There are endless scams in New York City. People forge deeds, steal equity, and prey on desperation every week. Almost none of those crimes get elevated to a national morality tale.
So why did The New York Times choose a particular case and present it as it did?
A headline about home theft. A photograph of a visibly Orthodox Jew in a courtroom to lead the story. A description of victims “from minority communities.”
The message was unmistakable: A Jew stole from vulnerable minorities.
The Times could have reported the crime without turning it into a racial and religious showdown, yet it chose not to.
If his religion played no role in the scheme, then it had no business in the article. Yet the Times made sure every reader saw the kippah and beard, and read of his Orthodox clan coming to rally for the criminal: a greedy Jew stealing from the vulnerable.
The New York Times made a point of discussing the perpetrator being from the “Orthodox Jewish community“, even though the case had nothing to do with religion.
This did not land in a vacuum. Jews are being attacked in New York at rates that should horrify any decent newsroom. Anti-Jewish tropes about Jews stealing land, homes, and resources are exploding across campuses and city streets. It is standard stump propaganda by Democratic Socialist politicians.
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) at a Democratic Socialist conference said of Jews: “they do it from Gaza to Detroit, and it’s a way to control people, to oppress people. And it’s those structures that we continue to fight against. I know you all understand the structure we’ve been living under right now is designed by those who exploit the rest of us, for their own profit.“
If the victims were Orthodox Jews and the offender was a member of another minority group – a majority-minority group like Blacks or Latinos – does anyone believe the Times would blast the offender’s ethnicity and splash a religiously identifiable photo across the top of the page?
Absolutely not. They would call that incitement.
This is a pattern. Mainstream media outlets have spent the last decade profiling Jews as:
They would never speak this way about any other minority group. But when the subject is Jews, especially Orthodox Jews, suddenly it’s acceptable to present them as predators and everyone else as their prey.
That is not journalism. It is character assassination dressed up as social justice.
And it does this in the backdrop of the election of a Ugandan immigrant, Zohran Mamdani who has trafficked in antisemitism, to be the new mayor of New York City. A man supported by the Black and Latino communities and opposed by the Orthodox Jewish one. A man who focused on the affordability crisis of living in New York City, with scaffolding provided by the Times about how corrupt Jews make it impossible for poor immigrants to live in the city.
The New York Times made a point of discussing the perpetrator being from the Orthodox Jewish community, even though the case had nothing to do with religion.
Propaganda does best when there are elements of truth. It does best when the fire has already been lit and the mob is seeking red meat to fuel the passion. The Times is feeding the beast and clearing an auto de fe for Jews to be marched through the streets.
There was a time when respect was earned by learning. People who studied hard, accumulated degrees, mastered facts and logic were admired. They didn’t need followers; they had knowledge. They didn’t need virality; they had depth.
That world is gone.
Fame today is not built in libraries or laboratories but in the palm of a hand. A ring light replaces a classroom. A viral clip replaces a thesis. And the more lurid, outrageous, emotional, and dishonest the content is, the faster the fame spreads. The algorithms demand provocation, not proof. They reward outrage, not understanding.
And people are responding exactly as the system intends: they’re dropping degrees, skipping college, deciding that years of expensive education aren’t worth it in a world where clout is free and clicks are currency. AI will write the papers anyway. Tuition is a fortune. Morality is optional. Why struggle through years of learning when you can fabricate a persona, press “upload,” and watch the world react?
For the first time in history, the older generation will have far more education than the young. Degrees are becoming relics. Expertise is becoming an antique. And winning hearts and minds through argument — the old democratic ideal — is becoming a luxury.
Politics is drifting toward the young, the uninformed, the inflamed, the furious, the ones who know how to play the game of attention better than the game of truth.
Hasan Piker doesn’t win debates; he wins followers. Comedian David Smith isn’t famous for jokes; he’s famous for attacking fellow Jews, because tearing down your own people brings clicks in a sick digital economy.
And here is the crisis for the Jewish people: We are the People of the Book trying to survive in a world where books don’t matter. We are a civilization built on reason, argument, text, questioning — and we cannot comprehend why we’re losing the PR battle against influencers who deal only in emotion, rage, and spectacle.
We fight with facts. They fight with feelings.
The socialist-jihadi crowd celebrates Hasan Piker showing up at Zohran Mamdani’s victory party
We build logic. They build engagement.
We look for truth. They look for traction.
And so a terrifying question hangs in the air: Must Jews abandon their values to survive? Must we trade nuance for noise? Must we jump into the sewer of social-media fabrication because that is the only battlefield the world seems to care about? Must we out-viral our enemies just to protect ourselves from the lies, the hatred, and the persecution that spread faster than any truth we offer?
Or is there a third way — a way to fight fiercely without becoming the thing we oppose? A way to compete in the digital arena without destroying the intellectual soul that has kept us alive for 3,000 years?
This is the defining challenge of the modern Jewish experience. Not whether we can win a debate — we always could. But whether debate still matters.
And if it doesn’t, then the Jewish people must decide how to defend themselves in a world where vanities, not virtues, are the currency of influence.
The People of the Book didn’t choose this kind of world. But we must learn how to survive it — without losing who we are.
Meteors streak through the night sky, lighting up for a brief second before vanishing into nothing. They burn because the Earth protects itself. Our planet’s atmosphere—thin but powerful—defends it from destruction. The meteors disintegrate, and the world goes on unharmed.
The Moon has no such shield. Every rock, every speck of space dust that comes its way slams straight into its surface. That’s why it’s pockmarked with craters—permanent scars of endless bombardment. Without protection, the Moon endures the full force of the universe’s hostility.
So it is with the Jewish people.
Across centuries, Jews have existed as the exposed body in a world of friction and fire. Without a “cultural atmosphere” to cushion them, they’ve absorbed the hits directly—pogroms, inquisitions, expulsions, boycotts, and genocides. The Jewish story is a catalogue of collisions that the rest of humanity barely felt.
Christians and Muslims, by contrast, have lived for centuries within the thick atmosphere of dominance. Their societies, their empires, their majority status wrapped them in protection and privilege. When hatred sparks, their vast numbers and institutions disperse the heat before it burns. They are Earth-like—shielded by mass and power.
The Jew, wherever he resides as a minority, has always been lunar—alone in orbit, lacking an atmospheric buffer. Every ideological meteor, every political upheaval, every cultural storm leaves its mark. From England in 1290 to Spain in 1492, from Kishinev in 1903 to Pittsburgh in 2018, the craters accumulate.
If Christianity and Islam represent the Earth—secure, dominant, cushioned by atmosphere—Judaism remains the Moon, enduring open space without defense, absorbing the hits and still shining back upon the world.
In that celestial backdrop, we are now in a major meteor shower. We look up at them pounding the Moon and lighting the Earthly skies. We see the Moon amassing more scars and pray the projectiles will be small enough to incinerate before hitting Earth.
Jews had learned to survive without a shielding atmosphere for two thousand years. And then, in 1948, it got one, in the very place where the Jewish forefathers lived. Now, when the meteor showers of Jew-hatred arrive, those in Israel feel the impacts when the projectiles are large, while their diaspora brothers on the Moon get pummeled by lighter fare.
The Earth and Moon Jews have been barraged these last two years. They are scarred but eternal, waiting for the wave of debris to pass by as quickly as possible.
Every political movement faces the same question: what do you do with the bad people in your camp?
Ezra Klein, writing in The New York Times, argues that Democrats should welcome everyone under their banner — no matter how extreme — because inclusion wins elections. He calls it the big tent: forget purity, just make sure they call themselves Democrats. It’s politics over principle, and power over conscience.
Republicans, by contrast, still try to draw a line. When groups like the Heritage Foundation flirt with extremists such as Tucker Carlson or Nick Fuentes — men who traffic in grievance and racism — many conservatives recoil. To them, the party label still carries moral weight. You can lose elections, but you shouldn’t lose your soul.
And then there’s Hamas — the third model. When Hamas decides someone in its own ranks isn’t loyal enough, it doesn’t debate inclusion or expulsion. It breaks their legs in the street. It executes them in public. For Hamas, politics is not persuasion or debate; it is terror enforced by fear. That’s how it keeps power — absolute, unchallenged, and bloodstained.
The Temptation of the Big Tent
Ezra Klein’s “big tent” philosophy played out in real time with Zohran Mamdani’s win in New York City. The Democratic Party opened its doors to a wholly different ideology and welcomed it inside to secure a victory. But at what cost?
The party platform now stretches so far that it’s unrecognizable — and to many, repulsive. In its desperation to confront unified Republican power in Washington, the Democrats chose to absorb the fringe rather than confront it. The price of inclusion was coherence.
For illustration, imagine a Jewish newspaper facing a business dilemma:
A group like Jews for Jesus wants to buy an ad. The editor must decide: Do we take the money? Do we run it in the name of inclusion and open debate? Or do we reject it as off-brand, offensive, and disloyal to our readership?
Most would choose the last. They’d rather forgo the check than cheapen their identity.
But the Democrats have made a different calculation. The party tasted the fringe, saw no backlash, and convinced itself there’s no downside. It’s as though that Jewish paper ran the Jews for Jesus ad — and the subscribers applauded. So what’s next? An ad from the KKK? Pork recipes for Passover? How far can inclusion stretch before it becomes desecration?
Power, Principle, and the Price of Brand
Republicans have power so can afford to maintain their brand by shedding radicals. Hamas maintains power by shedding blood. Democrats, desperate to gain power, are willing to shed consistency.
Three models emerge to rule:
The Democrat: inclusion for victory
The Republican: exclusion for integrity
The Islamist: execution for control
Each reveals a truth about how institutions face the corrupting pull of power.
Politics, like publishing, isn’t just about what you include — it’s defined by what you refuse to print. A brand without boundaries isn’t brave. It’s broken.
Of course the masses would like consistency and inclusion and integrity and peace on the streets. But they have come to realize that politics is power, and they want power. When Congress was a bell curve with little difference between Democrat and Republican, there was general ambivalence about elections and the impact on people’s daily lives regarding who was in power. Not so in today’s barbell society with extremists dominating politics.
The Jewish Community
What does the Jewish community do with groups like Neturei Karta that join the worst of the anti-Israel protests and fly to Iran for Holocaust denial conferences? With Jews who voted for a mayor who supports “globalize the Intifada”?
Neturei Karta protesting a march against antisemitism in New York City, January 2020 (photo: First One Through)
Neturei Karta is a small fringe group that mostly keeps themselves isolated, so in practice, there needn’t be an active response. But there were an estimated one-third of Jews in New York City that voted for Zohran Mamdani, including public officials and celebrities. There was a big turnout in younger Jews voting for Mamdani, estimated at two-thirds of those under 44 years old.
How does the Jewish community react when a majority of young Jews are viewed as putting the broader community at risk? Which model does it follow, or is the question more complicated as one’s Jewishness cannot be shed like political affiliation, and being a Jew is not about attaining power.
And is the conclusion in the observation? Politics is about power and people take actions depending on the environment to obtain or maintain power. However, Judaism shuns power, and seeks to live a religious life of one’s choosing without external influence.
Mandy Patinkin endorsing Zohran Mamdani for mayor, president and emperor
Jews, while always small in number, have always had a very large and wide tent because they don’t get to decide who to include and exclude for their numbers. They only decide who should be included in their associations – in their shuls, schools, umbrella groups.
In May 2021, young anti-Israel Jews were calling Israeli engagement with Palestinian Arabs “apartheid” and “genocide’ (well before Hamas’s 2023 War on Israel), and some were thereby fired from teaching positions at Jewish schools. At Upper East Side Yeshivat Ramaz, alumni pressured the Principal Emeritus Haskel Lookstein to not speak at Donald Trump’s 2017 inauguration. Jews shut down other Jews for their comments and associations.
I do not believe that there is a single answer for what Jews should do with kinsmen who are regarded as beyond the pale. Historically, in a bell curve political dynamic with moderate antisemitism, the radical could be ignored as noise. However, in today’s barbell political reality, with heightened antisemitism, active measures need to be considered regarding the bad apples.
Stateless Arabs from Palestine (SAPs) — in Gaza and the West Bank — often cry out that they cannot go wherever they wish in Israel. They protest that they cannot move to the towns where their grandparents once lived. They label Israel as racist for preventing them from settling there, even though their Muslim Arab cousins live peacefully in those very same towns.
Arab women sitting in the shade in Akko, Israel (photo: First One Through)
They point to United Nations resolutions declaring they have a “right of return.” They frame their displacement as an “ongoing Nakba,” a catastrophe that Israel continues to impose.
I hear their complaint. I hear their anger. I more than understand — I live it.
Because Jews have lived that same nightmare — and worse. The very same United Nations that claims SAPs have a “right of return” decreed that Jews should be banned from living in half of their homeland. It told us we could not live in our own capital, Jerusalem. It told us we could not pray on our own holy mountain. It called it a “status quo” and the world nodded in approval.
And the Stateless Arabs from Palestine have the gall to try to deny Jews that very same right — to live freely in their homeland — while complaining that Jews are denying them theirs. They scream of injustice while vilifying “Yahoods.” The hypocrisy is obscene.
The Palestinian Arabs know it, and rather than confront it through accommodation and compromise, they wage war like Highlander, shouting “there can be only one.” They elected Hamas. They supported the October 7 barbarism. They continue to support Hamas, all in the hope of taking over the entire land from a small country.
Israeli Arabs make up 21% of the Israeli population, while Jews make up 0% of Gaza’s population and about 18% of the land east of the 1949 Armistice Lines (E49AL). The world ignores the Israeli Arabs with full citizenship rights, and obsesses and smears the Jews in the “West Bank” as illegal “settlers.” It seeks to ethnically cleanse that region of Jews while simultaneously claiming Israel has no true sovereignty to determine who to allow into its country to push the Israeli Arab population to 50%. It’s absurd.
Muslim Arabs have global support backed by 2 billion Muslims in their complaint against Israel. The small number of Israeli Jews receive global contempt for seeking the same right to live and travel freely in their homeland.
Israeli Arab women in Jerusalem (photo: First One Through)
The vile antisemitism of Within Our Lifetime‘s Nerdeen Kiswani and MPower Change‘s Linda Sarsour isn’t accidental or peripheral — it’s the smoke that hides the fire. Their venom serves political purposes: to push Zohran Mamdani further and to make him look like a moderate.
Kiswani, the founder of Within Our Lifetime, just declared that there is “no scourge of antisemitism” in New York, that antisemitism is merely a “political tool.” She dismisses Jewish fear as propaganda, mocking the very notion that attacks on Jews are real or meaningful. It’s malice dressed up as activism.
Sarsour, her ideological twin, has spent years deflecting and justifying Jew-hatred while demanding that “Zionists” be excluded from feminist and progressive spaces. Both women were already disgusting before Mamdani’s rise; their brand of hatred was a known quantity. But now, with a self-proclaimed “anti-Zionist” mayor-elect, their vitriol has a new function.
By shouting louder, by pushing uglier rhetoric, by saying they will hold Mamdani “accountable,” Kiswani and Sarsour pull the Overton window so far into open antisemitism that Mamdani’s own positions — once fringe — could appear reasonable. When he calls for “justice for Palestine” but refuses to condemn chants for the destruction of Israel, he suddenly sounds measured. When he pays lip service to opposing antisemitism while platforming its deniers, he looks balanced.
That’s the trick. The extremists normalize the radical.
Expect them to ratchet it up — louder, uglier, more unapologetic. Every grotesque statement they make gives Mamdani cover to pretend he’s in the middle, that he’s the “responsible” voice between hatred and hysteria. In reality, it’s a choreography: they spew; he sanitizes.
This is how antisemitism gains respectability — not only through mobs on the street which are clearly terrifying sights – but through mayors in city hall who appear “moderate” only because the activists behind them are obscene.
New York should not fall for the illusion. The vile bigotry of Sarsour and Kiswani doesn’t make Mamdani reasonable — it exposes how far the city’s moral compass has tilted. When hatred becomes the baseline, even those who echo it softly begin to sound centrist.
There’s always someone worse. That’s how the worst ideas survive.
During a July 31, 2021 WOL rally in Brooklyn, after fireworks were lit, Kiswani told [01:02:43] the crowd: “I hope that a pop-pop is the last noise that some Zionists hear in their lifetime!”
The cameras panned across the crowd at Zohran Mamdani’s victory celebration — the newly elected mayor of New York City, surrounded by socialist activists, digital influencers, and the self-congratulating left. It was meant to be a night of triumph for the “movement.” But what stood out for those watching was not unity, or even politics. It was who was cheering.
Standing shoulder to shoulder, laughing and hugging, were Jamaal Bowman, Hasan Piker, and Zeteo’s Mehdi Hasan — three men whose names have become synonymous with the moral collapse that followed the Hamas atrocities of October 7.
Zeteo’s Mehdi Hasan at the Mamdani victory party with Hasan Piker and Jamaal Bowman. (start at 52:00)
Bowman, the disgraced former congressman, made his name shouting on New York’s streets that Israeli women were not raped on October 7 — that the accounts of mass sexual violence by Hamas terrorists were fabricated. He wasn’t a lone crank in an internet comment section; he was a member of Congress using his platform to publicly deny the humanity of Jewish victims in the streets of his district.
Hasan Piker, meanwhile, mocked the entire subject on his Twitch stream, telling his millions of followers that he didn’t care if the women on October 7 were raped. That flippant cruelty — that casual dismissal of atrocity — has become a feature, not a bug, of a corrupted culture that cloaks moral degeneracy in “anti-imperialist” rhetoric. His anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric had become so toxic, that Rep. Ritchie Torres, a Latin-Black gay Congressman, wrote a letter on October 29, 2024 to the CEO of Twitch to have Piker removed.
And then there was Mehdi Hasan, who publicly argued that early reports of “mass rape” on October 7 were overstated and politicized, arguing that the allegations had been “weaponized by supporters of Israel.” At Mamdani’s party, he stood smiling with Bowman and hugging Piker as the pain of Jews was being amplified and normalized.
And celebrated.
The spectacle was a black mirror of a broken city — a city that once prided itself on tolerance and moral clarity now relishing Jewish trauma.
New Yorkers didn’t just elect a socialist. They elected a symbol of moral inversion — a man whose supporters include those who laughed at, ignored, or explained away the rape and murder of innocents.
When the applause dies down and the speeches fade, one question will remain for the city that crowned Mamdani: What kind of people celebrate with rape deniers and those that revel in the pain of the most persecuted minority-minority?
Much of the attention on the Balfour Declaration—issued on November 2, 1917—focuses on the United Kingdom’s pledge to “facilitate” “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” Israel-haters rage at this clause, claiming that Jews had no historical connection to their ancestral homeland and that Britain had no right to “hand over” immigration rights from local Arabs to Jews.
Balfour Declaration
On the anniversary of the Declaration in 1943, Heinrich Himmler of Nazi Germany sent a telegram to the “Grand Mufti” of Jerusalem that Nazis and Arabs had the same enemies – Jewish invaders. In 2016, the President of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas demanded an apology and reparations from Britain for issuing the Balfour Declaration, having repeatedly failed to destroy the Jewish State.
Telegram from Heinrich Himmler to Amin al-Husseini on November 2, 1943
But there’s another part of that same document that antisemites also detest. The closing line reads:
“…nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
That final clause—protecting Jews’ rights around the world—is precisely what modern antisemitic movements are trying to undermine. Groups like Within Our Lifetime, CAIR, and the Democratic Socialists of America openly campaign to dismantle what they deride as “Jewish power” in America.
They smear Jews as self-serving “capitalists,” accuse them of exploiting “Black and Brown bodies” for profit (as Rep. Rashida Tlaib has said), and seek to push Jews to the margins of public life—all because Jews affirm that the land of Israel is their homeland.
A century after the Balfour Declaration, its promise remains under attack—not only in the Jewish homeland but wherever Jews dare to live proud and free.
There are signs on the streets of London that read “LOOK RIGHT.” They are painted boldly on the pavement to protect visitors—especially Americans—who are used to glancing left before stepping into the street. In the U.K., traffic comes from the opposite direction, and those who rely on old instincts can find themselves in sudden danger.
So it is now with American Jews.
For generations, they have turned instinctively to the Democratic Party—to the left—out of habit, heritage, and a deep belief that liberal ideals best protected minorities. But the political landscape has shifted beneath their feet. The party that once championed freedom, tolerance, and support for Israel has been co-opted by radicals: anti-Israel voices, socialists, and anarchists who now wield growing influence in its ranks.
These are not the Democrats of old. They are activists who view capitalism as oppression, who denounce Israel as colonial, and who see Jews not as a vulnerable minority but as part of a power structure to be dismantled. They are coming for capitalism—and for the Jews who helped build and sustain it.
This election, American Jews must recognize that the public square is not what it used to be. The political traffic now comes from the right direction—but the danger comes from the left.
When Government Champions Some, and Leaves Jews to Defend Themselves
Westchester County, NY, like much of America, has learned the vocabulary of inclusion. It now boasts a tapestry of advisory boards, task forces, and community liaisons — each designed to protect and empower those who have known prejudice.
There is a Westchester County Asian American Advisory Board, formed after a surge of anti-Asian hate crimes during COVID. It partners with the District Attorney’s office on the #SpeakUpWestchester campaign, translating safety materials into Korean, Mandarin, and Japanese so that no one’s fear goes unheard.
There is also an LGBTQ+ Advisory Board, formally empowered to advise the County Executive, coordinate events, and oversee inclusivity training. The county even facilitated an LGBTQ+-affirming senior housing complex in downtown White Plains with The LOFT Community Center at its core — an unprecedented public-private partnership to create safe spaces for queer residents.
But there is one group that still has to do it all on its own: Jews.
There is no County Jewish Advisory Board. No county liaison for antisemitism. No government program translating “Never Again” into action.
While Asian and LGBTQ+ residents have been given official seats inside government, Jews have been told — quietly, politely — to use their own.
Even the collection of antisemitic incident data — which rose 22 percent in Westchester in 2024 — is largely managed by private watchdogs, not public offices.
The disparity is not just institutional; it is measurable.
Westchester County has 1 million residents, including about 137,000 Jews (14% of the population) and about 65,000 Asian Americans (7%).
According to state hate-crime data and ADL monitoring, there were about 40 antisemitic incidents and 8 anti-Asian incidents reported in Westchester in 2024. That translates to an estimated 29 antisemitic incidents per 100,000 Jewish residents versus roughly 12 per 100,000 Asian residents — a per-capita rate more than twice as high.
Rather than address the antisemitism squarely, Westchester District Attorney Susan Cacace made an inclusive Hate Crimes Advisory Board which had its inaugural meeting on September 29. Cacace was proud of the giant tent and said “the communities represented on this board are broad and diverse, and board members will be able to provide me with direct input from their constituents so that my office may more readily address their concerns.”
The Westchester County District Attorney’s Office’s new Hate Crimes Advisory Board
The all-Democratic Westchester establishment seemed to echo the Democratically-led House of Representatives which refused to condemn antisemitism without adding language about Islamophobia in 2019. Jew protection cannot exist in isolation for some reason for the Blue Team. It seemingly repulses them so much, that when Republicans target antisemitism, they argue that President Trump is “weaponizing antisemitism” and not really concerned about Jews at all.
No one begrudges others their protection. Jews, more than anyone, know the cost of silence. But the imbalance is glaring.
When the Asian community faced hate during COVID, Westchester created a formal board within months. When LGBTQ+ residents sought recognition, government became a partner in building physical spaces of affirmation. But when antisemitic assaults, harassment, and vandalism spiked across campuses, streets, and synagogues, the government offered sympathy — not structure.
Graffiti on Jewish stores in Scarsdale, NY, January 2024
The Jewish paradox
Jews are trapped in a paradox. Their success is cited as proof they don’t need help; their vulnerability dismissed as self-inflicted. They are “white” enough to be privileged, but “Jewish” enough to be blamed.
And so, when antisemitism surges, the reflex of government is not to protect but to delegate — to community partners, to philanthropists, to the victims themselves. Or to give the general feeling of blanket protection alongside others, masking the fact that they are persecuted more frequently than every other minority group.
For centuries, Jews have thrived where societies upheld justice and faltered where governments outsourced their duty.
Antisemites have no issue singling out Jews for attack, yet government officials are loathe to single out Jews for protection which they do so for every other group. It begs the question as to why: are current government leaders antisemitic, or are Jewish leaders telling the government that Jews don’t want special treatment, just to be like everybody else.
If so, what does that mean when “everybody else” gets special treatment?
Why can California, with its Democratic super-majority, advance a mandatory ethnic studies curriculum which empowers Black, Brown, Latin, Asian and Native American communities but disparages Jews?
While Democrats are correct, that Jews would rather be treated the same as everyone else, they cannot sit on the side when special privileges and protections are afforded to every group except Jews, especially while they are under attack. To exclude Jews in favor of victims of preference – or just constituents of preference – is deeply antisemitic.
First One Through 