Monthly Archives: September 2022

Beating Bowman

Posted on by
5

The final results are now in, and Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY16) won the Democratic primary with a slim 52% majority. It’s an embarrassing showing for an incumbent, who might have lost had he faced a single opponent. The result is actually not surprising, as his district was redrawn just a few months earlier, with many voters unfamiliar with him and many not coming out to vote in the final weeks of summer.

He is also disliked by a huge portion of the district.

A lot of money was raised by one of Bowman’s opponents, Vedat Gashi, who came in second with 27% of the vote. Catherine Parker, well known in her local town came in third with 20%, while Mark Jaffe, who had dropped out of the race, gathered 2%.

CandidateVotespercent of votes
Vedat Gashi9,88827%
Jamaal Bowman19,35452%
Catherine Parker7,43920%
Mark Jaffe5822%
irregular330%
Results of August 2022 Democratic Primary for NY District 16 in Lower Westchester

Much of lower Westchester is slightly left-of-center, way to the right of the extreme left-wing views of Bowman. As such, people are beginning to assess how to replace this representative in the next election in two years.

A deeper dive into the numbers yields some clues.

Bowman won a majority of only five of the 12 towns and cities in his district. He managed to secure the overall win because those five municipalities accounted for 64% of the Democratic voter turnout. Greenburgh and Yonkers had 20% and 19% of the votes, respectively, and Bowman took them with 56% and 61% of the vote, respectively. New Rochelle was the third largest municipality with 13% of the primary votes, and Bowman took it with 51% of the votes.

MunicipalGashiBowmanParkerOtherTotalTotal %
Eastchester406794508291,7375%
Greenburgh1,9844,1421,1171527,39520%
Harrison241242223257312%
Mamaroneck5599721,207322,7707%
Pelham240510179119403%
Rye Town385663640391,7275%
Scarsdale988296340181,6424%
Mt Vernon2652,886196203,3679%
New Rochelle1,6122,487731554,88513%
Rye City15222468861,0703%
White Plains1,3471,735692903,86410%
Yonkers1,7094,4039181387,16819%
TOTAL9,88819,3547,43961537,296
August 2022 Democratic Primary Canvass Book

Gashi won Scarsdale with 60% of the votes, but the town only accounted for 4% of the total votes. Parker took her hometown of the City of Rye with 64% of the votes, and also beat the other candidates in Mamaroneck with 44% of the votes, however, those two municipalities only accounted for 10% of the total votes. Factoring the large amount of money raised by Gashi, and Parker having a local base of constituents and being the only woman in the race right after the Supreme Court threw out the constitutional right to abortion, both candidates did much worse than should be expected against such a poor incumbent.

So if the answer is not to back either of these candidates next time, how do moderates beat Bowman in 2024?

1. Back a single candidate, EARLY

Politicians are politicians, so they will always be running for office and fund-raising. If a politician thinks they have some shot at winning and can build political capital, they will enter the race. After all, they are spending other people’s money at the end of the day.

If there are multiple moderates running against Bowman, the split in the vote all but assures Bowman’s victory. In the 2022 race, had Parker not entered the race late as a spoiler, Gashi might have prevailed.

The key is therefore to get centrists out to push local politicians and community leaders to back a single candidate early. With enough endorsements from mayors and local officials from lower Westchester, it could prevent lesser known politicians from entering the fray lest they be tarred as a spoiler, and hand Bowman a victory once again.

2. Get Harrison to register Democratic and vote

As the chart below demonstrates, the average voter turnout in each municipality was 6.4%. Mamaroneck, part of Parker’s County District 7, led with 9.4% voter turnout – but she barely won on her home turf with 44%, compared to 35% Bowman / 20% Gashi. Scarsdale also had a great turnout with 9.2%, with an impassioned Jewish vote backing Gashi where he won with 60% of the vote compared to just 18% for Bowman.

MunicipalityVotesPopulationTurnout
Eastchester1,73733,0335.3%
Greenburgh7,39591,3388.1%
Harrison73128,3632.6%
Mamaroneck2,77029,5639.4%
Pelham94012,4707.5%
Town of Rye1,727
Scarsdale1,64217,8909.2%
Mt Vernon3,36767,6235.0%
New Rochelle4,88579,3676.2%
City of Rye1,07015,7696.8%
White Plains3,86458,1716.6%
Yonkers7,168200,1833.6%
TOTAL37,296633,7706.4%
Voter turnout for August 2022 Democratic Primary

Meanwhile, Harrison had just a 2.6% voter turnout, the worst in the district. With 67% of the town’s voters opting for someone other than Bowman, a concerted effort must be placed to get Harrison voters (really everyone) to register with the Democratic Party and get out to vote during the primaries. Recall that this district is now D+40, meaning Biden beat Trump in the last election by roughly 40 points, so the Democratic primary is the battlefield, not the November election.

3. Support a centrist minority from Greenburgh, Mount Vernon or Yonkers

The Jewish vote stands at roughly 25% of the district, Hispanics at about 28% and Blacks at 21%. As the overall Jewish vote does not vote as a block, chipping away at Bowman’s base in the Black community could be part of a winning strategy.

Bowman won a whopping 86% of the vote in Mount Vernon. It is the fourth largest municipality with a population of 67,000, trailing Yonkers at 200,000, Greenburgh at 91,000 and New Rochelle at 79,000. Backing a Black centrist politician from one of those cities, or a Hispanic woman, could peel away important votes away from Bowman.

4. Build a loud Orthodox Jewish voting block

The Orthodox community coalesced late in the 2022 campaign around Gashi. He won 60% of Scarsdale, 35% of White Plains and 33% of New Rochelle – the towns where he secured the highest percentage of votes were those with the greatest number of Orthodox Jews. The community should continue to build upon that political momentum and become a reliable block to bring the district more towards the center.

The community should also become more active locally. For example, it should lead the charge in getting Westchester County to adopt the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. Leaving local politics and organizations to progressives, mainstreams some extremists’ opinions and fractures society. That historic approach brought anti-Israel speakers to local synagogues where local rabbis serve on boards of directors of far left-wing groups. The intersectional bonds the progressive Jewish community leaders are cementing with anti-Semites and anti-Zionists should be denounced by members of the synagogues and the local community.

In addition to bringing the non-Orthodox Jewish community towards the center, Westchester’s Orthodox community should build relationships with the local Hispanic, Asian and religious Christian community which sends their children to parochial schools. They are more conservative than the Black and liberal non-Orthodox communities, and can expand the sphere of influence in local elections.

Here are just a few actions for the people of lower Westchester to retire Jamaal Bowman, the extremist congressman who now mis-represents them.

Related articles:

Jamaal Bowman Disgustingly Compares Israeli Actions in Jerusalem To A ‘Military Coup’, ‘Ethnic Cleansing’ And A “Genocide”

Westchester’s Pro-Israel Community Is Livid With J Street

You Must Register To Vote

J Street Proves Again It’s Progressive, Not Pro-Israel

Orthodox Institutions Should Rally To The Westchester Reform Temple

The Noxious Anti-Semitism Of “European Settler Colonialism”

Posted on by
21

There are some narratives that simply boggle the mind. Some are completely nonsensical and easily disproven. Others are seemingly spat out of desperation to belittle an enemy’s position. And a few are so twisted, they must have been hatched and sanctified by university professors.

Consider the phrase “European Settler Colonialism” to describe Jews moving to Israel.

Columbia University’s Rashid Khalidi was fond of the phrase. As recently as November 2017, on the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, he took the stage at the United Nations’ Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestine People. He used the expression in a number of ways:

  • “…Arab city dwellers, who observed with mounting concern the constant arrival of new European Jewish immigrants“
  • “the Declaration had been tailored to suit the desiderata of Zionism, a European colonizing project“
  • “The Palestinians were therefore in a triple bind, which may have been unique in the history of resistance of indigenous peoples to European colonialism. They faced the might of the British Empire in the era between the two world wars when not one single colonial possession, with the partial exception of Ireland, succeeded in freeing itself from the clutches of the European imperial powers.“

A current professor at Columbia, Joseph Massad who teaches modern Arab politics, said much the same in an article in Middle East Eye on July 19, 2022 called “Algeria, Israel and the last European settler colony in the Arab world.”

  • “Of the five European settler colonies established in Arab countries, only Algeria and Palestine remained colonised in the early 1960s“
  • “As the last two European settler-colonial powers in the Arab world, France and Israel formed a close alliance to coordinate the preservation of their settler colonies“
  • “Like France and Italy, the European Jewish Zionists claimed to be descendants of the ancient Palestinian Hebrews and to be merely “returning” to their ancient land.”
  • “the pan-Jewishism of European Zionism, which sought to recreate the “Judaic” glories of the Palestinian Hebrews, who were appropriated as the ancestors of European converts to Judaism, was depicted as progressive and socialist.”
  • “Unhappy with its isolation as the last European settler colony in the Arab world, the Israelis provided logistical support to the French colonists,...”

Students have caught on. At a vote to boycott Israel at the University of Wisconsin in March 2017, one of the students took the theme one step further:

“The Israeli state was founded using the same nationalistic and exclusive principles that exploited Jews in Eastern Europe. The foundation built Israel to be as oppressive as the countries that destroyed Jewish homes, lives and pushed them out of Eastern Europe. Israel in its inception is not a Jewish idea but a European one.”

Imagine the depravity of the anti-Zionist university mindset today, that Israel is not even considered a Jewish idea but simply a tool of European colonial imperialism.

The outrageous sentiments are given succor at the United Nations and anti-Zionist media. That they need to be addressed and disproved is shameful but it goes to the heart of the prevalent false anti-Israel narrative peddled by those who seek a Palestinian State and need an anchor for their anti-Semitic beliefs.

Colonialism – The Desire To Gain Versus The Desire To Rid

Many European countries set up colonies around the world, including France, United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy. Each country set up outposts to gain particular advantages in far away lands. Some sought raw materials like grain and minerals to export home. Some sought trade routes and new markets. Others brought missionaries to spread Christianity. Each country sought to exploit the new territory for selfish gain.

All, except for one case falsely-framed as colonialism: Zionism as “European settler colonialism.”

The anti-Semitic narrative describing Zionism as “European colonialism” is founded on two principle beliefs: that European countries desired to shed the continent of its Jews; and the further wish to weaken Muslim Arabs in the Middle East.

On the first concocted rationale, anti-Semitic anti-Zionists try to argue that the great powers of Europe wanted to collectively purge the region of its Jews. It is anti-Semitism at its most base and ugly, suggesting that Jews were universally unwanted foreigners in their midst.

The Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas pushed this argument in April 2018 that “[Lord] Balfour hated the Jews, but nevertheless, he gave them a state. The Russian foreign minister was well known for his hatred of the Jews, yet he said to [the Jews]: “Come, I will give you a state in Palestine.”” Abbas claimed that all European leaders hated the Jews and wanted to get rid of them and used Palestine as their dumping ground. The phrase “European settler colonialism” is deeply anti-Semitic in that it conveys that Jews are vile and unwanted.

The second premise of European colonialism in the desire to insert a foreign entity to weaken the supposed unity of Muslim Arabs in the Middle East is foolish as various European powers were dealing with many tribes in the region and building them up into functioning governments and countries. The British Mandate of Palestine is put forward by Arabists as something unique, when there were mandates for all of the lands that were to become independent countries like Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, with the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

Jews Have Nothing To Do With Ancient Israelites And Never Lived In Israel

The anti-Semitism of “European settler colonialism” extends beyond the invective that Zionism was launched by European leaders to ethnically-cleanse Europe of its Jews. It mocks Jewish history.

The acting President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas wrote his doctoral thesis on a particular form of Holocaust denial, which claimed that Jews have no connection or history in Israel, so early Zionists conspired with the Nazis to make life unbearable so that the Jews would be forced to emigrate to a foreign land. Abbas falsely asserted that Jews are descendants of Khazars, much like Columbia University’s Massad absurdly claimed that Jews pretend to be descended from “Palestinian Hebrews” (whatever that ridiculous phrase means), but really are a bunch of European converts who “appropriated” someone else’s history.

This repulsive narrative is a critical component for anti-Zionists because the definition of a “colony” means an “area under full or partial control of another country.” While France may have set up a foreign colony in Algeria, it is nonsensical to say that the entire European continent set up a joint colony for everyone’s benefit. But what choice do the anti-Semites have? If they are forced to recognize that Jews are from Judea and the land of Israel, then by definition it is not a Jewish colony but a righteous return of Jews from their diaspora. The phrase “European settler colonialism” is anti-Semitic in denying Jews their basic history in the land of Israel.

Jews Came To Palestine Before The Palestine Mandate

Anti-Semitic anti-Zionists argue that the European colonial project launched with Lord Balfour’s 1917 declaration and then the Mandate of Palestine in 1922. Those slightly more knowledgeable about history might point to Theodore Herzl’s First Zionist Congress in 1897 in Basel, Switzerland.

The reality is that Jews have always lived and moved to the land of Israel. During the last century of Ottoman rule (1800 to 1914), the Jewish population jumped more than 13.4 times. The Christian population only grew by 3.2 times over that period while the Muslim population barely moved, increasing only 2.1 times, meaning that no Muslims migrated to the holy land during that time, as such growth is the natural trend of births minus deaths.

The reason the Jews moved to the land is that the land is holy to Jews. Jews from all over the world pray facing Jerusalem, the only religion to do so. Jews are commanded to visit Jerusalem three times every year. There are commandments that Jews can only keep in Israel.

Saying that Zionism is a “European colonial project” is anti-Semitic as it denies the centrality and holiness of the land to Jews.

Israeli Jews Are Not European

The smear that “Zionism is Racism” was hatched by Muslim nations in the 1970’s, after the Arab world failed to destroy Israel for the third time (1948-9, 1967 and 1973 wars). The outrageous UN resolution was overturned by the United States in 1991, but the charge has been re-launched in modern times under the banner of “white supremacy”, “imperialism” and “European colonialism.”

The simple fact is less than one-third of Israelis have ancestors from Europe. As of 2018, only 31.8% of Jews were Ashkenazi, of European heritage, and 12.4% were from the former USSR. That compares to 44.9% who are Mizrahi and 3.0% from Ethiopia. The balance of Jews (7.9%) are of mixed heritage. Then there are 21.1% who are Arab (Muslim and Christian) and 5% are other groups including Ba’hai (a religion banned in several neighboring countries), Samaritans and others.

Saying that Israel is a creature of “European colonialism” is non-sensical at its most fundamental, as most Israelis do not come from Europe.

Poor Attempt To Distract From Muslim Arab Anti-Semitic Edicts

The charge that Zionism is based on European colonialism is anti-Semitic on many levels. It is used in a pathetic attempt to advance the cause of a Palestinian state, when in fact, it does the opposite by showing that Arabs are terrible anti-Jewish neighbors.

  • Admitting that Jews predate Arabs by thousands of years does not mean that Arabs have no history in the land, so stop pretending otherwise.
  • Admitting that the Temple Mount is only the holiest place for Jews does not mean that it holds no significance for Christians or Muslims.
  • Admitting that Jordanian/Palestinian Muslim Arabs banned Jews from entering the Old City of Jerusalem and the Cave of the Jewish Patriarchs and Matriarchs in Hebron while they controlled it, does not mean that Jews will ban other religions from entering these sacred locations.
  • Admitting that Jordan issued an anti-Semitic citizenship law in 1954 that granted citizenship to people in Judea and Samaria, as long as they weren’t Jewish, doesn’t mean that the Jewish State of Israel will ban non-Jews from becoming citizens.
  • Admitting that most Israelis are not European Jews does not mean that Israel will constantly point out that the largest demographic in Israel are the Jews who came from Muslim Arab lands who were expelled and driven out of their homes.

The modern state of Israel is simply the reestablishment of Jewish sovereignty in their historic homeland. The attempts to vilify Israel as a product of European colonialism and imperialism is both false and deeply anti-Semitic, and actually hurts the Palestinian cause in showing their inability to live peacefully with the Jewish people.

Related articles:

Israel was never a British Colony; Judea and Samaria are not Israeli Colonies

Palestinians Are Still Actively Fighting The 1947-9 War Against The Jewish State. They’re Losing Again

Biden To Push Coexistence Agenda To Palestinian Arabs Not Interested

The UN Cannot See Palestinian ‘Lies and Loathing’

Antisemitism Includes the Denial of Jewish History

Palestinian Actions Matter

The Calming Feeling of Palestinian Refugees: Rashida Tlaib in Her Own Words

Palestinians Are Still Actively Fighting The 1947-9 War Against The Jewish State. They’re Losing Again

Posted on by
6

The president of the Palestinian Authority always fails to impress at the annual United Nations General Assembly forum. This year, he outdid himself in spectacular fashion, showcasing why there is no chance for peace anytime soon.

The 48 minute ramble was a disgrace from beginning to end. It is not worth a detailed review of the spouted delusions, but a summary is important to consider the mental and emotional state of this restless people. In short, Abbas believes the world is stuck with him in 1947; deems the Oslo Accords signed between Israel and the PA dead; considers Israelis as racist terrorists; and glorifies terrorists openly.

Abbas Now Accepts the 1947 UN Partition Plan

Abbas said that Israel has been colonizing Palestine for 75 years, since its very founding. He built on his term for Israel of a “painful historic settlement“, illegal as far as he is concerned for the past 100 years, not only since 1967.

He demanded that the United States, the United Kingdom and Israel apologize for the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the 1922 Mandate of Palestine, and the entire Zionist enterprise. He put it forward as an “official request” for the “major crime” and sought remedy and compensation.

Abbas also asked the entire UN to enforce Resolution 181 (@25:30). That resolution was the partition plan put forward in November 1947, which was accepted by Zionists but rejected by the entire Arab world, opting instead for war to destroy the Jews. Abbas said with a pointed finger, “Resolution 181 which you have adopted. Resolution 181 is the resolution that we want to be implemented. We want you to implement Resolution 181.”

It boggles the mind how the party which rejected the resolution – 75 years ago! – launched a war which killed one percent of the Israeli population – just a few years after the European Holocaust! – can somehow state that it has changed his mind. If the Arabs had known then that they’d lose the war and more territory, they might have accepted the plan.

Should Abbas figure out how to bring back the thousands of Jews murdered by Arabs over the past 75 years, I’m sure Israel would agree to go back to the borders proposed by the UN in 1947.

Oslo Accords Are Dead

Abbas made clear that he considers the Oslo Accords of 1993 (and 1995) to be dead, as he mistakenly believes that Israel tramples on the accords and only the Palestinians abide by them.

Somehow the multi-year 2000-2004 intifada-terrorism didn’t register in Abbas’ memory. The several wars from Hamas since the terrorist-political group took over Gaza, with over 20,000 rockets fired into Israel, did not trample on the accords. Israel giving the PA Areas A and B and the Gaza Strip was completely ignored.

Did Abbas even read the accords? Nowhere does it say that Israel cannot build homes for Jews in Area C. It says exactly the opposite, that Israel has sole control of the region until it gives more territory to the PA.

One of the conditions of the accords was that the PA would not seek recognition at any UN bodies – which it nevertheless did. Abbas said that the PA will now seek admission to even more organizations.

If Abbas truly wants to end the relationship with Israel established with the Accords, he must realize that he is inviting Israel to take back all of the land that was given to the PA under those same agreements.

Abbas Smears Israelis As Racist Terrorist

Abbas attacked Israel at 12:26, saying “Israel is enacting racist laws, consecrating the apartheid regime. Yes, apartheid, and if they do not like the appellation, this is the truth. They are an apartheid regime.” It was quite a comment, after Abbas had just said at 7:43 of the speech that “Israel did not leave us any land on which we can establish an independent state, in the frame of its frantic expansion. Where will our people live in freedom and dignity? Where can we build our independent state that will live in peace with its neighbors? We want to live in peace with them, with Israel. The settlements unfortunately constitute 751,000 [Jews], or 25% of the total population. 25 percent in the West Bank. The Palestinian land which remains for us. Israel is killing our people with impunity.”

Doesn’t Abbas realize that 26% of Israel’s population is not Jewish? If he believes that so many Jews possibly living in a new Palestinian State prevents Arabs from living in freedom and dignity, how does he possibly suggest Israel take in millions of Arab refugees when the country is only 74% Jewish now? How does he accuse Israel of being an apartheid regime when so many Arabs have full citizenship? Does Abbas blush at his hypocrisy as he demands a new country free of Jews and has existing laws against selling any land to Jews?

To make sure that the entire world and not just Israel was disgusted by his charges, Abbas doubled down on his heinous comment of a few weeks ago in Berlin, Germany when he accused Israel of committing “50 Holocausts” against Palestinians. At 16:30 of his rant Abbas said that “Israel has committed more than 50 massacres since 1948 until today.” The disgusting charge was clearly intended to simultaneously satisfy his Palestinian Arab constituents and repulse the civilized world.

Abbas Glorifies Terrorists

After the long an rambling tirade meant to insult Israel in every manner possible, Abbas wrapped up his speech glorifying Arabs who killed Israelis, and promised that the Palestinian Authority will forever support the terrorists’ families.

For the last seven minutes of his speech, starting at 41:30, Abbas declared that no foreign body can dictate anything to the PA and they will do whatever they choose. (This comment, after demanding the UN and other countries place pressure on Israel.) He used that lead-in to say that he supports the martyrs and prisoners who are Palestinian heroes. They will get the full support of the PA, in the much criticized “pay-to-slay” program, which the world has rightly condemned as funding terror.

Abbas flipped the bird to the world and said he didn’t care.

Abbas specifically singled out Nasser Abu Hamid as a “martyr” and “a hero” several times. Hamid was convicted in 1990 by Israel of killing five people but he was released as part of the Oslo Accords. In the Second Intifada-terrorism wave, Hamid began killing again. He confessed to killing seven people in five attacks between 2000 and 2002, including the infamous lynching and desecration of the bodies of IDF Corporal Vadim Nurzhitz and Yossi Avrahami during the Ramallah Lynching in October 2000.

Abbas called this murderer a “hero” to the Palestinian people over and again.

President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas at the United Nations, September 23, 2022

Mahmoud Abbas demonstrated to the world his intransigence, hypocrisy, insanity, and consequently, why there is no peace with Israel. The Arab world has grown tired of him and his cause, disavowing the terrorism that he and the Iranian regime support, and are beginning to deepen their countries’ relationships with Israel.

Related articles:

The Palestinian State I Oppose

Mahmoud Abbas And The Rubber Room Tango

Abbas’s Speech and the Window into Antisemitism and Anti-Zionism

Israel was never a British Colony; Judea and Samaria are not Israeli Colonies

“Ethnic Cleansing” in Israel and the Israeli Territories

Related video:

The UN Looks To Believe Mahmoud Abbas (music by Rod Stewart)

I Hate Israel – Racism

Subscribe YouTube channel: FirstOneThrough

Join Facebook group: Israel Analysis and FirstOneThrough

The Worst Title For An Editorial Slamming Biden’s Failed Immigration Policy

Posted on by
1

Brett Stephens is a right-of-center opinion writer for The New York Times. For the Times’ board and readership, he is probably viewed as a right-wing extremist from their far left vantage point. However, in the interest of appearing balanced, the paper gives him a platform to share his thoughts.

On September 21, 2022, Stephens lambasted the terrible failure of the Biden Administration’s handling of the border and immigration generally. He mocked the pathetic response of the dim-witted Vice President Kamala Harris to questions about the security of the border. He reviewed the statistics of the enormous spike of immigrant encounters at the United States’ southern border. He added a few pointed remarks:

  • “This was not an accident of policy. It was an intention.”
  • “This is political malpractice on multiple levels.”
  • “It undermines the case for the path to citizenship”
  • “a see-no-problem, admit-no-fault, disavow-the-consequences, and blame-the-last-guy border policy.”
  • “it makes a mockery of people like Vice President Kamala Harris and others making fools of themselves by trying to defend a visibly failed policy.”
  • “The crisis is a failure of liberalism, classic and contemporary. It calls into question the ability, or the willingness, of a Democratic president to solve a basic law-and-order issue”

Pretty scathing stuff. A full on assault of the Biden/Harris failure to secure the border and manage the influx of immigrants. Dereliction of duty, an abandonment of law-and-order.

One would imagine a headline for such a piece along the lines of “Biden And Harris Fail America – US Citizens And Immigrants”, or “Biden Administration Deliberately Refuses To Secure The Borders” or perhaps “Biden’s Political Malpractice Regarding The Border May Cost Him The Election”.

The Times would do no such thing.

Instead, the paper titled the hit piece with a rosy “The Border Crisis Could Still Be Biden’s Opportunity.” It was as if the left-wing outlet bemoaned that they had to run Stephen’s article, and hoped that readers would only read the headline, skip the actual article, and chant “Let’s Go Brandon,” but mean it as being supportive of Biden.

Is this the path to coexistence between right-and-left? Deliberately mislabeling opinions we don’t like rather than live with the dissonance?

The Grey Lady long ago moved away from its tagline “All The News That’s Fit To Print” to “All The Opinions Our Liberal Readers Want.” It now occasionally posts criticisms of Democrats, but paints it with lipstick hoping people won’t notice.

Related article:

The DSA, Kamala Harris and 53 Dead Migrants

Those Welcoming Refugees and Immigrants

Crises at the Borders

The Explosion of Immigrants in the United States

Amidst Calmer Voices, The Jordanian King Yells ‘Fire’

Posted on by
1

September 20, 2022 started off much better than usual for the Middle East. A region, normally aflame with hatred seeking the end of the Jewish State, began with calmer voices.

The Palestinian Arabs published their quarterly poll of sentiment on the street. It showed a more moderate, albeit still troubling, tone regarding making peace with Israel.

Palestinian Arabs favored the political terrorist group Hamas over the more moderate Fatah in theoretical presidential elections, by 15 points, down from 22 points three months earlier. Support for a two-state solution rose to 37% from 28% in the prior quarter (60% still oppose a two-state solution). Currently, 48% support armed attacks against Israel, down from 55% in favor of returning to intifada-terrorism, just three months prior.

The pollsters believe that the rise in moderating positions stems from “greater appreciation of the [Israeli confidence building] measure in which a larger number of work permits are issued by Israel for laborers from the Gaza Strip.” It added that there was also “negative public assessment of the last armed confrontation between Islamic Jihad and Israel [in which most Arabs believe Palestinians lost and noted Hamas stayed out of the fight], the findings indicate a significant decline in support for armed attacks or a return to an armed intifada and a significant rise in support for Palestinian-Israeli negotiations.“

So far, so good.

At the United Nations in New York City, the General Assembly got underway in an annual ritual in which leaders of the world explain why their country was noble and everyone else was terrible.

Qatar, a state sponsor of the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, did not slam Israel, but only called for a two-state solution. Turkey, which also has supported Hamas, took a softer tone about Israel. It obnoxiously called for a two-state solution that only could have the contours of the 1967 “borders” (they were never borders) with eastern Jerusalem as its capital, but still, a far better statement than in years past.

Unfortunately, the positive direction fell apart with the address from the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. While his English was wonderful and his voice soothing, King Abdullah II disappoints every year.

Jordan’s King Abdullah II addresses the 77th session of the United Nations General Assembly, Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2022 at U.N. headquarters. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)

As he’s done frequently, Abdullah incorrectly said several things such as UNRWA helping Palestinian “refugees” rather than compelling them to remain wards of the world. But the king went so much deeper than a bad opinion, as he waged an attack on the Jewish State regarding Jerusalem. At 9:09 of his speech, he ramped up the temperature:

“Today, the future of Jerusalem is of urgent concern. The city is holy to millions of Muslims, Christians and Jews around the world. Undermining Jerusalem’s legal and historical status quo triggers global tensions and deepens religious divides. The holy city must not be a place for hatred and division.

“As custodians of Jerusalem’s Muslim and Christian holy sites, we are committed to protecting the historical and legal status quo and to their safety and future. And as a Muslim leader, let me say clearly, that we are committed to defending the rights, the precious heritage, and the historic identity of the Christian people of our region. Nowhere is that more important than in Jerusalem.

“Today, Christianity in the holy city is under fire. The rights of churches in Jerusalem are threatened. This cannot continue. Christianity is vital to the past and present of our region and the holy land. It must remain an integral part of our future.”

This is outrageous and pathological.

At the most basic, churches in Jerusalem and all around Israel are not threatened. Israel actually helped build the Mormon church in Jerusalem. Christian pilgrims are found everywhere, as Christian tourists to Israel outnumber Jewish ones. There is not a single Muslim-majority country in the world where Christian tourists outnumber Muslim visitors.

Further, the Jordanian-Israeli Peace Treaty of 1994 specifically addressed Jerusalem in Article 9.2. It said:

“in accordance with the Washington Declaration, Israel respects the present special role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem. When negotiations on the permanent status will take place, Israel will give high priority to the Jordanian historic role in these shrines.“

Jordan has no “custodianship” and no role to “protect” any shrine, let alone non-Muslim sites which are never mentioned. To assert a special role as savior of Christians from fabricated non-existent threats is delusion of the highest order.

The king not only suffers from a messiah complex, he is abrogating the peace treaty signed with Israel. The following sentence, Article 9.3, clearly states that the countries will work together to promote religious cooexistence:

“The Parties will act together to promote interfaith relations among the three monotheistic religions, with the aim of working towards religious understanding, moral commitment, freedom of religious worship, and tolerance and peace.“

The Jordanian monarch is promoting the opposite, seeking a religious confrontation of Muslims and Christians against the Jews.

The Jordanian king is inciting a religious war against the Jewish state, seeking to alarm the Christian world that ‘Jerusalem is in danger’ the same way radical jihadists scream ‘al Aqsa is in danger’ to Muslims, in the hopes of killing Jews and the Jewish State. It is an alarming development and one which must be addressed swiftly, such as demanding a public recanting and apology from the king, or risk the 1994 peace treaty which he defecated upon.

Related articles:

Oh Abdullah, Jordan is Not So Special

The Jordanian King Abdullah’s Absurdities

Time for Jordan To Live Up To Its Peace Treaty With Israel And Support Jewish Prayer On The Temple Mount

Replacing the Jordanian Waqf on The Temple Mount

Jerusalem’s Old City Is a Religious War for Muslim Arabs

The Spark And The Fuel Of Anti-Semitism Of The Women’s March

Posted on by
1

The “Women’s March” has a deep history of anti-Semitism of its own making. The New York Times touched upon some of those points in an article about “Russian troll factories” which “put a sustained effort into discrediting the movement by circulating damning, often fabricated narratives around Ms. [Linda] Sarsour.” The article focused on the fuel which amplified her extremist anti-Zionist views which rocked the message of the movement.

The article stated that fractures in society, distrust in institutions and Sarsour’s dabbling in anti-Semitism were already present, and that the Russian bots added fuel to the fire by exaggerating Sarsour’s statements on social media. The Times even touched upon the anti-Semitic charges against other members of the Women’s March movement who support the notorious anti-Semite Rev. Louis Farrakhan.

But the article made the anti-Semitism embedded in the Women’s March appear minor; a couple of discrete and misunderstood comments by the founders, which were inflamed by a foreign government. In doing so, it absolved the organization for repeatedly inciting Jew hatred.

That’s the wrong conclusion.

Just a few months after the large January 2017 march in Washington, D.C., the city of Chicago held a rally where Jewish marchers carrying a rainbow flag with the Jewish star in the middle were asked to leave because the organizers said they “repeatedly expressed support for Zionism.” One of the people who was asked to leave told the Windy City Times that she was made to feel that “as a Jew, I am not welcome here.”

In June 2019, the Washington, D.C. march followed suit and prohibited marchers from carrying flags with the Jewish star on it. Organizers said “The DC Dyke March is a pro-Muslim and pro-Palestinian space…We do ask that participants not bring pro-Israel paraphernalia in solidarity with our queer Palestinian friends.” Several Jewish groups including A Wider Bridge, Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, and Zioness wrote a joint statement that “We come together to strongly condemn the leadership of the DC Dyke March for their decision to ban the Jewish Star of David on a pride flag and Israeli iconography.”

The repeated banning of Jewish pride at the marches stems from Linda Sarsour’s “activism,” as the Times calls it. She’s tweeted “Nothing is creepier than Zionism.” She equated the belief that Jews should be free of anti-Semitism as self-governing people in their ancestral home as the equivalent to being a Nazi, with “We will not be silenced by Blue Lives Matter, by white supremacists, by neo-Nazis, or right-wing Zionists.” She’s said that feminism and Zionism are incompatible.

Those are Sarsour’s words, repeated again and again, specifically meant to instill the discredited noxious “Zionism is Racism” libel into the fabric of the Women’s March movement.

The Times neglected to tell its readers that when Sarsour and her colleagues stepped down from their leadership positions of the organization, other anti-Semites took their place, like CAIR’s Zahara Billoo. She was in kindred spirit of Sarsour, having tweeted the grotesque “Israel is an apartheid, racist, terrorist state and it commits war crimes as a hobby.” An obvious choice to lead the Women’s March if it is hell bent on advancing anti-Semitism.

Billoo also offered this bit of advice for Muslims some time after leaving the Women’s March board, that Jews are the enemy: “Know your enemies, and I’m not going to sugar-coat that. They are your enemies. There are organizations and infrastructure out there who are working to harm you. Make no mistake of it. They would sell you down the line if they could, and they very often do behind your back. I mean the Zionist organizations, I mean the foreign policy organizations that say they’re not Zionists but want a two-state solution. I’m not a Palestinian myself but it’s my understanding that that is laughable. So know your enemies.” Billoo listed some of them: “We need to pay attention to the Anti-Defamation League. We need to pay attention to the Jewish Federation. We need to pay attention to the Zionist synagogues. We need to pay attention to the Hillel chapters on our campuses. Because just because they’re your friend today, doesn’t mean that they have your back when it comes to human rights. So oppose the vehement fascists but oppose the polite Zionists too. They are not your friends.“

It could very well be that Russia added some fuel to the Linda Sarsour story, but the anti-Semitic toxicity prevalent among the group’s founders was their own. The insidious jihad fomented by the alt-left activists was a deliberate feature of their own making. Russia may have helped fan the flames, but the inferno of hatred came from within the movement itself.

Related articles:

Linda Sarsour as Pontius Pilate

New York Times Mum on Muslim Anti-Semitism

Columbia University’s Latest Anti-Semitic Inanity: “Palestinian Hebrews”

Antisemitism Includes the Denial of Jewish History

The War Against Israel and Jewish Civilians

Muslim Women Debate Anti-Semitism

Criticizing Muslim Antisemitism is Not Islamophobia

I See Dead People

The Economics Behind The Times’ Hasidic School Article

Posted on by
1

The New York Times printed a very long article about Hasidic schools in New York which took in roughly $1 billion of pubic money over the last few years, and claimed that they failed to provide a basic education on purpose. The Times mocked the terrible hiring practices at the schools and essentially urged the government to stop funding them until they improved their practices, as the paper released the article just two days before the New York State Board of Regents met on the matter.

The Board of Regents took notice and proposed tougher regulations aimed at these ultra Orthodox schools.

A deeper review of the Times article shows that the paper may have reached the wrong conclusion – that the schools require MORE money to succeed, not less.

The Times made its conclusion clear on the front page when it wrote “where other schools may be underperforming because of underfunding and mismanagement, these schools are different. They are failing by design.“

The article made it appear that the Jewish schools are actually OVERFUNDED, calling out “$1 Billion. Amount of government money collected in the past four years by Hasidic boys’ schools, even though they appear to be operating in violation of state laws guaranteeing students an adequate education.” It mocked the hiring practices of the schools, writing “Often, English teachers cannot speak the language fluently themselves. Many earn as little as $15 an hour. Some have been hired off Craigslist or ads on lamp posts.” The article added that the schools “mostly hire only Hasidic men as teachers, regardless of whether they know English. One former student said he once had a secular teacher who doubled as the school cook.“

The article made it appear that the schools are just pocketing the money, especially as it highlighted that one of the Hasidic school networks “controlled over $500 million in assets,” and showed a picture with accompanying text that one school building “takes up a city block.“

But a deeper dive of these observations paints the opposite picture.

Small Subsidies Per Yeshiva Child

The $1 billion sounds like a huge headline figure going out to failing private schools. The accompanying Times’ commentary spelling out that the sum covers four years is perhaps lost in the momentary shock. It equates to roughly $250 million per year used to support 50,000 boys, or roughly $5,000 per student per year. That figure covers transportation, food, child care and special ed classes, in addition to general education.

By way of comparison, New York City has an annual budget of $38 billion for 919,000 students (a steadily declining number that was over 1 million just two years ago). That’s over $41,000 per student. It’s a gap of more than $36,000 per child compared to yeshiva boys.

The article hinted about this enormous gap in a few spots without sharing the math.

It first attributed the basic fact as a defense offered by the Hasidic schools, making the small subsidy seem biased: “They [the Hasidic schools] denied some of the Times findings,… that the schools receive far less taxpayer money per pupil than public schools do.” The qualified speaker tainted the observation.

Only on the fourth page of the Times’ article did the Times state two critical facts clearly: “Hasidic boy’s yeshivas receive far less per pupil than public schools, and they charge tuition.” Public school students get more than 8 times the funding as these yeshiva boys, as detailed above. The fact that these private schools charge tuition needs further elaboration as well.

Enormous Yeshiva Tuition Bills Require Penny Pinching

The boys’ schools don’t operate on a budget of $5,000 per student. Parents pay tuition as noted by the Times.

These ultra Orthodox families typically have very large families. For example, on the fifth page of the article, the Times mentioned a family with six children. It also mentioned Naftuli Moser who started an advocacy group to improve secular education in yeshivas. The Times did not write that Moser is one of 17 children.

Consider the tuition bills for these families. If the yeshivas charged like the public schools, six children with a funding gap of $36,000 each would mean a tuition bill of $216,000 per year for the family. For Moser’s family, the annual tuition bill would be $612,000!

Needless to say, these schools cannot operate with the generosity afforded to public school teachers backed by powerful teacher unions. The yeshivas need to hire teachers on a budget to match the incomes of these large Hasidic families. The overall school budget is a fraction of the $41,000 spent per pupil in public schools. The schools also make accommodations for parents who cannot afford full tuition for all of their kids, by having the fathers teach at the school, accounting for Yiddish-speakers teaching English as featured in the article.

And yes, teachers do double-duty, including teaching and acting as the school chef. It keeps the school budgets down and the tuitions more affordable.

Wealth Amidst The Poverty

The Times article made the Hasidic community appear to be sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars and then taking a billion dollars from the government. Much of the wealth in the Hasidic community revolves around real estate holdings in Brooklyn. Educating nearly 100,000 boys and girls – roughly 1/10th the size of New York City’s public school students – requires many buildings. The dense communities where the Hasidim live drive up demand and therefore the prices.

This is a community whose wealth – to the extent there is some – is mostly illiquid. It is in the very homes and schools they live in every day.

Possible Solutions

Both the Times’ opening conclusion that Hasidic schools are neither underfunded nor mismanaged, and the timing of the article’s release before the Board of Regents meeting, had the desired impact of the city threatening to cut funding to the schools. As reviewed above, that is ill advised. Why take away transportation, food and other subsidies to a poor community already struggling?

More money needs to flow into the Hasidic school system, not less. That does not mean simply writing checks without accountability. The system needs to pivot to address the plain facts that yeshiva students are growing rapidly and now account for almost 10% of New York City students, as the public schools continue to shrink.

A few suggestions:

Bilingual Yiddish schools. New York City has 545 bilingual schools. They are mostly in Spanish, but also include French, Russian, Chinese, Bengali and Haitian-Creole. It is time to invest in distinct Yiddish schools in coordination with the Hasidic community. The schools would need to be segregated by gender and timed to allow for religious private school either in the morning or afternoon, switching off for different groups in the area to fully utilize the facilities.

Employ/ Pay Secular Teachers Directly. For those parents that do not want to use bilingual Yiddish schools, the city should pay for qualified secular teachers directly. As public school teachers are being retired due to the shrinking public school student body, reassign the teachers to teach secular subjects in these yeshivas.

Should the community fail to adopt these investments in secular education, punitive measures should be considered. However, immediately jumping to threaten poor Hasidic schools that get minimal funding is counterproductive and mean-spirited.

If we truly want all students to be educated and to succeed, we need to examine the situation honestly and invest appropriately. The New York Times and Board of Regents seemingly have chosen the opposite path, and acted abusively to a large impoverished minority. If it is simply a coincidence that these secular bodies opted to target ultra Orthodox Jews, I leave it to each reader to consider.

Related articles:

NY Times Horrible Take On Failing Hasidic Schools

Politicians In Their Own Words: Why We Don’t Support Defending Jews

Why Does the New York Times Delete Stories of Attacks on Jews?

Decrying Anti-Semitism While Blocking Jews

The Joy of Lecturing Jews

The Re-Introduction of the ‘Powerful’ Jew Smear

NY Times Horrible Take On Failing Hasidic Schools

Posted on by
2

The New York Times wrote a front-page elaborate article about the Ultra-Orthodox school system in New York. It described an extensive investigation performed over a long period to tell the world about the education received by a particular enclave that numbers about 200,000 people.

By all accounts, the reporting is very important for those who want to see schools succeed. To watch a media outlet like the Times perform such analysis though, an outfit long associated as anti-religion – especially Judaism – could make a person cringe.

And for good reason.

If the Times wrote about under-performing Hispanic schools, the tone would have been one of concern. How do we help these underprivileged students from a poor minority community? How should society devote more resources to help the school succeed? The article would have been peppered with adjectives-as-commentary masked as reporting that more work needs to be done in a collective effort to help these young people.

But not for the Jews.

The Times article wanted its readers to know that Jews are politically powerful. They take lots of money – your money; money from your children – and fail on purpose.

The Jews Are Taking Your Child’s Money, Illegally

Throughout the article – including in the titles and beneath the pictures – the liberal paper informed its secular readers that the Jews are taking public money (boxed in red in the pictures above).

  • “Failing Schools, Public Funds“, read the front page headline
  • “Failing Hasidic Schools Receive Public Funds“, reads each subsequent headline on following pages
  • “Government money is flowing to private Hasidic academies, known as yeshivas, at a time when New York City’s public school system is cutting budgets” is the text beneath the next picture, urging the reader to feel outrage that the Jews are not just taking money, but money from the general public schools, as if one was dipping into the other
  • “the Hasidic boys’ schools have found ways of tapping into enormous sums of government money, collecting more than $1 billion in the past four years alone,” as if the funds for education are not supposed to be used by Jews
  • “they have received increasing amounts of government money, records show“, making the issue appear as a growing concern
  • “$1 Billion: Approximate amount of government money collected in the past four years by Hasidic boys’ schools, even though they appear to be operating in violation of state laws guaranteeing students an adequate education.” was called out in the text, making the Jewish enterprise appear very illegal.
  • “Despite the failings of Hasidic boys’ schools, the government has continued sending them a steady stream of funding.” seemingly leading a reader to demand that the funding stop, rather than urge improved education, something the Times would do for non-Jewish minorities.
  • “Hasidic boys’ yeshivas, like other private schools, access dozens of such programs, collecting money that subsidizes their theological curriculum“, making the funding appear as breaking a line between church and state.
  • “the money is flowing as New York City is cutting public school budgets,” paints the Jews as thieves robbing from the poor public schools, rather than part-and-parcel of a society that subsidizes education for everyone.
  • “The city voucher program that helps low income families pay for child care now send nearly a third of its total assistance to Hasidic neighborhoods, even while tens of thousands of people have languished on waiting lists,” leans in to the theme of Jews stealing from poor around the city.
  • “Hasidic boys’ schools also received about $30 million from government financial aid programs,”
  • “The school got roughly $100 million through antipoverty programs to provide free breakfast, lunch, dinner and snacks every school day“
  • “Hasidic boy’s schools benefit from about $100 million annually from federal Title 1 programs and other sources of funding for secular education.”
  • “Hasidic boys’ school received roughly $30 million in the last year before the pandemic to transport students“
  • “they collected about $200,000 in federal money for internet-related services, even though they forbid the students from going online.” ended the list of financial aid programs, many of which were not for education, but for concerns around school, like food, child care and transportation.
  • “The money is subsidizing instruction that has regularly involved corporal punishment,” not that there is a problem of teachers hitting students, but your tax dollars are paying for it.
  • People from the state education department investigating the schools “started making notes in the margins of requests, questioning the wisdom of sending money.”
  • Some Hasidic men who went through the system were “awash in debt and supporting their families with government welfare,” taking government monies not only when young and in school, but throughout their lives.

That’s an awful amount of of ink about money, and not about education. The Times would never criticize government monies going to fund children’s education – unless it’s for private schools, especially parochial schools, and especially especially, Jewish private schools.

The Thieving Jews Are Very Powerful, None Can Stand In Their Way

The progressive paper laid out lots of information about the ultra Orthodox Jews taking $1 billion while public schools were struggling, and wanted its readers to understand how their elected progressive political leadership has been helpless to fend off the Jewish power (text boxed in black).

  • “city and state officials have avoided taking action, bowing to the influence of Hasidic leaders who push their followers to vote as a block,” note that the progressive champions are forced to “bow” down to the all powerful Jewish leaders, propaganda perfected under Nazi Germany. This screed from a paper that bemoans that only 80% of Black men are voting for the Black woman Stacey Abrams, instead of 95 percent, which is the voting block they expect.
  • “Mayor Eric Adams has not intervened in the schools – and has touted close ties to Hasidic leaders. In Albany, Gov. Kathy Hochul has taken a similar hands-off approach, as did her predecessor, Andrew M. Cuomo,” showing that no leader – Democrats no less – would mess with the Jewish lobby. Black and Hispanic communities would never be written about in such fashion by the liberal rag.
  • “Before elections, teachers often give students sample ballots with the names of the grand rabbi’s chosen candidate filled in” is the text below one picture
  • “Mayor Eric Adams won his primary campaign with the help of the Satmar Hasidic group. He embraced Moishe Indig, a Satmar leader, during his election night party last November,” was the text beneath another picture.
  • “Politicians who might have taken action have instead accommodated a Hasidic voting block that can sway local races.”
  • “‘There’s a significant population that you ignore at your peril‘”, making Jews appear less as constituents and more as powerful adversaries.
  • “Yeshivas play a central role in getting out the vote. Before elections, teachers often give students sample ballots with the names of the grand rabbi’s chosen candidate filled in.” The Times normally loves groups that get out the vote. Here, it seems to bemoan the fact that these ultra Orthodox Jews are part of Democratic process.
  • “Shortly before winning an endorsement from one faction of the Satmar group, Mr. Adams…”
  • “Campaigning this year, [Kathy Hochul] met with Hasidic leaders in Williamsburg.“
  • “the city Department of Investigation found that the mayor engaged in ‘political horse-trading’ by delaying publication of an interim report on the schools“

The Times did its utmost to make the failing schools appear unworthy of concern, and even more, a target of disgust, led by a powerful force that “controlled more than $500 million in assets” which bullied locally elected leaders who were helpless to protect the under-funded public school system.

The Charge of ‘Failing By Design’

If these Jews are so powerful and crafty at getting money, why do their students fail basic skills in English and math? Are they stupid? Do they have terrible teachers?

The Times has the answer: “they are failing by design.“

The secular paper asserts that the schools “wall [the Jewish children] off from the secular world. Offering little English and math, and virtually no science or history, they drill the students relentlessly, sometimes brutally, during hours of religious lessons conducted in Yiddish.” It added that “some teachers at religious schools said that they had become convinced that their yeshivas discouraged learning English because it was seen as a dangerous bridge to the outside world.” Further, “some Hasidic boys’ yeshivas do not offer any nonreligious classes at all. Others make attending the classes optional.“

Do the opinions of a few teachers and students provide proof that the entire system of education of 50,000 ultra Orthodox boys are “failing by design”? Hardly. Did the investigation produce any documents showing that administrators forbade teaching English and science? That the vast majority of schools had no math instructors? No. Just some anecdotes.

There’s a noxious bias in the reporting: Jews are clever, so if they are failing, they must be doing so on purpose.

Insular By Design

Just two weeks ago, the Times wrote a story about the death of an indigenous man in Brazil, and bemoaned the loss of an “entire uncontacted tribe.” The people in the forests of the Amazon wanted to live a secluded life but some natural forces like disease, as well as man-made encroachment on their habitats, killed their community. A sad extinction for the tribe and for mankind.

With a less generous pen, the paper touched upon the desire of the New York Hasidic community to resuscitate the communities that they once had in eastern Europe which were wiped out by the genocide of the Jews at the hands of the Nazis and their supporters, and wrote about the community’s desire to not be interviewed for the article. But the journalists opted to draw a direct line between the wish to remain insulated in terms of religious practice, with the effort to starve their children of any secular education.

The reality is that many Hasidim are very successful. Many attend top law schools and are leading lawyers and judges. Many are successful real estate investors. Many have retail stores and commercial businesses.

They went unmentioned in the article.

A Uniquely Scorned Minority

If the Times wanted to accurately relay the situation of the education of Hasidic children, it would have compared the performance of poor Yiddish-speaking students, to other poor non-English speaking communities, not to poor students broadly.

If the Times cared about the welfare of the Hasidic children, it would not have portrayed the funding of their schools as taking money away from public school children.

If the Times sought to uplift the most persecuted minority in the world, it would not have charged the Jews as powerful puppet masters of progressive politicians, and would have used softer language it reserves for its preferred Black and Hispanic minorities.

The New York Times did important research about the poor education in the Hasidic community, but it crafted a story meant to incite hatred against the Jews and to punish its leaders, rather than find solutions to improve the situation for the poor persecuted minority.

Related articles:

Why Does the New York Times Delete Stories of Attacks on Jews?

Decrying Anti-Semitism While Blocking Jews

Orthodoxy in ‘Shtisel’ and ‘Nurses’

The Joy of Lecturing Jews

‘Her Unorthodox Brand’

The Re-Introduction of the ‘Powerful’ Jew Smear

The Nerve of ‘Judaizing’ Neighborhoods

New York Times Confusion on Free Speech

On 9/11, Commit To Blocking Iran and Saudi Arabia From Ever Possessing Weapons Of Mass Destruction

Posted on by
1

The horrific terrorist attacks conducted against Americans on September 11, 2001 was not only the worst loss of life in a coordinated attack by foreign enemies, it changed the vector of American and world history.

On the 21st anniversary of the attacks, the United States posted comments by President Biden about “Patriot Day” at various embassies around the world. In the Middle East and North Africa, the American embassies took very different approaches.

The US embassies in Israel, Egypt and Yemen were unique in posting Biden’s remarks about the 9/11 terrorism. The embassies in other countries which are considered US allies, such as Jordan which receives $1.45 billion in annual aid from the U.S., Qatar, which houses the largest US military presence in the region, and Saudi Arabia, where President Biden just visited to increase its oil exports, all opted to remain silent on the solemn day.

What do these three countries have in common?

Israel has been fighting the scourge of Palestinian Islamic radical terrorism for decades. Egypt and Yemen are fighting terrorist forces backed by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Many of the other regional Muslim-majority countries back those terrorist groups like Hamas, or have other US-designated terrorist groups operating openly in their borders, including Turkey, Lebanon and Qatar.

As we remember the victims of the 9/11 attacks, we must also remember the state sponsors of terrorism – Iran and Saudi Arabia in particular – and make sure that they never have access to weapons of mass destruction.

Related articles:

Paying to Murder Jews: From Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Iran to the Palestinian Authority

Will Biden Enable Hamas’s Sponsors of Iran, Qatar and Turkey

Some Global Supporters of the P5+1 Iran Deal

If Biden Is Half Right, Is He All Wrong?

Posted on by
3

President Joe Biden called the United States to order this week in asking all Americans to tune into a prime time address staged outside Independence Hall in Philadelphia. It was an address he believed was of the utmost importance: to save democracy.

That is indeed a most important subject. Biden was right to call out “extremists” (which he mentioned six times, and political “violence” (ten times) as real risks which threaten our society. It is a principle beyond partisanship.

Alas, Biden destroyed his 3,000-word speech by only calling out extremists to the right of him, and not to the left.

He tried to coin a phrase “MAGA Republicans” (used 13 times) to describe the extremists who follow former President Donald Trump who wrongfully tried to overturn the results of the 2020 elections. He said those people “do not respect the Constitution. They do not believe in the rule of law. They do not recognize the will of the people…. and they fanned the flames of political violence that are a threat to our personal rights, to the pursuit of justice, to the rule of law, to the very soul of this country.” He made clear that they are a “threat” (used nine times) to the fabric of the United States.

Biden pretended that the extremists exist on only one side of the political spectrum. He ignored the raucous left that burned the streets of America and assaulted our persons and property:

The extremists to the left include anti-Semites like Rep. Rashida Tlaib and Rep. Ilhan Omar. Instead of lambasting their disgraceful incitement against Jews, Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi rewarded Omar with passing an act denouncing Islamophobia.

The far-left extremists are inciting hatred against the police, capitalism and Jews. They are attempting to brand all White people as racists and teach such in elementary schools. They are inciting riots and anti-Semitic attacks. But Biden won’t call it out.

President Biden calling “MAGA Republicans” a threat to democracy. He did not utter a word about radical left-wing extremists

The call to dismantle America is only part of the attack on democracy. The Obama/Biden administration gave the Islamic Republic of Iran, the leading state sponsor of terrorism, a legal pathway to nuclear weapons. Biden/Harris are working on the same, threatening All democracies around the world.

In addition to being silent on the the radical left, Biden stretched the meaning of the radical right. He said that people who were not in favor of Democrats demand for abortion until the moment of birth are threats to democracy. Does he know that over 70% of Americans are against abortions in the third trimester?

Biden said that people who were not in favor of gay marriage were extremists. Did he forget that it was illegal in the US until a few years ago? There are over 70 countries were BEING gay (let alone legalizing gay marriage) is illegal. Was his address meant to antagonize half of the world?

Biden was correct that calls for violence are completely unacceptable; people who try to rip at our common bonds that make us all Americans are threats to society. That he could only call out the alt-right while ignoring the alt-left was not just a missed opportunity to bring America to the center by clipping the fringes, but a frightening warning sign that the power of progressive extremists has already inserted itself deeply into the administration.

Related articles:

Democrats Give Platforms to Their Extremists

Islamic and Alt-Left Extremists Declare that Normalization With Zionists Is Against Sharia Law

#NeverGillibrand #NeverSanders #NeverHarris #NeverDeBlasio

Bernie Sanders’ Antisemitic and Anti-Zionist Friends

The Democratic Socialists Tell Lies and Half Truths About Lobbyists