By David Harsanyi
Thursday, March 14, 2019
In Germany this week, a regional court ruled that the
2014 firebombing of Bergisch Synagogue in Wuppertal, while a criminal act of
arson, was not an anti-Semitic incident. The judge had upheld a lower court
ruling deemed that the three Palestinian immigrants who had thrown Molotov
cocktails at the synagogue were merely calling “attention to the Gaza
conflict.” Because nothing shows concern for the Middle East peace process like
trying to burn down a Jewish house of worship with homemade incendiary devices.
The three men, who had admitted to the authorities that
they were motivated by hatred of Israel, were ultimately given suspended
sentences, since “no anti-Semitic motivation could be identified.” Now, it’s
doubtful that many, or any, of the congregants at the Bergisch Synagogue were
Israelis. It’s unlikely the would-be arsonists took a poll of the congregants’
views on the Jewish state. It is unknown whether the bomb-throwers were merely critics of Likud’s policies, or whether
they subscribed to Hamas’ view that “Jews”—not, “Israelis”—should be chased
entirely from the ancestral homeland.
We can be certain, however, that the men targeted this
particular house of worship because Israel is the homeland of Jews. We know
animosity towards Jews is rampant throughout the Islamic world, and that the
same hatred is gaining a foothold in the West under the guise of
“anti-Zionism.” The fact that German officials are rationalizing political
violence in a city that was home
to one of the first concentration camps is just an added reminder of its
nefarious nature—not to mention the importance of the existence of a nation
where Jews can protect themselves rather than having to beg German officials do
it for them.
This week in Norway, the state attorney dismissed a case
against a rapper named Kaveh Kholardi. Last summer, Kholardi was hired by the
city of Oslo to perform at a family festival to celebrate “diversity and
inclusion.” During his performance, Kholardi asked if there were any Jews in
the audience, before going on a rant about the “f***ing Jews.” A few days
earlier, the rapper had tweeted that the “f***ing Jews are so corrupt.”
There are only 789 Jews
left in Norway.
The court found that Kholardi’s “remarks were demeaning,
untruthful and offensive, but they are not breaching the law.” A fine outcome
if you, like me, believe that hate speech laws undermine an inherent right to
free expression. In Norway, however, they do not. It is still illegal to
“deliberately or grossly negligently publicly present a discriminatory or
hateful expression shall be punished by fines or imprisonment for up to 3
years.”
When this fact was brought up to Tor Aksel Busch,
Norway’s director of public prosecutions, he explained that while the comments
by the Muslim rapper “seems to be targeting Jews” they can also be looked at as
a way to “express dissatisfaction with the policies of the State of Israel.”
If these excuses sound familiar to you, it’s because
American progressives have increasingly adopted them in their own efforts to
protect—and in some cases, normalize—anti-Semitism.
In the United States this week, leading presidential
candidate Bernie Sanders’ national deputy press secretary, Belén Sisa, in the
midst of defending Rep. Ilhan Omar’s smears against American Jewry, asked: “Do
you not think that the American government and American Jewish community has a
dual allegiance to the State of Israel?” Although at this point it’s
unsurprising that Marxists are making dual loyalty smears, it is perhaps
somewhat peculiar that that the person doing it is an illegal immigrant.
Just like Omar and Rashida Tlaib, the Congressional Black
Caucus who powwow with the Nation of Islam cult, and all their advocates across
the Democratic Party, Sisa was attacking American Jews, not Israeli policy. Yet
one of the most repeated falsehoods surrounding these incidents—endlessly
regurgitated in the media—is that we are debating the limits of how “critical”
one can be about Israeli policy. Sisa aimed her comment at Americans.
But it’s clear that “anti-Zionist” antagonism is fueled
by Jew hatred, not the reverse. Israel, of course, is the epitome of Jewish
power, so it makes sense. Many liberal Jews (which is to say most Jews) like to
pretend Israel has nothing to do with them. The haters emphatically disagree.
Even secular Jews who drift away from the tradition and faith, and those who
have replaced their Jewish values with the Democratic Party platform, or those
progressives who blame Benjamin Netanyahu or scapegoat Republicans, or simply
don’t care, will still be blamed whenever Jews in Israel defend themselves.
Count on it.
It’s worth remembering that “anti-Zionist” terrorism
–whether perpetrated by Palestinians, Iranians, or the Baader-Meinhof
Group—have always targeted Jews, not merely Israelis. It was so long before
Netanyahu was prime minister, long before Likud ever won a national election in
Israel, and even before there were ever “occupied territories.” (Unless, of
course, you, like many progressives, believe all of Israel is an occupied
territory.)
The most charitable reading of the Democratic Party’s
recent actions is that, in this age of identity politics, they believe Muslims
in Congress deserve special dispensation regarding bigotry. The less charitable
reading is that a large faction of their constituents agree with the bigots.
Maybe it’s both.
By passing that pathetic, diluted resolution against
bigotry, they rewarded Omar for her attack on American Jews, and normalized
similar rhetoric. For example, despite the fact that nearly every media outlet
reported that Sisa had apologized for her comments, she did not.
“In a conversation on Facebook, I used some language that
I see now was insensitive. Issues of allegiance and loyalty to one’s country
come with painful history,” she said. “At a time when so many communities in
our country feel under attack by the president and his allies, I absolutely
recognize that we need to address these issues with greater care and
sensitivity to their historical resonance, and I’m committed to doing that in
the future.”
This vapid leftist word salad diligently avoids
addressing her initial claim of Jewish mendacity. Pushing the vacuous notion
that the problem here is hurt feelings, rather than an odious set of ideas, is
bad enough. But nowhere in her “apology” does she concede that her initial
comments were substantively wrong.
That’s probably okay, though. Like the officials in Germany
and Norway, these days the Democratic Party–including many of its major
presidential candidates–can excuse a little Jew hatred if it’s framed just
right.
No comments:
Post a Comment