fbpx

May 9, 2022

Bedlam and More Blood Libels

It has been nothing but nonstop bedlam in America. Look around. Chaos is everywhere, along with declining public confidence in just about everything.

We have a surreal southern border crisis where the Rio Grande has become a Grand Prix for anyone speeding into America. Like with most things criminal these days, the police aren’t issuing tickets. Our border is as frenzied as Black Fridays at the local mall. The customary mandate of any immigration policy is that everyone wait their turn. Not here. What we have now is a token-free turnstile into our homeland.

Soaring crime rates will soon compel Hollywood studios to order-up CGI sequels of such gritty urban crime classics as “Death Wish” and “The Warriors.” Perhaps returning to the groovy, gritty days of the 1970s makes sense given the impending abortion ruling from the Supreme Court, which, apparently, is set to overturn, Roe v. Wade. The awful metaphor of the metal hanger has returned, harkening back to an America many thought had been left behind.

Mugging is making a comeback, too—and not merely the “selfie” kind. Neighborhood safety has disappeared. Carjacking, home invasions and “smash and grab” looting are once again lucrative career choices for a new breed of hoodlums. We naively but mistakenly believed that COVID-19, and cyber security, was our only known lasting danger.

At least the wearing of masks is returning to its sartorial essence.

Prices for consumer goods have been inflating while our social cohesion collapses. Filling up at the gas station has become a cringing, humbling experience. Wage growth isn’t keeping pace with inflation, which means that everyone will be taking a pay cut. Might as well spend less, stay home, and remain safe from sub-variants and criminal deviants.

That shouldn’t be so hard to do. Over the past two years, all that confinement has created a bunkered populace, and blinkered mindsets. Given how poorly we are all getting along, perhaps self-imposed separation—having nothing to do with COVID—is a good thing. After all, we now know that nearly everything can be accomplished remotely. The virtual has become the new normal.

Along with the absence of norms as we know it. We are well beyond blaming civilization for our discontents, as Sigmund Freud would have us do. Our problem now is the loss of civilization itself. There’s nothing left but grinding, teeth-gnashing discontent, a fractious political culture that feeds off the implacable, extremist fringe. No wonder patriotism has plunged. What with all that socially acceptable rudeness, we have become a belligerent, poorly behaved, self-entitled nation.

What with all that socially acceptable rudeness, we have become a belligerent, poorly behaved, self-entitled nation.

Nothing is held in reserve anymore. There is no longer any perceived valor in discretion. To be discrete is a coward’s domain. Self-discipline is a vice. No thought need ever be suppressed; nothing should ever go unsaid. And expressing the wrong opinion should properly invite moral banishment. Friends forever lost; job offers withdrawn; families forsaken. In such a Manichean world of Hobbesian choices and Orwellian absurdity, impulse control is forever short-circuited, and anything goes.

It is a world where Oscar winners in black-tie smack one another and shout profanities in front of a billion viewers. One apparently humorless, but knife-wielding audience member recently tackled Dave Chappelle while he performed his act at the Hollywood Bowl. In a culture where words no longer have common meaning, jokes are treated like weapons of mass destruction.

Comedians are all on notice to take cover.

So, too, with more somber judges. The entire conservative bloc of the Supreme Court has had their home addresses revealed and may now be in danger of reactionary progressives going all January 6th on them—from the other side of the political spectrum! Yes, the hard-left has insurrectionists, too, as various Black Lives Matter protests revealed all too uncomfortably.

Of course, Confederate statues, police precincts, Apple stores and now Supreme Court Justices are, for some, legitimate targets—crimes, if at all, that are no more than misdemeanors.

Speaking of Apple, some of its employees are resisting calls to return to the workplace. They might as well join the teachers’ union, given that its members have a similar aversion to their classrooms. Generous COVID-relief packages and stimulus checks, for many, spelled severance in perpetuity.

All of them could find common cause with editors who censor books and writers who self-censor themselves in order to placate the received wisdom of the closeminded. These are the very same people who brought us “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings.” Now they are demanding that their unpaid college loans be forgiven, even though, their education, by all appearances, was wasted on them.

Indeed, the entire report card on America is of the kind that should not be shown to parents. It doesn’t help when standardized tests have been mothballed and mathematics is deemed racist. Mercifully, at least reading is still allowable, except for a list of disfavored books that can now fill its own library. Legions of teachers have shown themselves to be less interested in matriculating than in indoctrinating their students to the evils of white supremacy and the sin of separate bathrooms.

These are the true trappings of the woke, where there are no corrections for having bad politics and where sensitivities often have more to do with being thin-skinned—petulantly refusing to function reasonably in the world. Safeguarding the supersensitive has become a national priority.

Except when it comes to Jews. A fine example of that came this week when Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, proclaimed that Adolf Hitler had Jewish blood and that the Holocaust was partly brought on by Jews who could not curb their own antisemitism.

First there was “Springtime for Hitler.” Now we’re being told about Hanukkah for Hitler.

Talk about a macroaggression. Aside from Israel, and Jews who care about historical memory, no one seemed to mind this latest vulgar twist on the blood libel—the kind not only on Hitler’s hands, but, even worse, inside Jews themselves.


Thane Rosenbaum is a novelist, essayist, law professor and Distinguished University Professor at Touro University, where he directs the Forum on Life, Culture & Society. He is the legal analyst for CBS News Radio. His most recent book is titled “Saving Free Speech … From Itself.”

Bedlam and More Blood Libels Read More »

Open Letter to the Editorial Board of the Harvard Crimson

Dear Harvard Crimson Editorial Board,

On Friday, April 29, you published an editorial expressing your support for the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement. I read the editorial. Several times. There were things I disagreed with, and that’s fine. But there were also things I found troubling based on facts that you may or may not have realized when you decided to publish the editorial. I’m sure the decision to publish wasn’t easy. I’m sure there was disagreement and debate behind the scenes. I’m sure you all had many different opinions. So I respectfully ask you to hear me out and consider another perspective to which, perhaps, you’ve never been exposed.

Now I’m not quite a journalist—I just sort of play one on the Internet. And I humbly acknowledge that I didn’t go to Harvard. But I was lucky enough to marry an incredible woman who did go to Harvard, and Harvard Medical School, and she worked on the Crimson. That’s right, I have a Crimson alumna in my household. So it’s with great admiration for your institution that I share my response to your editorial.

Let’s start with the art display that appeared on the Harvard campus as part of Israel Apartheid Week. In your editorial, you express support for the art display. You acknowledge that it’s controversial, but you say it dares the viewer to contend with “well-established facts.”

One of the panels from the art display simply contains words on a white background that read: “ZIONISM IS RACISM SETTLER COLONIALISM WHITE SUPREMACY APARTHEID.” I could understand if you said that you think it has an important message, or that you agree with the underlying cause, but you said “well-established facts.” Are you saying it’s a well-established fact that Zionism is racism? That’s not a fact; that’s an opinion. I personally think it’s an ill-informed opinion—one the vast majority of Jews find offensive and dangerous.

Another panel from the art display appears to show a riot police officer menacingly hovering over three men with multiple bloody bullet holes in their chests, above an upside down American Flag. This panel plays on the debunked conspiracy theory known as “Deadly Exchange” that blames Israel for police violence against African-Americans in the U.S. According to the American Jewish Committee, the Deadly Exchange Theory is categorically false. AJC states: “Accusing Israel or Zionists of complicity in the murder of Black people is malicious, perpetuates antisemitism, and blames Jews for societal ills.” When you wrote this editorial, were you aware of those conspiracy theories, and the danger they pose to American Jews? Or did you not realize that kind of message might be living in the art panel that you just endorsed as containing “well-established facts”?

Your editorial then spends two paragraphs discussing antisemitism, focusing on your belief that the art display is not antisemitic. You start with this line: “In the wake of accusations suggesting otherwise, we feel the need to assert that support for Palestinian liberation is not antisemitic.” Hold on, did the people who called the art display antisemitic really say that “support for Palestinian liberation” is the thing they had a problem with? Or do you think maybe they were talking about statements like “Zionism is racism,” and accusing the world’s only Jewish country of White Supremacy, and that not-so-subtle attempt to link Israel to the killing of Black people in America? Perhaps that’s what they were upset about? And if you believe all of those messages aren’t antisemitic, fine. Make that argument. But you’re pretending that they were attacking “support for Palestinian liberation.” That’s a weak, disingenuous tactic that in my opinion is unbefitting the editorial board of the Harvard Crimson. It’s a textbook example of a strawman argument. And it’s not like you don’t know what a strawman argument is because in the very next paragraph, you say that the people calling it antisemitic are “straw-manning legitimate arguments.” You tried to pull off a double strawman. That might be a first in Crimson history.

It’s one thing to argue that something is not antisemitic. You’re entitled to your opinion and I respect that. But to attack the members of a marginalized community for sharing their opinion of what they find antisemitic? To question their motives and undermine their credibility by misrepresenting what they actually find objectionable? I find that deeply offensive. Please don’t silence and marginalize Jewish voices like that.

You begin the next section by saying: “Israel remains America’s favorite first amendment blindspot” because of the pushback against BDS. Before I went to film school, I was actually a First Amendment lawyer. I had the opportunity to work for a legendary First Amendment lawyer named Floyd Abrams. I am a strong defender of the First Amendment. I am deeply committed to freedom of speech. In my opinion, if you support free speech then BDS is not the side for you. The whole purpose of the BDS movement is to censor and sideline. BDS attempts to shun Israeli academics and artists. BDS is about canceling an entire country. It’s such a disturbing inversion for you to claim that the people who try to fight BDS are the cancelers.

In your editorial you state that “civil discourse and debate … are fundamental steps towards a better reality.” I completely agree. So, can we please acknowledge the bullying tactics that are regularly used by pro-BDS groups on campuses all over the country? Have you ever been to an event on campus that was stormed by a pro-BDS group? They do everything they can to stifle civil discourse and debate. They interrupt and yell over speakers with opposing views. They forcibly shut down conversations they don’t want to hear. The BDS movement is not about respectful debate; it’s about doing everything they can to silence the opposing perspective. It’s about never having to truly defend or debate your positions with someone who disagrees.

You go on to claim that journalists face professional risks for openly condemning Israel’s policies, and you provide a few examples. You mention a news editor who was fired by the Associated Press for her tweets that you describe as “critical of Israel.” Well according to the AP, the person you’re talking about was fired for violating their social media guidelines, not for being “critical of Israel.” That’s a relevant point you failed to mention, that I learned just by reading the article to which you linked. But more importantly, in one of her social media posts she says she’s planning to protest a Birthright fundraiser that’s featuring “naked mole rat-looking billionaire Shel Adelson.” Is that the “civil discourse” that you value so much? Is this really the hill that you’re willing to let the reputation of the Crimson die on? Is it possible that the AP wouldn’t have fired her if instead of making fun of the appearance of a person whose views she disagrees with, she actually wrote an intelligent tweet critical of Israel? I think for you to claim that her firing by the AP was merely because she was “critical of Israel” is a pretty significant mischaracterization.

You also link to an article about Marc Lamont Hill getting fired from CNN to support your claim that journalists get “shunned from the newsroom” if they “endorse Palestinian freedom.” But that’s not exactly what happened to Lamont Hill. If he just announced into a microphone: “I endorse Palestinian freedom,” I feel confident there wouldn’t have been a problem. But he didn’t. During a twenty minute speech to the UN, he criticized Israel in detail in ways that he’s perfectly entitled to, and that would not have gotten him fired. But, he also included a section during which he seemed to excuse and endorse violence as a means of Palestinian resistance. He dismissed what he called Gandhian non-violence and insisted that we cannot restrict the array of tactics at the disposal of the Palestinians. Considering the fact that Gaza is currently ruled by Hamas, a group officially designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, Canada, the E.U., the U.K., Japan and Australia, and a group that openly targets civilians and promotes terrorism, his endorsement of violence was reckless and deplorable. That is what I found most troubling about his speech.

He also ended his speech calling for “A free Palestine from the River to the Sea.” This is the part that made a lot of headlines at the time, because “From the River to the Sea” is originally a Hamas slogan, widely understood to be a call for the destruction of Israel. There is a material difference between saying “From the River to the Sea” and, as you put it, endorsing Palestinian freedom. It’s like if someone got fired for wearing a Klan hood for Halloween, and you described it as getting fired for wearing white after Labor Day.

I understand that some people may repeat the slogan “From the River to the Sea” as their way to say they just want Palestinians to be free no matter where they live between the river and the sea. I understand that some people might not realize that by repeating that slogan, they’re empowering other people who use that slogan to mean Israel’s destruction. But Lamont Hill should’ve understood the dark history of the phrase. And by now it’s been so heavily covered that you should too.

But maybe you don’t, so let me clearly demonstrate why people like me are so alarmed by that slogan. If you go to the New York Times archive right now and search for the earliest article that used the phrase “From the River to the Sea” you’ll find an article from December 20, 1992 that describes how Hamas, which was a new militant group at the time, was strongly opposed to peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

According to the article, Hamas was growing in popularity with its message, which the New York Times described as “Holy war to establish an Islamic state ‘from the river to the sea,’ in the entire area of Israel and the occupied territories.”

Lamont Hill was not fired for “endorsing Palestinian freedom” as you put it. He was fired for endorsing Palestinian violence, and, whether he did it knowingly or negligently, for endorsing the destruction of Israel. And even if you still disagree with his firing, the way you mischaracterize it to fit the narrative of your editorial is weak and unethical, and a terrible stain on the reputation of the Crimson.

We finally get to the real core of the editorial, the section where you explain why you support the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement. You say that Israel’s current policy pushes Palestinians towards indefinite statelessness and hurts the prospect of a two-state solution. Now, I’m not going to dive into a whole explanation of why I think BDS is not the best way to achieve peace. You’re entitled to your opinion, and you’re entitled to share that opinion in an editorial. But I just want to take a moment to pose a question to which I personally have never heard a satisfying answer. If you believe BDS is the best way to get to peace and a two-state solution, then presumably that means you think Israel is the one with the power to make peace happen. So, what exactly do you think Israel can unilaterally do to bring about a two-state solution? I understand why you may feel that the settlements, and some of Israel’s other policies may pose some obstacles to peace, but in the absence of any obstacles posed by the Israeli side, do you think there would be peace? Did the editorial board discuss any of the obstacles posed by the Palestinian side? Like the fact that a huge chunk of Palestinians are ruled by Hamas, a terrorist group that’s sworn to Israel’s destruction, and, as I just demonstrated, came to power with an explicitly anti-peace message. A group that incites violence and indoctrinates child soldiers and celebrates terrorism. Not only do they carry out terrorist attacks on civilians, they pay around seven percent of their budget on special bonus salaries for convicted terrorists and their families. They name schools after the terrorists.

Do you know how many Palestinians support a two-state solution? No one really does, because Hamas denies its people basic freedoms including the freedom to disagree or advocate for peace with Israel. An example is when Hamas arrested three Palestinian peace activists and charged them with “weakening revolutionary spirit.”

Did you know all of this when you decided to sign on to BDS? Given the significant obstacles to peace that exist on the Palestinian side, why are you so convinced that Israel is the one with the power to make peace? Why are you so convinced that you’re willing to endorse such an extreme tactic like boycotting an entire nation of people? What if you’re wrong?

Finally, there’s one more thing I feel compelled to point out regarding your editorial. Clearly you are in favor of a two-state solution since you explain your support for BDS by your assertion that Israel’s policies hurt the prospect of a two-state solution. But remember at the very beginning of the editorial, you said that you broadly and proudly support the Harvard College Palestine Solidarity Committee’s mission? Well I took a look at their mission and it calls for a right of return for Palestinian refugees, which is a non-starter for Israel. It’s unrealistic and inconsistent with a two-state solution. Is this something you thought about before deciding to endorse their mission?

Their mission also calls for Israel ending its “occupation and colonization of all Arab lands.” I find “all Arab lands” to be a peculiar way to phrase it. Since you support their mission, I’m curious what “all Arab lands” means to the editorial board of the Crimson? Does it mean the ‘67 borders? The Green Line? Have you considered the possibility that it might mean all of Israel to some people? What do you think “all Arab lands” means to the Palestine Solidarity Committee?

Honestly, reading the PSC’s mission, it doesn’t look like the mission of a group that supports a two-state solution. Have you asked them if they support a two-state solution? Do you think that’s something you should clarify? This is basic diligence I’d want to do if I were endorsing the mission of another organization.

Why does any of this matter? Why do I care enough to give such a detailed response to your editorial? Because this isn’t just some rinky dink high school newspaper. This is the Harvard Crimson. You sit in positions of great promise and privilege. Your destinies are limitless, and your futures are still unwritten.

I think you want to see yourselves in the same light as the heroic voices that took a brave stand against Apartheid South Africa. But this is not the stand that you think it is. Publishing this editorial was not the brave choice. It was the easy one. It was a choice to buckle to the pressure of the bullying mob that everyone sees, but few are willing to call out. I think someday you may realize that publishing this editorial puts you in the same company as the many, many cowardly souls throughout history who conformed to the popular witch-hunt of the day.

Respectfully,

Jason A. Kessler


Jason A. Kessler (@jasonakessler) is a screenwriter, filmmaker, and host of the web series “Jew or False” that fights antisemitism and misinformation with truth and humor.

Open Letter to the Editorial Board of the Harvard Crimson Read More »

Why It’s Important to Never Give Up on Old Friends

The pandemic of the past few years disrupted education, pushing children and educators into online classrooms. Many of these classrooms still remain virtual, with Zoom as the only method of connecting. But what if schools had shut down, instead, because of widespread protests, tanks in the streets, and the declaration of martial law?

My senior year of high school coincided with the Iranian revolution. Ettefagh (which means unity in Persian) Jewish day school had been the epicenter of my life during my formative years. My friends and I spent the innocent years of primary school and the boisterous years of high school together. During the 1970s, in prerevolutionary Iran, our lives paralleled our Western counterparts. We attended each other’s birthday parties, watched newly released Hollywood movies, followed the latest Western fashion trends, and idolized the American superstar, David Cassidy. As we grew older, we sat for hours as we shared our secrets or analyzed the latest episode of “Donny and Marie,” the television variety show hosted by the American brother-and-sister duo Donny and Marie Osmond. 

As we grew up, we looked forward to our graduation in 1979. We expected to continue our education in one of Tehran’s universities and maintain strong bonds as we took on adulthood responsibilities. But in the summer of 1978, our school’s proximity to the University of Tehran became the epicenter of a revolution. We witnessed chaos, anarchy, and the dissolution of 2,500 years of the Persian monarchy in our country. We remained home instead of fulfilling our senior year in the classroom due to mass uprising and discontent with the status quo. Finally, 1979 ushered in a new era of a clergy-ruled promised utopia.

The chains of years of friendship were so badly severed that there was no time for proper goodbyes or graduation, as most of my friends searched for new lives elsewhere.

The acute societal turmoil of that era disrupted our education and affected students’ life outcomes. The future remained unknown, with speculations for the worst to come. Suddenly, our laid-out plans became unattainable. Most of my community, apprehensive of the hostile authoritarian government in charge of a new order, hastily left our ancient homeland. The chains of years of friendship were so badly severed that there was no time for proper goodbyes or graduation, as most of my friends searched for new lives elsewhere. But I remained in the Islamic Republic of Iran for eight more years. Social media didn’t exist, and new laws further broke friendship ties. I forever lost a close friend who had gone to Israel, and by state mandate, I could no longer contact her from Iran.

I finally immigrated to the United States in 1987, and for almost thirty years, my high school years remained a fragment of my memories. Those friendships belonged to a forgotten era and a lost world that no longer existed. Furthermore, it was likely that, due to marriage, my friends had different last names, as I, too, now carried my married last name.  

Then, in the summer of 2010, I got an unexpected call from New York. Vida, an Ettefagh classmate whom I had not heard from since 1979, said that with the help of a distant family connection in Chicago, I had been “found.” The overwhelming majority of my friends had resettled in southern California or New York and its surrounding area, while I had made my life in the Midwest.

At our high school reunion in February 2015, we, the graduating students of the class of 1979, gathered from different corners of the United States and celebrated our long friendships in Los Angeles. Fortunately, our assistant principal, physics teacher, and art teacher, who are now in the later parts of their lives, also attended. One of us told the art teacher about the prank she had pulled off in the class by showing the teacher someone else’s work and receiving a good grade!

Exhilarated by our get-together, we reminisced about the “good old days.” We laughed, cried, joked, and shared memories of our teachers, the school janitor, and the school team’s basketball matches. We fondly recalled the sandwich shop and the bakery we used to visit during our lunch hours and the lavashak (thin pieces of dried fruit) treats we used to have during recess. Who else could I sit with and share stories from another time, culture, and place, who could understand and complete my unfinished sentence?

There is nothing like the feeling of reconnecting with a friend from high school as we are getting older. Life has its way of dispersing people, but when you meet again years later, you find that your friend did not go away. Today, our American children have no recollections of how life was before the revolution. But as I reminisce about the halcyon days of my past, I’m thrilled to savor old memories and recreate new ones with those who lived it with me.

Recently, my friends and I attended the wedding of a classmate’s son in New York. During the long weekend filled with magical moments, we felt like teenagers again. Then, on a short two-day visit to Los Angeles, I made sure to make dinner plans with my friends before heading off to the airport. On a broader scale, there is now a Facebook page dedicated to attendees of Ettefagh school, with photos from the 1960s and 1970s when we were students in a world that no longer exists.

A Persian saying goes something like this: “Mountain ranges will never be within each other’s reach, but people will somehow reconnect again.” (“Kooh be kooh nemireseh, ama adam be adam mireseh.”) Despite the forty-three-year time-lapse, this expression is a testament to the graduating class of the Iranian revolution and to our undeniable bond that transcends time and distance.


Jacqueline Saper is the author of “From Miniskirt to Hijab: A Girl in Revolutionary Iran.” (Potomac Books of the University of Nebraska Press). jacquelinesaper.com

Why It’s Important to Never Give Up on Old Friends Read More »