’s respectability, by referring to him as “Kagame”, instead of “President Kagame”. This happens with all African leaders who don’t toe the Western line. You rarely see an American or European head of state not addressed along with their title, in western reporting. This chauvinistic ignoring of political/governmental roles is reserved for Africans and other dark-skinned folks of the “Global South”.

rwandaOne of the more glaring displays of how much the Economist despises Rwandans can be seen in the Economist’s attempt to minimize the Genocide Against the Tutsi: “Genocide of more than half a million people.The majority were Tutsis, but many moderate Hutu were also killed.”It’s come down to half a million now? Each year, I observe how western media takes a hundred thousand off the number of victims of the Genocide against the Tutsi. One day, they will tell us only three people were killed in the Genocide, and they will stop calling it a genocide, all together.

genocide rwandaNext, the Economist presents a single African voice who regurgitates the desired narrative about Rwanda: the ex-Prime Minister of Rwanda. First the Economist tries to convince you of the ex-Prime Minister’s credibility: the ex-PM tells you he lost 30 family members during the Genocide against the Tutsi. You are now expected to take everything else that comes out of his mouth as the incontestable truth. The Ex-PM then tells us (from his house in Belgium), that we Rwandans are living in tyranny here in Rwanda. He claims it’s a dictatorship, no freedom of speech, etc.

The Economist attempts to manufacture an image of President Kagame as a warlord. This is imagery that the Western audience is most familiar with, when talking about Africans with a military background: warlord, child soldiers, etc. The Economist tells you Pres. Kagame “has kept the peace at home, even as he’s pursued wars against neighbouring Congo.” No further elaboration is provided. A B-roll of supposedly African IDPs or refugees is played in the clip. That’s it. But what wars? What were the wars about? No further explanation. This just serves to flesh out the portrait of this African “tyrant” who wakes up in the morning and goes to war, simply because it is in his nature. That is the prevailing Western view about Africans. We are savages, because without the aid and approval of our white masters, we have no option but to sink into animal savagery. The insidiousness of the White Saviour Industrial Complex, is how it couches this deeply racist dogma inside seemingly caring and benevolent narrative.

Next up in the video clip, “Paul Collier Prof. of Economics – Oxford University”. This snippet from the professor is meant to prevent you from recognizing the fundamental malice in the Economist’s narratives against Rwanda. Prof. Collier tells us President Kagame has had his biggest success in “the reduction of mass poverty, which has been quite exceptional by African standards.” This is simply not true. Nevermind the condescension behind the phrasing “by African standards”. Poverty reduction rates in Rwanda have been exceptional by WORLDstandards! Not just “African standards”. According to a 2013 report, by Prof. Collier’s very same Oxford University’s poverty and human development initiativeRwanda is among the “star performers” in poverty reduction levels, and identified as a place “where deprivation could disappear within the lifetime of present generations.” Tyranny? A media house of the West, where the wealth gap is an ever-widening chasm, where the richest 1% own as much as the rest of the planet combined, will have us believe Rwanda is a tyranny.

Well, the Economist continues its paternalistic dismissal of the agency of the Rwandan electorate, by framing the Kigali Convention Center as an epitome of “Kagame’s economic vision for Rwanda”. As, if we Rwandans are a mass of 12 million helpless children who are suffering at the mercy of a single man’s whim. Not once does the Economist acknowledge even in passing, that ours is a collective vision for our country. According to the Economist we probably don’t even understand what the word economy means, and therefore The Economist is here to save us from our own ignorance, right?

The Economist goes on to state that “some economists now talk of the Rwandan miracle.” This is immediately followed by presenting once again the “exiled” former PM of Rwanda: who is quick to remind us that “Kagame’s rule is based on tyranny. There is no freedom of speech”. You will hear this a lot, “freedom of speech” as the allegedly universal yardstick of a country’s level of democracy. There is freedom of speech in the United States, however the U.S. has the planet’s largest prison population, by far the planet’s largest military budgets and is at any given point engaged in dozens of wars and proxy-wars under the nebulous umbrella of the so-called War on Terror.

To the Economist, the ex Rwandan PM’s baseless accusations supersede all that anyone of us 12 million Rwandans have to say. The ex-PM’s unfounded accusations supersede any established statistics and facts presented, be they from Oxford University, the UN, World Bank or anybody else. No. This one guy here … actually he’s in Belgium in “exile”, is trying to convince us here in Rwanda that we’re all blind and stupid and just don’t understand we’re living in “tyranny”.

The Economist continues, and says the ex-PM “challenged Kagame for the presidency” in 2003 and then states “in the official result, Kagame took 95% of the vote.” Then the Economist claims the victory was rigged. Another lie, presented as fact, with no supporting evidence whatsoever. 2003 were the first presidential elections in Rwanda since the Genocide against the Tutsi. And the Economist appears to be somehow shocked that the man behind the liberation of Rwanda from Genocide, when the whole world turned their backs on us and left us to die, got 95% of the vote? It’s like claiming Jay-Z rigged record sales because he sold tons more records than Lil Mama.

This is quickly followed by the ex-PM telling you how living in Belgium, away from Rwanda, has affected him psychologically. This is meant to shore up further sympathy for the ex-PM and make you malleable to swallowing his claims without any scrutiny. This poor guy, he’s sitting with his laptop in Belgium, thinking about us and missing us so much. Awww, poor guy, hm? He states he “must live freely in his country”. Well, if that is his genuine wish, why not hop on the next RwandAir flight back to Kigali, instead of trolling us from afar and being a puppet of neocolonialist lies against Rwanda?

The Economist tells us that “in reality Rwanda is a one-party state”. Yet another lie, presented as truth, with no further explanation or evidence. Here The Economist also lies by omission. It conveniently omits the easily verifiable fact that in Rwanda’s Constitution, under Article 62, it is stated clearly

“a political organisation holding the majority of seats in the Chamber of Deputies cannot have more than fifty (50%) percent of Cabinet members”.

So, a multi-party system is explicitly guaranteed by our Constitution. The only time The Economist even mentions our Constitution is to allege that in 2015 the RPF “ushered through a constitutional change which could in theory allow him to remain as president until 2034.” Notice the language used here: “constitutional change”. You see, in the framework of the White Saviour Industrial Complex, the following mental acrobatics are always adhered to:

“constitutional amendment” = perfectly normal process in White people democracy
“constitutional change” = African savages living in tyranny

The Economist commits another lie by omission: they don’t tell you that the amendments to the Rwandan Constitution came by a national referendum. Again, the perpetual outright rejection of the political agency and self-determination of an African people. The White Saviour Industrial Complex did not authorize our national referendum, therefore it must be considered null and void.

Again, Prof. Collier of Oxford gives his opinion in which he implies Rwanda is an autocracy. No evidence to support this is provided, and by doing so you are expected to assume this is so trivial a fact, it is so obvious it needs no verbose provision of supporting evidence. The white man said Rwanda is an autocracy, so it must be true.

Towards the end of this racist video clip, the Economist refers to our government as a “regime”. This is a standard approach by Western media when talking about any government in the so-called Global South that does not dance to the tune of the Masters of the so-called Global North.

“administration” = your govt is either a Western govt, or useful to the West, but not likely useful to you.

“regime” = your govt is useful to you, but not useful to the West.

There is a deep and casual implicit racism in the narrative peddled by the likes of the Economist and other “well-meaning” pseudo-progressive Western outlets. And this implicit racism is easily identifiable in the language used when describing the people of the African continent. These Western faux-liberal media houses call our leaders “strongman”“despot”,“tyrant”. They call our governments “regime”“junta”“militia”“rebels”. They tell you our political systems are “autocratic”“dictatorial”“tyrannical”, and that our countries are under a “climate of fear”, and “repression”. They tell you the so-called opposition is “imprisoned”“murdered”“exiled” and so on.

This deeply racist language comes from a historically colonialist mindset: the African is an animal incapable of viable human life, unless he is uplifted and controlled by the Western hand. This colonialist mindset that has been perpetuated since Europeans first came to the African continent to exploit and subjugate its peoples, this racist wannabe-progressive narrative will never change until the Western mind is fundamentally decolonized.

Publisher’s Comment: The above article written by Dayo Ntwari and republished in full, can be viewed on Mr. Ntwari website