a) Since most Jews do not understand the thrust of their religion, as Norman writes, they believe they can accomplish their goal through politics.
The cost of altruism
“Tikkun olam” and the loneliness of the Jewish fight against anti-Semitism.
For millennia, the Jewish people have upheld the noble concept of tikkun olam, the idea that individuals bear responsibility for healing and repairing the world.
This profound principle has inspired generations to act with compassion, empathy and a commitment to justice, often placing the needs of others above their own. However, in their pursuit of tikkun olam, Jews have often found themselves standing alone in the face of anti-Semitism, their solidarity with others overshadowing the urgency of defending themselves.
Just look around today at virtually any spot in the Diaspora, and it’s easy to see Jews standing alone on the island hoping for others to speak out against hate and injustice just as the Jews have done time and again for others.
Throughout history, Jews have been at the forefront of social-justice movements, advocating for the rights of the oppressed and marginalized. But in their eagerness to stand with others, Jews have often found themselves abandoned when it comes to confronting anti-Semitism. In those moments of crisis, when Jews needed support the most, they typically found themselves standing alone, betrayed by those they thought were allies.
Additionally, there are many Jews who are now emboldened to speak out against the State of Israel. While any reasonable person can understand criticism of any sovereign nation’s democratically elected officials, it is not okay for Jews to criticize Israel’s right to exist. Had there been a State of Israel in the late 1930s, it’s safe to assume there would be millions more Jews alive today. Pretending to criticize Israel while standing with terrorists is not acceptable. In fact, if there were an 11th commandment, perhaps it would read: “Thou Shalt Not Uprise Against Your Own People.”
One of the most insidious aspects of anti-Semitism is its ability to masquerade as legitimate criticism of Israel. In recent years, we have seen a troubling trend of individuals and groups using criticism of Israel as a cover for anti-Semitic beliefs. This phenomenon, sometimes referred to as the “new anti-Semitism,” seeks to delegitimize the State of Israel and deny the Jewish people the right to self-determination.
Those who engage in this form of anti-Semitism often claim that they are simply criticizing the policies of the Israeli government. However, their rhetoric often crosses the line into outright hatred of Jews, using age-old stereotypes and tropes to demonize and dehumanize the Jewish people. This kind of antisemitism is particularly insidious because it exploits the principles of tikkun olam, twisting them into a weapon against the Jewish people.
Criticism of Israel is not inherently anti-Semitic and it is important to distinguish between legitimate criticism and hatred of Jews. However, when criticism of Israel crosses the line into antisemitism, it must be confronted and condemned. Jews must not allow their commitment to tikkun olam to blind them to the reality of anti-Semitism. They must be vigilant in recognizing and combating antisemitism wherever it appears, even when it comes disguised as legitimate criticism.
The Jewish people have a long and proud history of standing up for what is right, even in the face of adversity. They have shown time and again that they are willing to fight for justice, even when it means standing alone. However, they must also remember that there is strength in unity and they are not alone in their struggle against anti-Semitism.
It is time for Jews to reclaim the narrative and assert their right to self-defense. They must not allow themselves to be bullied into silence or scapegoated for the sins of others. They must stand up proudly and assert their identity as Jews, refusing to be ashamed or afraid. They must remember that being a Jew is not just about what you do but about who you are, and no amount of tikkun olam can ever justify abandoning your own people
++++
This was sent to me by a very dear friend and fellow memo reader. There is always time for humor!
+++
On the 8th day, God created Seniors.
Most seniors never get enough exercise. In His wisdom God decreed that seniors become forgetful so they would have to search for their glasses, keys, and other things, thus doing more walking. And God looked down and saw that it was good.
Then God saw there was another need. In His wisdom He made seniors lose coordination so they would drop things, requiring them to bend, reach, and stretch. And God looked down and saw that it was good.
Then God considered the function of bladders and decided seniors would have additional calls of nature, requiring more trips to the bathroom, thus providing more exercise. God looked down and saw that it was good.
So if you find, as you age, you are getting up and down more, remember it's God's will. It is all in your best interest even though you mutter under your breath.
++++
Nine Important Facts to Remember as We Grow Older:
#9 Death is the number 1 killer in the world
#8 Life is sexually transmitted.
#7 Good health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.
#6 Men have two motivations: hunger and hanky-panky, and they can't tell them apart. If you see a gleam in his eyes, make him a sandwich.
#5 Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day. Teach a person to use the Internet and they won't bother you for weeks, months, maybe years.
#4 Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in the hospital, dying of nothing.
#3 All of us could take a lesson from the weather. It pays no attention to criticism.
#2 In the 60's, people took LSD to make the world weird. Now the world is weird, and people take Prozac to make it normal.
#1 Life is like a jar of jalapeno peppers. What you do today may be a burning issue tomorrow.
Please share this wisdom with others; I need to go to the bathroom.
++++
Will It Happen Again? Essay By Dick Berkowitz
Bibi will be appearing before Congress and will be addressing the "truth" about The Hamas War from an Israeli perspective.
The last time Bibi was invited to speak, Obama had a tizzy and, from that period, did everything he could to interfere in Bibi's campaigning for Prime Minister.
I have no proof Bibi's current invitation, to appear on July 24, will evoke the same response from Biden but I do believe Bibi is respected and liked by most Americans and they understand the various vacillations and changing stances/pressures Biden has imposed on him, as well as Israel and, I too, believe they have not been constructive.
Could they backfire and help solidify Bibi's political position? I have no way of knowing but he is a very articulate speaker, talks in a direct manner that is easy to understand, because of his American education, and, unlike so many Israelis, has no visible accent.
That Israel was ruthlessly attacked on 10/7 by Hamas is self-evident. That the attack was caused by a variety of Palestinian justifications which are more propaganda based than fact based is also evident. However, the world has chosen to believe what it wants. The deck has always been stacked against Israel starting with its founding by the now anti-Semitic U.N which has actively embraced the cudgel.
Bibi has made his share of mistakes and judgement calls, as any human/politician would, under the most egregious/stressful degrees and circumstances. That said, Israel also owes its technology status and sound financial situation to Bibi, begun when he was Minister of Finance in Sharon's cabinet.
Bibi also has been hounded by a very aggressive Israeli District Attorney ( Israel's equivalent of Alvin Bragg?)
Don’t Blame Israel First
World opinion should impose more pressure on Hamas military leader Yahya Sinwar.
ET
As reports come out of the Biden administration about cease-fire talks between Israel and Hamas, bear in mind that the goal of one side in the discussions remains the elimination of the sovereign nation of Israel.
Hamas’s 1988 charter continues to call for Israel’s destruction.
Ali Khamenei, supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, whose wealth subsidizes Hamas’s military operations, has said, “The perpetual subject of Iran is the elimination of Israel from the region.” It remains so.
Despite the recent emergence of cease-fires as a means to end wars, active military conflicts on this scale typically don’t end this way. More often, cease-fires occur when the opposition has effectively been defeated, as Germany and Japan were in World War II.
The debate over the terms of the current Israel-Hamas cease-fire proposals turns mainly on whether a stop to the fighting would be permanent or temporary, following a hostage and prisoner exchange. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he wants to reserve the right to resume fighting against Hamas.
Pointedly, the Biden administration’s proposal for a six-week cease-fire includes the withdrawal of Israeli forces from populated areas in Gaza. Such a departure surely would be interpreted as a victory for Hamas, and in particular for its military leader, Yahya Sinwar.
Mr. Sinwar, the primary architect of the Oct. 7 invasion, who presumably resides inside the Gaza tunnel system, should be seen as the central figure in the conflict, more important to its resolution than Mr. Netanyahu or President Biden.
Recent news reports have suggested that Hamas’s so-called political leadership in Qatar is more amenable to ending the conflict than is Mr. Sinwar, though both insist that Hamas retain a primary governing role in Gaza. Mr. Sinwar apparently believes he has Israel bogged down in a quagmire and that international opinion has turned the Jewish state into a pariah, pushing the Israelis toward a settlement on his terms.
As with the airliner attacks on the U.S. mainland on Sept. 11, 2001, which live on simply as “9/11,” the origin of the Israel-Hamas war has been reduced similarly to “Oct. 7.” While the attack in 2001 was mainly about killing Americans, there is a danger in losing sight of the much broader political purposes of Mr. Sinwar’s Oct. 7 invasion.
When it happened, the assault’s events seemed incomprehensibly heinous—the point-blank shootings of innocents, rapes and the abduction of 252 hostages into Gaza (at least 43 of whom are believed to have died in captivity). It is clear in retrospect that the barbarity was Mr. Sinwar’s long-term strategy.
Hamas’s intention was to force the Israel Defense Forces inside Gaza indefinitely, as it pursued Israel’s longstanding policy of freeing hostages. With Hamas holding the captives inside its virtually impenetrable underground city of tunnels, the Sinwar political calculation was correct that images of Israel’s inevitable assault on Hamas in the neighborhoods of Gaza to free hostages would in time transfer international blame onto Israel, aided, of course, by organized Palestinian-Hamas protest groups across the U.S. and Europe.
And finally by Joe Biden. Asked days ago in an interview if he thought Mr. Netanyahu was prolonging the war out of self preservation, the American president replied, “There is every reason for people to draw that conclusion.” In March, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said in an astonishing floor speech that Mr. Netanyahu “no longer fits the needs” of Israel. A belief has emerged in what passes for world opinion that if Mr. Netanyahu can be forced out of office, a “moderate” Israeli leadership will emerge, and somehow the war will end.
Rarely discussed, because it is so incredible, is the assumption that any successor Israeli government would allow the Sinwar-led Hamas to emerge intact, in Gaza, with whatever weaponry it has left. The more plausible reality is that if Hamas and its leadership is to avoid execution or assassination, it will have to plot its next steps somewhere other than the Gaza Strip. Perhaps Spain, Ireland or Norway, each of which has recognized a Palestinian state, would offer to take Hamas in.
An additional reality, which no cease-fire proposal can dispel, is that the elimination of Israel will continue as an active goal of Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and some U.S.-based protest groups. On May 31, another anti-Israel divestment group invaded and closed the Brooklyn Museum, carrying signs with slogans such as “No Normalization of Settler Colonialism.”
The debate over the Israel-Hamas war has fallen deeply into a moral imbalance. The conflict’s grinding status quo—with Palestinians and the Israeli hostages continuing to die—has little hope of changing until the statements of foreign leaders, analysts, the media and not least Mr. Biden and his many translators begin to impose serious political and moral pressure on the man who put this horror in motion: Hamas military commander in chief Yahya Sinwar. Blame him first.
Write henninger@wsj.com.
Don’t Blame Israel First
World opinion should impose more pressure on Hamas military leader Yahya Sinwar.
ET
As reports come out of the Biden administration about cease-fire talks between Israel and Hamas, bear in mind that the goal of one side in the discussions remains the elimination of the sovereign nation of Israel.
Hamas’s 1988 charter continues to call for Israel’s destruction.
Ali Khamenei, supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, whose wealth subsidizes Hamas’s military operations, has said, “The perpetual subject of Iran is the elimination of Israel from the region.” It remains so.
Despite the recent emergence of cease-fires as a means to end wars, active military conflicts on this scale typically don’t end this way. More often, cease-fires occur when the opposition has effectively been defeated, as Germany and Japan were in World War II.
The debate over the terms of the current Israel-Hamas cease-fire proposals turns mainly on whether a stop to the fighting would be permanent or temporary, following a hostage and prisoner exchange. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he wants to reserve the right to resume fighting against Hamas.
Pointedly, the Biden administration’s proposal for a six-week cease-fire includes the withdrawal of Israeli forces from populated areas in Gaza. Such a departure surely would be interpreted as a victory for Hamas, and in particular for its military leader, Yahya Sinwar.
Mr. Sinwar, the primary architect of the Oct. 7 invasion, who presumably resides inside the Gaza tunnel system, should be seen as the central figure in the conflict, more important to its resolution than Mr. Netanyahu or President Biden.
Recent news reports have suggested that Hamas’s so-called political leadership in Qatar is more amenable to ending the conflict than is Mr. Sinwar, though both insist that Hamas retain a primary governing role in Gaza. Mr. Sinwar apparently believes he has Israel bogged down in a quagmire and that international opinion has turned the Jewish state into a pariah, pushing the Israelis toward a settlement on his terms.
As with the airliner attacks on the U.S. mainland on Sept. 11, 2001, which live on simply as “9/11,” the origin of the Israel-Hamas war has been reduced similarly to “Oct. 7.” While the attack in 2001 was mainly about killing Americans, there is a danger in losing sight of the much broader political purposes of Mr. Sinwar’s Oct. 7 invasion.
When it happened, the assault’s events seemed incomprehensibly heinous—the point-blank shootings of innocents, rapes and the abduction of 252 hostages into Gaza (at least 43 of whom are believed to have died in captivity). It is clear in retrospect that the barbarity was Mr. Sinwar’s long-term strategy.
Hamas’s intention was to force the Israel Defense Forces inside Gaza indefinitely, as it pursued Israel’s longstanding policy of freeing hostages. With Hamas holding the captives inside its virtually impenetrable underground city of tunnels, the Sinwar political calculation was correct that images of Israel’s inevitable assault on Hamas in the neighborhoods of Gaza to free hostages would in time transfer international blame onto Israel, aided, of course, by organized Palestinian-Hamas protest groups across the U.S. and Europe.
And finally by Joe Biden. Asked days ago in an interview if he thought Mr. Netanyahu was prolonging the war out of self preservation, the American president replied, “There is every reason for people to draw that conclusion.” In March, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said in an astonishing floor speech that Mr. Netanyahu “no longer fits the needs” of Israel. A belief has emerged in what passes for world opinion that if Mr. Netanyahu can be forced out of office, a “moderate” Israeli leadership will emerge, and somehow the war will end.
Rarely discussed, because it is so incredible, is the assumption that any successor Israeli government would allow the Sinwar-led Hamas to emerge intact, in Gaza, with whatever weaponry it has left. The more plausible reality is that if Hamas and its leadership is to avoid execution or assassination, it will have to plot its next steps somewhere other than the Gaza Strip. Perhaps Spain, Ireland or Norway, each of which has recognized a Palestinian state, would offer to take Hamas in.
An additional reality, which no cease-fire proposal can dispel, is that the elimination of Israel will continue as an active goal of Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and some U.S.-based protest groups. On May 31, another anti-Israel divestment group invaded and closed the Brooklyn Museum, carrying signs with slogans such as “No Normalization of Settler Colonialism.”
The debate over the Israel-Hamas war has fallen deeply into a moral imbalance. The conflict’s grinding status quo—with Palestinians and the Israeli hostages continuing to die—has little hope of changing until the statements of foreign leaders, analysts, the media and not least Mr. Biden and his many translators begin to impose serious political and moral pressure on the man who put this horror in motion: Hamas military commander in chief Yahya Sinwar. Blame him first.
Write henninger@wsj.com. who alleges he is guilty of corruption and receiving bribes. I have compared Bibi to being Israel's Trump and "pin cushion" that liberal Israelis love to stick.
Israeli's, by nature, are also a contentious lot and fight passionately with each other thereby, becoming their own worst enemy all too often. They are also a stiff necked people and have been argumentative for generation upon generation. I would not expect them to change or temper their style. It is an engrained, somewhat self-destructive, trait.
I guess the bottom line is that, Biden generally is also his own worst enemy and thus, causes boomerangs. Will it happen again?
Stay tuned.
+++
Consul Update (Edited.)
+++
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment