Connect with us

The Dictatorship

How anti-Israel rhetoric contributes to antisemitism and real-world violence

Published

on

How anti-Israel rhetoric contributes to antisemitism and real-world violence

On Sunday, hundreds of Australian Jews gathered, as Jews have done for millennia, to light the Menorah on the first night of Hanukkah. At the same time, two armed men engaged in another historic custom: targeting Jews because they are Jews. Fifteen people were killed in the massacre at Bondi Beach, including a 10-year-old girl and an 87-year-old Holocaust survivor.

For Australia’s small but vibrant Jewish communities, this weekend’s tragedy was horrifying but, on some level, hardly surprising. Since the massacre of more than 1,000 Israelis on Oct. 7, 2023, antisemitic incidents in Australia have increased fivefold. Indeed, only two days after the worst mass murder of Jews since the Holocaust, a demonstration outside the world-famous Sydney Opera House led to chants of “F— the Jews.”

Since then, the litany of antisemitic incidents in the land Down Under will be all too familiar to Diaspora Jewish communities around the world.

For Australia’s small but vibrant Jewish communities, this weekend’s tragedy was horrifying but hardly surprising.

A synagogue was burned to the ground. Kosher restaurants were vandalized. Protests were launched at Jewish restaurants. A Jewish educational institution was spray-painted with antisemitic epithets, and swastikas showed up on the walls of local synagogues. That this unending cycle of intimidation, threats and provocation would eventually lead to violence should be a surprise to no one.

Indeed, why in the two years since the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust are Jewish communities in New York City, ManchesterLondonTorontoLos Angeles and Amsterdam under siege?

First, for more than two years, many anti-Israel activists have preached a message of “globalize the intifada” or “intifada revolution” and “from the river to the seaPalestine will be free” — a statement that negates the existence of Israel. They’ve spoken of a “global struggle against Zionism,” be it in Israel or New York or Sydney.

Israel’s detractors will argue that such rhetoric is not antisemitism or even inflammatory. They will parse their language and claim that calls for an intifada are merely a demand that opposition to Israel should be globalized and that Western countries must end their support for Israel.

But the second intifada in Israel was a suicide bombing campaign that directly targeted Israeli civilians. Restaurants and nightclubs were attacked. A Passover Seder was targeted. Buses were destroyed. Thousands were killed and maimed.

Raising the specter of intifada and then arguing that such words do not provide a permission structure to those intent on violence is willful blindness.

The events at Bondi Beach were merely a logical extension of this inflammatory rhetoric — and as this language becomes normalized, the threats to Jews everywhere only increase.

Second, many pro-Palestine activists simply make no distinction between Israeli Jews waging war in Gaza and Jews in Diaspora communities around the world. For them, if you’re a Zionist (and the overwhelming majority of Jews identify as such), you are as guilty as the Israel Defense Force soldiers fighting in Gaza.

It’s why pro-Palestinian activists recently gathered outside a synagogue in New York’s Upper East Side, because of an event with an Israeli organization called Nefesh B’Nefesh that provides information to Jews interested in moving to Israel. Protesters claimed that the event was aimed at encouraging Jews to move to West Bank settlements, a claim that Nefesh B’Nefesh denies. But even if the protesters were correct, how does that justify chants such as “From New York to Gaza, globalize the intifada,” “Take another settler out” or “We need to make them scared”? And the city’s newly elected mayor, Zohran Mamdani, who has refused to condemn the term “globalize the intifada,” took great care to equally blame both those outside shouting antisemitic slogans and threatening congregants and those inside the synagogue.

Raising the specter of intifada and then arguing that such words do not provide a permission structure to those intent on violence is willful blindness.

It’s why any Jew who refuses to condemn Israel or deny their religious, cultural or tribal connection to the Jewish State will inevitably, at some point, be branded a supporter of genocide (and for those who don’t believe me, I invite them to check out my Twitter feed after this piece is published).

Whatever one’s view is on the war in Gaza, simply because one is Jewish, simply because one is a Zionist and simply because one feels a connection to Israel, does not make one culpable for Israel’s actions. But for many of the most radical voices in the pro-Palestinian activist community, a Jew believing that Jews should have the same right to self-determination as any other ethnic group is a scarlet letter.

It’s why antisemitic incidents have not just increased in Australia but practically everywhere Jews live. And it’s why Diaspora Jews feel increasingly under siege.

One might expect sympathy over this calamitous turn of events — and the vulnerability of minority Jewish communities — but instead, the opposite is true.

Indeed, for months Australia’s Jewish community warned about the increase in antisemitic incidents and potential for violence. They beseeched the government to take the issue more seriously. But to no avail.

Are American Jews at a similar inflection point? Polls routinely show that an overwhelming majority of American Jews feel less safe, particularly as antisemitic incidents continue to rise. Earlier this week, a Jewish man was allegedy attacked by two men on a crowded New York subwayshouting “F*** the Jews.” Antisemitic incidents in the city have dramatically increased since Oct. 7. But there are more subtle forms of antisemitism from the left that are growing increasingly mainstream.

Earlier this fall, the progressive hosts of “Pod Save America” gathered in Washington for their annual conference and included Hasan Piker as a speaker. Piker has, over the past two yearsroutinely attacked Orthodox Jews as “inbred,” denied that Israelis were sexually assaulted on Oct. 7 and suggested Zionism was synonymous with Nazism. If Piker had made similar derogatory comments about other members of a minority group or excused terrorism by those who target non-Israelis, it’s impossible to imagine a liberal-leaning group platforming him. But as Jews have learned since Oct. 7, the rules for them are different.

After the shooting at Bondi Beach, both Democratic and Republican politicians quickly condemned the tragedy and piously declared that antisemitism is bad and has no place in our society. These declarations have become the Jewish equivalent of “thoughts and prayers” after the latest mass shooting.

They are a tool for ritualistically condemning antisemitism without actually confronting the anti-Jewish hatred that increasingly finds a home within each political party and is particularly potent among young people.

Without action, without direct condemnation and the ostracizing of those who traffic in antisemitism — and without a recognition that a good amount of anti-Israeli rhetoric has morphed into anti-Jewish hatred — the bloodshed at Bondi Beach will be repeated. But next time, it could be much closer to home.

Michael Cohen is an BLN columnist. He is also the publisher of the newsletter Truth and Consequences and hosts the weekly podcast That ‘70s Movie Podcast.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

Justice Jackson chides ‘oblivious’ Supreme Court conservatives…

Published

on

Justice Jackson chides ‘oblivious’ Supreme Court conservatives…

WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme CourtJustice Ketanji Brown Jackson has delivered a sustained attack on her conservative colleagues’ use of emergency orders to benefit the Trump administration, calling the orders “scratch-paper musings” that can “seem oblivious and thus ring hollow.”

The court’s newest justice, Jackson delivered a lengthy assessment of roughly two dozen court orders issued last year that allowed President Donald Trump to put in place controversial policies on immigration, steep federal funding cuts and other topics, after lower courts found they were likely illegal.

While designed to be short-term, those orders have largely allowed Trump to move ahead — for now — with key parts of his sweeping agenda.

Jackson spoke for nearly an hour on Monday at Yale Law School, which posted a video of the event on Wednesday.

Last week, Justice Sonia Sotomayor similarly talked about emergency orders in an event Tuesday at the University of Alabama that also took issue with the conservatives’ approach.

Jackson has previously criticized the emergency orders both in dissenting opinions and in an unusual appearance with Justice Brett Kavanaugh last month. But her talk at Yale, addressing the public rather than the other eight justices, was notable.

She referred to orders, which often are issued with little or no explanation as “back-of-the-envelope, first-blush impressions of the merits of the legal issue.”

Worse still, she said, was that the court then insists that “those scratch-paper musings” be applied by lower courts in other cases.

The orders suffer from an additional problem, she said, a failure to acknowledge that real people are involved, making them “seem oblivious and thus ring hollow.”

She also pushed back on the court’s assessment that preventing the president from putting his policy in place also is a harm that often outweighs what the challengers to a policy might face.

“The president of the United States, though he may be harmed in an abstract way, he certainly isn’t harmed if what he wants to do is illegal,” Jackson said during a question-and-answer session with law school dean Cristina Rodriguez.

The court used to be reluctant to step into cases early in the legal process, she said. “There is value in avoiding having the court continually touching the third rail of every divisive policy issue in American life,” Jackson said.

While she said she couldn’t explain the change, “in recent years, the Supreme Court has taken a decidedly different approach to addressing emergency stay applications. It has been noticeably less restrained, especially with respect to pending cases that involve controversial matters.”

Sign up for Morning Wire: Our flagship newsletter breaks down the biggest headlines of the day.

Jackson, often joined by Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan, has frequently dissented.

There have been conversations about emergency orders among the justices, Jackson said, but she decided to speak publicly with the goal of being “a catalyst for change.”

Also on Wednesday, Sotomayor issued a rare public apology to another justice, Kavanaugh, for what she termed “hurtful comments” she made last week during an appearance at the University of Kansas law school.

Referencing an opinion Kavanaugh wrote in an immigration case where the court granted an emergency order sought by the administration, Sotomayor said her colleague “probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour.” Her remarks were reported by Bloomberg Law.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Trump threatens to fire Powell if the Fed Chair remains with central bank after his term ends

Published

on

Trump threatens to fire Powell if the Fed Chair remains with central bank after his term ends

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal prosecutors made an unannounced visit this week to a construction site at Federal Reserve headquarters that is the focus of an investigation into a $2.5 billion renovation projectaccording to two people familiar with the visit.

Two prosecutors and an investigator from U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s office were turned away on Tuesday by a building contractor and referred to Fed attorneys, one of the people said. The two people familiar with the visit spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to publicly discuss an ongoing investigation.

The visit underscores that the Trump administration is not backing down from its investigation of the Fed and its chair, Jerome Powell, even though the probe has delayed the confirmation of a new chair nominated by President Donald Trump. The investigation is focused on cost overruns and brief testimony about the project last summer by Powell. Trump confirmed in an interview that aired Wednesday on Fox Business that he wants to continue the probe.

Last month, during a closed-door hearing before a federal judge, a top deputy from Pirro’s office conceded that they hadn’t found any evidence of a crime in their investigation of the headquarters project.

Robert Hur, an attorney for the Federal Reserve board of governors, sent an email to Pirro’s prosecutors about their visit and their request for a “tour” to “check on progress” at the construction site. Hur’s email, which The Associated Press has viewed, noted that U.S. District Judge James Boasberg concluded that their interest in the Federal Reserve’s renovation project was “pretextual.”

AP AUDIO: Prosecutors sought access to Federal Reserve building as Trump threatens to fire Powell

AP Washington correspondent Sagar Meghani reports on more drama surrounding a federal probe of a massive construction project at the Federal Reserve’s headquarters.

“Should you wish to challenge that finding, the courts provide an avenue for you; it is not appropriate for you to try to circumvent it,” Hur wrote.

Republican Tillis is key vote

Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican who is a key member of the Senate Banking Committee, has vowed to vote against Kevin WarshTrump’s nominee to replace Powell as Fed chair, until the investigation is dropped. With the committee closely divided on partisan lines, Tillis’ opposition is enough to block Warsh from receiving the committee’s approval.

Tillis on Wednesday criticized the investigation as “bogus, ill-timed, ill-informed” and repeated that seven Republican members of the banking panel have said they do not believe Powell committed a crime when he testified last June.

Tillis also said there aren’t enough votes on the committee or in the broader Senate to do an end-run around the committee and get Warsh confirmed some other way.

“There really is no path,” he told reporters, adding that Pirro and her aides were “asleep at the switch” because the investigation has essentially delayed Powell’s departure from the Fed, despite Trump’s obsessive criticism of the Fed chair. Powell has now said he won’t leave until the investigation is resolved.

Sign up for Morning Wire: Our flagship newsletter breaks down the biggest headlines of the day.

Tillis suggested Pirro blindsided the White House with her investigation. “They should have consulted with the White House, because I’m sure if they would have, (the White House) would have said, ‘no, we can wait,’” until Powell steps down.

But Kevin Hassett, the Trump administration’s top economist, said Wednesday that the Justice Department got involved because “the president wanted to investigate the cost overrun,” Axios reported.

The Banking panel said Tuesday that it will hold a hearing on Warsh’s nomination April 21. Powell’s term as Fed chair ends May 15, but Powell said last month he would remain as chair until a replacement is named.

Powell is serving a separate term as a member of the Fed’s governing board that lasts until January 2028. Chairs typically leave the board when their terms as chair end, but they can remain on the board if they choose. Powell has said he won’t leave until the investigation is resolved. If he remains it would deny Trump the opportunity to appoint someone else to the seven-member board.

Late Tuesday Tillis posted a link on social media to The Wall Street Journal’s article on the visit below an image of the Three Stooges and wrote, “The U.S. Attorney’s Office for D.C. at the crime scene.”

Investigation centers on building renovations

The investigation centers on an appearance by Powell before the Banking Committee last June, when he was asked about cost overruns on the renovations. The most recent estimates from the Fed suggest the current estimated cost of $2.5 billion is about $600 million higher than a 2022 estimate of $1.9 billion.

“It is probably corrupt, but what it really is, is incompetent,” Trump said. “Don’t you think we have to find out what happened there?”

The president’s support for the investigation threatens a timeframe set out by Sen. Tim Scott, a South Carolina Republican who chairs the Banking Committee. Scott said Tuesday on Fox Business that he believed the investigation would be “wrapped up in the next few weeks,” allowing Warsh to be confirmed soon after.

Threat to fire Powell

News of the unannounced visit by prosecutors comes as Trump has again threatened to fire Powell, if the Federal Reserve Chair decides to stay on the central bank’s governing board after his term as chair expires next month.

“Well then I’ll have to fire him, OK?” Trump said.

Trump has for months wanted to remove Powell, saying he has been too slow in orchestrating interest rate cuts that would give the U.S. economy a quick boost. Powell has said the investigation is a pretext to undermine the Fed’s independence to set rates.

Sen. Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican, said Trump can only fire Powell “for cause,” meaning some kind of misconduct, “so that’s a pretty tall order.”

Supreme Court weighing another Trump removal

Trump’s threat to fire Powell comes as the Supreme Court is weighing the president’s effort to remove another central bank governor, Lisa Cook. Lower courts have so far allowed Cook to remain in her job while her legal challenge to the firing continues. The Supreme Court also seemed likely to keep her on the Fed when the court heard arguments in January. A decision could come any time.

The issue in Cook’s case is whether allegations of mortgage fraud, which she has denied, is a sufficient reason to fire her or a mere pretext masking Trump’s desire to exert more control over U.S. interest rate policy.

The Supreme Court has allowed the firings of the heads of other governmental agencies at the president’s discretion, with no claim that they did anything wrong, while also signaling that it is approaching the independence of the nation’s central bank more cautiouslycalling the Fed “a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity.”

___

AP Writers Seung Min Kim, Mark Sherman, Paul Wiseman, Alanna Durkin Richer, and video journalist Nathan Ellgren contributed to this report.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

The Latest: US blockade of Iranian ports ‘fully implemented’ as Trump says war is near end

Published

on

The Latest: US blockade of Iranian ports ‘fully implemented’ as Trump says war is near end

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending