Home » Opinion » Page 15
→ 30 April 2019
→ By
→ Leave a Comment

A Terrorist Tried to Kill Me Because I Am a Jew. I Will Never Back Down | NY Times

Rabbi Goldstein

Inspiring…

Today should have been my funeral.

I was preparing to give my sermon Shabbat morning, Saturday, which was also the last day of Passover, the festival of our freedom, when I heard a loud bang in the lobby of my synagogue.

I thought a table had fallen down or maybe even that, God forbid, my dear friend Lori Gilbert Kaye had tripped and fallen. Only a few moments earlier I had greeted Lori there; she had come to services to say Yizkor, the mourning prayer, for her late mother.

I went to the lobby to check on her. What I saw in those seconds will haunt me for the rest of my days.

Read more

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: , ,
→ 29 April 2019
→ By
→ Leave a Comment

An Expert on Anti-Semitism Fears for the Future in Britain | Tablet Mag

Dr David Hirsh

As a young boy growing up in the affluent North London suburb of Highgate, the writer and academic David Hirsh was always dimly aware that something was different.  An uneasy family history lay behind his pleasant existence. Behind the joy there was trauma. He could sense it. Now, over forty years later, he worries that for young Jewish children, the type of idyllic childhood he enjoyed may one day be impossible.

Hirsh is one of the UK’s leading Jewish intellectuals and he is speaking out on the growing problem of anti-Semitism in this country. Above all, he fighting a strain of Western history’s oldest hatred coming from the unlikeliest of sources. Britain’s Labour Party, once the political home of much of the country’s Jewish population, is now led by the far-left, anti-Semite Jeremy Corbyn, and an inner circle dominated by extremists.

And, Hirsh, a true and lifelong a man of the left, is very, very worried.

Read more

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: , ,
→ 26 April 2019
→ By
→ Leave a Comment

New Zealand needs to learn from Israel’s MMP disaster | NZ Herald

It’s always good to look at others and potentially learn.

What I have learned out of the Israeli election is their threshold is too low. They run a system like ours. We are looking to adjust our threshold down. This is a mistake.

I thought it was a mistake before I looked at Israel. Having looked at Israel, I am even more convinced it’s a mistake. Israel’s threshold is 3.25 per cent.

They have 10 parties that cross it. The two main parties barely get half of what they need by way of seats to win government.

Compare that to our last result: the Nats got 56, just short of the 61. Labour got 46. Short (you could argue too short) given they needed two parties to prop them up.

But nowhere near as short as say the Likud party with about 33. Being that short requires a lot of deals with a lot of small parties to get you across the line. The more parties, the more deals, the more reasons to have it fall apart.

Our example, our current government, has held together well. Whatever differences there have been, have been kept behind closed doors.

There has been the odd sense that things might be tense, and Lord knows what has been hashed out with the capital gain tax, but at some point New Zealand First, for example, are going to have to distance themselves from Labour. Otherwise, they’re going to get swallowed up.

 
 
But the other advantage for Labour has been the Greens. The Greens are compliant, they’ve barely said a word – and as such are in poll trouble too. In the meantime they have provided easy stability.

But imagine if this lot was made up of six parties? And they weren’t all compliant and they weren’t all mates? And that’s what you get in Israel.

And it’s what you get with low thresholds – the sort of thresholds Labour want to implement here. They want 4 per cent.

Now back to Israel: what do we learn from them? Well not just that 3.25 per cent is too low and it produces too many parties and too many multi-party deals. But, and this is the critical part, the 3.25 per cent is the latest move up. They’re increasing the threshold.

From 1949-1992 it was 1 per cent. From 1992-2003 it was 1.5 per cent. From 2003-2014 it was 2 per cent. From 2014: 3.25 per cent.

Now why do you think they’ve done that? And why have they done it with increasing regularity? Because a low threshold is dangerous, the lower it is, the more nutters get to cross the line.

Even at 5 per cent, all we require of a party is to find five people out of 100 to back an idea or a concept – 95 people can think you’re mad, and still you can get to run the country.

Quality is critical in any government, in terms of experience and discipline and professionalism and some form of representation of the wider populace. If you’re allowing any form of radicalism or craziness or minority extremism in through a low bar, you will pay the price.

Israel clearly did, and they’re fixing it. How can we look at that example and still want to lower the bar and move towards what they’re busy rejecting?

Source

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: , ,
→ 19 April 2019
→ By
→ Leave a Comment

Ilhan Omar, Harbinger of Democratic Decline? | NY Times

Congresswomen Ilhan Omar, D-Minn

Spot the problem with the quoted remarks:

(1) The Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 was “something some people did.”

(2) Last month’s attack on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, was “something someone did.”

(3) The 2015 massacre at a black church in Charleston, S.C., was “something someone did.”

Now imagine that a public figure with a history of making racially inflammatory remarks — someone like Representative Steve King of Iowa or, better yet, President Trump — had said any of this. (Neither of them did.) Would you not be appalled?

Of course you would. You’d be insulted by the evasiveness of the something and someone. You’d be revolted that a right-wing politician would fail to speak forcefully against the bigotries too often found among his followers and fellow travelers. You’d be disgusted by the deliberate attempt to conceal the scale of the horror, the identity of the perpetrators, and the racist ideology that motivated them.

And you’d make no allowances for the possibility that the politician in question might have merely misspoken, especially if he failed to apologize, clarify or correct himself. With political power comes rhetorical responsibility.

 

The bulk of Omar’s speech was devoted to preaching political empowerment for American Muslims and denouncing Islamophobia. That’s fine as far as it goes.

But contrary to claims by some of her apologists, the remark is not taken out of context, it is not contradicted by anything else she says in the speech, and it is not marred merely because it is factually mistaken. (CAIR was founded seven years before 9/11.) Nor is the problem a matter of inapt phrasing: Omar is a confident public speaker with a precise command of language and a knack for turning a phrase.

The problem is that the remark is foul, in exactly the same way that the hypothetical remarks listed above are foul. I live in lower Manhattan, near the 9/11 memorial and museum. No decent person can look at the portraits of the 2,983 victims of Islamist terrorists and say, by-the-by, that this was “something” that “some people did.”

The problem is also that the remarks didn’t come from just anyone. Just as Trump has repeatedly made his ethnic prejudices plain, so has Omar. She has demonized Israel, and American supporters of Israel, in terms that are unmistakably anti-Semitic. She has been reproached by fellow Democrats, claimed ignorance by way of apology, and then slurred Jews again — without apology. And despite claiming to be a champion of human rights, she has been oddly selective about the human-rights issues that elicit her outrage.

Now Omar’s defenders are keen to paint her as a victim of Islamophobia, which no doubt she is. In this case, however, a victim of bigotry is also a major and unflinching bigot in her own right. That the president has chosen to target Omar may smack of rank hypocrisy, but it would be political malpractice for him not to pick the fight. Her views as a public figure, and what they signify for the party she represents, are fair game.

All the more so as progressives rush to her defense. Omar is not a significant figure in her own right. And the House of Representatives has never lacked for cranks, knaves, fools and bigots.

What is significant is that Omar’s defenders don’t consider her prejudices about Jews as particularly disqualifying, morally or politically, at least not when weighed against the things they like about her (and hate about her enemies). As for her views about Israel, she’s practically mainstream for her segment of the Democratic Party — a harbinger of what’s to come as the old guard of pro-Israel liberals like Majority Leader Steny Hoyer gives way to the anti-Israel wokesters typified by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

What is all this reminiscent of?

Oh, right: the early days of Trump, when millions of Republican primary voters heard the candidate denounce Mexicans as drug dealers, criminals and rapists, and said to themselves, “We like that.” The central lesson of the moral collapse that followed for the G.O.P. isn’t that conservatives are a uniquely perfidious bunch. It’s that partisans of any stripe are always susceptible to demagoguery, particularly when the demagogue refuses to back down in the face of outrage. Shamelessness has a way of inspiring a following, and Omar is in the process of cornering the market on the left.

Still, let’s not be entirely negative about the congresswoman. Toward the end of her speech, she said it was vital “to make sure that we are not only holding people that we don’t like accountable: We must also hold those that we love, have shared values with, accountable.”

Those words, at least, are wise. The best thing Democrats could do now is apply them to Omar herself.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: ,
→ 18 April 2019
→ By
→ Leave a Comment

Israel Allows Arab Citizens to Vote — Arab Leaders Do Not | Algemeiner

This weekend, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, himself in the 14th year of a four-year term, installed a new unelected cabinet. This news was met with little fanfare from the international community, which has grown indifferent to the absence of democracy in the West Bank.

Meanwhile, the muted response from Western commentators over this development stands in stark contrast to the immense scrutiny of Israel’s election last Tuesday, in which some of Israel’s detractors falsely claimed that Israel “denies Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza the right to vote.”

This double standard is glaring, and the accusation is misinformed. Often missing from the narrative of those quick to blame Israel for Palestinian disenfranchisement is that when Israel came into being, it offered citizenship to all Palestinian Arabs within its borders.

Read more

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: ,
→ 16 April 2019
→ By
→ Leave a Comment

The consequences of online hate | AIJAC

In November 2000, AIJAC, together with the Australian National University’s Freilich Foundation, co-sponsored the first conference in Australia on the potential danger of the nascent internet fuelling hate speech and empowering terrorist groups. What was then a potential concern has long since become a deadly reality. 

In Christchurch, we have now seen yet another example of how hateful online extremism can foster horrific violence against innocent people. The world was rightly appalled by the white supremacist terrorist attack on March 15 against innocent Muslim worshippers in two different mosques during Friday prayers, resulting in 50 fatalities, with scores more seriously injured. 

While most people and organisations swiftly and unequivocally condemned the atrocity and pledged sympathy and solidarity with its victims, their families, and the broader Muslim community, some, like independent Senator Fraser Anning, outrageously rationalised the attack with anti-Islam and anti-immigration rhetoric, while others politicised the moment to besmirch partisan opponents.

This heinous massacre and its aftermath recall many other terrorist attacks including the murder of 11 Jews at the Tree of Life Synagogue by a white supremacist in Pittsburgh last October.

The motivations in both these attacks revolved around the same conspiracy of “white genocide” or, as the Christchurch attacker dubbed his manifesto, “The Great Replacement,” in which immigrants, and especially Muslim immigrants, are viewed as an existential threat to some imagined “white collective.” 

Read more

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: , , ,
→ 8 April 2019
→ By
→ Leave a Comment

Israel’s election: As voters head to polls, it’s all about Netanyahu | NZ Herald

Benjamin Netanyahu

Israel’s election campaign has been a three-month roller coaster of mudslinging, scandals and more scandals.

But when voters head to the polls tomorrow, one name will be predominantly on their minds: Benjamin Netanyahu.

At its core, the vote boils down to a referendum on Netanyahu, the man who has dominated Israeli politics for the better part of three decades.

Read more

Filed Under: News, Opinion Tagged With: ,
→ 14 February 2019
→ By
→ Leave a Comment

We are anti-Zionist Jews, we are not anti-Semitic | NZ Herald

This is controversial, what are your thoughts on it?

When Defence Minister Ron Mark met Israel’s Prime Minister on January 27, Benjamin Netanyahu was quoted as asking New Zealand to change its definition of anti-semitism so that it includes political opposition to Zionism.

Netanyahu’s office website reports that he told Mark, “The main attack against the Jewish people today is the attacks against the Jewish state and the attempt to delegitimise the very right of the Jewish people for a state of their own. This is called anti-Zionism, and we ask not only all our friends, but all decent countries everywhere to include [in] the definition of anti semitism, anti-Zionism as well. And so I’ve just made that request from you as well.”

We write as two committed Jews, members of a synagogue, engaging in regular prayer and daily study. We believe in the enduring, prophetic school of Jewish thought. As per our understanding of our religion, law and justice, we are not Zionists.

For that, Netanyahu would like you to call us anti-semites – pathological Jew-haters. He would deny us the right to challenge Israel’s actions, as we challenge the actions of any state (including our own). If New Zealand forecloses on political debate in this way, it will forfeit its potential role in seeking justice for Israel-Palestine.

Read more
Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: , , ,
→ 13 February 2019
→ By
→ Leave a Comment

Rob Berg: It is anti-semitic to oppose Israel’s right to exist | NZ Herald

Rob Berg, President of the Zionist Federation of New Zealand

Criticism of Israeli Government policy and actions is not only legitimate but is a vital and important aspect of any democracy. Israel should be challenged and scrutinised in the same way as any other country, yet too often this is not the case. Other countries, no matter how they came into being or how they behave, do not have their legitimacy or right to exist questioned or their outright destruction called for.

Anti-Zionism should not be conflated with mere criticism of Israeli policy. Anti-Zionism rejects the very idea of a Jewish state.

Zionism is the belief in the right to self-determination of the Jewish people (a right guaranteed to them by international law) in their historical and spiritual homeland, Israel.

It acknowledges the Jewish people as indigenous to the land and Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people, although all citizens, including Israel’s 20 per cent Arab population, have equal civil rights. There are some people who identify as Jews who are anti-Zionist, but they are a tiny fringe. For most Jews, Zionism is core to their identity.

Zionism is often deliberately and falsely labelled by its opponents as a colonialist, racist ideology. Had a Jewish homeland been set up anywhere else, for example in Uganda which was “offered” to the Jewish people, then the accusation of colonialism would have legitimacy. But in the land of Israel, where Jewish people are the Tangata Whenua, accusations of colonialism are made to delegitimise the Jewish presence in their ancestral homeland.

Anti-Zionism has become the new form of antisemitism. The state of the Jews has become the Jew of the states. The same canards and conspiracy theories are applied to the Jewish state and Zionists, as have been applied to Jews for millennia.

Accusations are plenty, such as controlling governments, global banks and media, harvesting organs for sale on the black market – the equivalent of a modern day blood libel – creating world wars and controlling Isis. The Jewish State (instead of the Jewish people) is blamed for all the world’s ills and must be eliminated for the good of humanity.

Yet Zionism is not just an idea but a reality whose elimination would mean 6.5 million Jews facing the prospect of ethnic cleansing and a return to homelessness unless the Palestinian leadership and other Arab states suddenly decide to embrace the legitimacy of a Jewish presence in their midst and democratic ideals.

Antisemitism under cover of anti-Zionism can be illustrated by responses to two New Zealand politicians’ interaction with the Jewish Community.

The first example was when Andrew Little, then leader of the Opposition, visited the Auckland Hebrew Congregation. When Mr Little posted about it on his Facebook page, the level of antisemitism was so intense his office had to delete many comments, including accusations that Israel was responsible for 9-11, and a call for the death of all Jews, due to “the way they [are] treating Palestinians”.

The second example was in January this year, when an MP, Alfred Ngaro, changed his Facebook profile photo to show him standing near the Menorah (candelabra used during the Jewish Festival of Hanukkah) at a public event to celebrate the festival. The negative comments came flooding in quickly, accusing Israel of genocide, ethnic cleansing, apartheid, and paying off New Zealand politicians, as well as praising Hamas.

So how is it possible to distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from antisemitism? One simple way is “Sharanski’s 3D Test”. If Israel is delegitimised, demonised or double standards applied to it, then antisemitism is at play.

When Jewish peoplehood and their historic connection to Israel is erased, that’s delegitimisation. When the patently absurd accusation that Israelis are the new Nazis is made, that’s demonisation.

And when the UN General Assembly passes 21 resolutions condemning Israel, and six against the entire rest of the world, and none against China (which occupies Tibet and has imprisoned 1 million Uyghurs in concentration camps) or Turkey (which occupies Northern Cyprus and persecutes Kurds), as it did in 2018, that’s double standards.

All these three elements are present in the boycott divestment and sanction campaign (BDS) against Israel, which, if it achieves its three stated goals, will see the replacement of the world’s one Jewish state with another Muslim state.

Understanding the difference between antisemitism disguised as anti-Zionism as opposed to legitimate criticism of Israel, and not giving the former legitimacy, is key to finding a peaceful resolution to the current situation, and in doing so improving the futures for both Israelis and Palestinians.

Rob Berg is president of the Zionist Federation of New Zealand and president of the Jewish National Fund NZ.

Source: NZ Herald

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: , ,
→ 17 December 2018
→ By
→ Leave a Comment

By their tweets you shall know them | AIR

There is evidence that the traditional human rights non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch (HRW), have gone badly off the rails – especially, but not only, with respect to Israel. It is clear they are often no longer applying international human rights law without fear or favour, but are instead increasingly letting their “findings” be influenced by left-wing orthodoxies about imperialism, colonialism, and structural racism rooted in power imbalances. 

Their overall bodies of reports and official press releases are usually written in a way to provide plausible deniability. They concentrate mainly on the targets they want to attack in the name of these orthodoxies– such as Israel and Western governments and their allies – but include enough material on their enemies to claim they are willing to criticise all sides. 

But if you look at the tweets their officials put out you see the true picture. 

Read more

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: , , ,
« Previous Page
Next Page »