After Iran fired over 180 missiles at Israel, Israel considered how to handle synagogue attendance during the Rosh Hashanah holiday. Synagogue attendance typically swells on the holy days, with even more secular Jews attending services. But most synagogues only have small mamads (safe rooms) to protect people during a shelling attack, so hundreds could be left unprotected during an attack.
The situation is even more dire at one of the largest synagogues in the world – the Western Wall Plaza at the Kotel – where thousands of Jews gather in the Old City of Jerusalem. The large outdoor location has few easily accessible places to hide from missiles.
Perhaps the grey-domed al Aqsa Mosque can be used by thousands of Jews as a safe room from jihadi missiles. The jihadists would presumably try to spare their religious building, making the mosque a potential haven for Jews.
Al Aqsa Mosque from outside Jerusalem’s Old City walls (photo: First One Through)
Hamas termed their barbaric slaughter of Israelis the “al Aqsa Flood.” Perhaps it didn’t imagine that the term would become a prophecy inverted, drawing masses of Jews onto the Temple Mount.
College campuses have become awash in calls for an “Intifada” which some anti-Israel apologists say is only a call for another independent Arab state. Others acknowledge it as a call to destroy the Jewish State of Israel echoing the genocidal jihadists. Others say it encompasses a Diaspora Intifada, which comes for Zionists and Israel supporters everywhere.
University presidents are attempting to figure out how to allow civil discourse and free speech. Many allow students to take over campuses with calls to destroy an American ally and hunt Jews, as long as there’s no immediate call for violence. Some give professors tenure to spew their toxic opinions and instill Jew hatred like medieval preachers discussing blood libels.
The U.S. Congress is doing much the same.
On May 9, 2019, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi invited Imam Omar Suleiman to give a prayer at Congress. Suleiman was already well known for his rhetoric about “Free Palestine” and what an ‘Intifada’ meant: a war to destroy the State of Israel.
As the 2014 Israel-Hamas war started, Soleiman tweeted “The 3rd Intifada starts on the 27th night of Ramadan. Oh Allah make it blessed. #FreePalestine #48kmarch.” Just as the war was concluding, he tweeted much the same: “For the first time since 1967, Masjid Al Aqsa is closed. A third intifada is near insha’Allah #FreePalestine.”
None of these sentiments was disqualifying for Pelosi. She thought that a person calling for the destruction of an ally was appropriate to elevate to the national stage.
In the current Iranian proxies war against Israel, Suleiman continues to call for the destruction of Israel. After Hassan Nasrallah (fungus be upon him), the leader of the terrorist group Hezbollah was assassinated by Israel, Suleiman called to his followers to “continue to persevere” in the goal of eradicating the Jewish State.
The platforms which call for the destruction of the only Jewish State, where nearly half of Jewry lives, are plentiful: social media, universities and at governments. The defense is ‘free speech’ which a flimsy veneer to allow a voice for those who had typically not been seen or heard. While free speech is about CONTENT, today’s version is about the SPEAKER, and society is demanding those speakers be platformed regardless of what they say.
Noted White supremacists don’t get invited to address the House of Representatives nor given tenure at Ivy League schools. Universities have not permitted the KKK to have chapters on 250 college campuses like Students for Justice in Palestine.
The tenet of free speech and goal of giving voice to the unheard are seemingly complementary but alarmingly discordant today.
At least to Jews, who have suffered more hate crimes than any community for millenia. Now told to shut up and listen to the bile, as the victims of preference have the floor.
The National Review posted a cartoon in the aftermath of the political-terrorist group Hezbollah’s pagers blowing up around Lebanon and Syria, of U.S. Representative Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) sitting at her desk and pondering why her pager had just exploded. In response, many of her alt-left comrades rallied to her and accused the right-leaning media company of racism.
If Tlaib was targeted solely because she is an Arab Muslim, that would certainly be offensive and racist.
Tlaib has a history of falsely attacking Israel as engaging in “ethnic cleansing”, “apartheid” and “genocide.” She has also refused to call for Hamas to be held accountable for actual premediated genocide and ethnic cleansing. She seemingly believes that the best defense for Palestinian Arab terrorism is to go on the attack to make their evil actions appear warranted.
Does someone’s antisemitism and hatred of Israel warrant being labeled terrorist-adjacent, at least in jest?
The recent exploding pager attack was narrowly targeted to members of Hezbollah, and hit those in its orbit including the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon. It clearly demonstrates the ties between politicians and the terrorist group, hence the cartoon.
Hamas and Hezbollah are both radical jihadi groups with manifestos calling for the destruction of Israel (“It’s destination is manifested in our motto, ‘Death to Israel'”- Hezbollah; “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it.” – Hamas). Tlaib has not stated anything that extreme, even though she defends the groups’ crimes against humanity.
Had the cartoon been made using Rep. Jamaal Bowman, would people have made a charge of racism about the cartoon? Is the alt-left’s aggressive defense of Tlaib acknowledgment that 75% of Palestinian Arabs support the heinous Hamas massacre of Jewish women, children and the elderly?
While other alt-left members of Congress have a few reasons for possibly being portrayed as anti-Israel, Tlaib is the unquestioned champion of vile antisemitism, promoting libels about Israel, defending anti-Israel terrorist groups and taking funds from their supporters.
The charge of “anti-Arab bigotry and Islamophobia” does not hold.
They are scared when praying in their synagogues, visiting Jewish community centers and when they go out to dine. They are scared when they walk on the street or attend classes at school.
In April 2024, the rabbi at Columbia University told the Jewish students to leave campus and return home in an email stating that the school’s policies “have made it clear that Columbia University’s Public Safety and the NYPD cannot guarantee Jewish students’ safety.” It has continued into the Fall 2024 semester, when another New York City school, CUNY’s Baruch College told Jewish students that they could not hold a Rosh Hashana celebration because the school could not “guarantee their security.”
New York Post article blasting the City University of New York being unable to protect basic Jewish human rights
The intimidation, harassment, denial of Jewish human rights and antisemitic attacks since the October 7 attack on the Jewish State of Israel have skyrocketed, especially at universities.
The U.S. House of Representatives held several hearings about the horrific rise in antisemitic attacks at universities. Rep. Foxx (R-NC), Chairwoman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, was tireless in her efforts to expose the systemic Jew-hatred prevalent in the institutions – or antisemitic ambivalence, should one choose to be charitable – which receive billions of dollars of government handouts. The Senate’s Republicans wanted a similar panel but are the minority party so could not force a discussion on the topic.
Despite the Democratic chair calling for a generic hearing on hate crimes, he pulled a narrow panel which consisted of a Muslim Arab, a Jewish rabbi, and a liberal apologist for antisemitism. There was no one there to talk about the most prevalent hate crime – attacks on Black people – revealing the thin veneer of the title meant to obfuscate the obvious problem of antisemitism.
But Democratic politicians were loathe to simply discuss rampant antisemitism without ALSO discussing the much less prevalent anti-Muslim hate crimes. Every Democratic senator on the panel made a point of discussing a wide range of hate crimes to appear balanced, even though the scale of Jew-hatred dwarves hate crime against every other group, and has for years, while Republican senators were laser-focused on antisemitic attacks.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) was apoplectic about the refusal to hold hearings specifically on antisemitism (start 1:55:50). He showed the steady rise of antisemitic hate crimes in the U.S. since 2014, with a terrible escalation starting at the beginning of the Biden Administration in 2021 and then again in 2022, before skyrocketing in 2023.
Cruz demanded that more attention be paid to Jew-hatred, a vile form of hatred that has led to genocide. He called college campuses vile “incubators of hatred of Jews,” and went on to list comments by students and student organizations that threatened Jews, including a Jewish student being told to “go back to the gas chambers.”
Cruz also called out the administrations such as M.I.T., which refused to prosecute some of the antisemitic agitators because if the school did, “the students risked losing their visas and being deported.” As he went on to criticize the Democratic administration and local Democratic politicians for refusing to enforce the law because they feared the “pro-Hamas wing of the party,” anti-Israel people in the audience began to protest (2:01:00). The senator concluded his remarks by noting that no university has yet lost federal funding despite being clearly in non-compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) was similarly angered by the unchecked Jew hatred at universities. He showcased a poster of a student holding a Palestinian flag and a sign which read “THERE IS ONLY ONE SOLUTION,” a reference to the Nazi’s “Final Solution” to exterminate Jews. He showed another with a banner “LONG LIVE THE INTIFADA.”
Maya Berry of the Arab American Institute (AAI) testified that she objected to automatically inferring that the term “intifada” meant the violent slaughter of infidels, such as the brutal “Second Intifada” in Israel where Muslim Palestinian Arabs blew up buses and ice cream parlors full of kids, killing over 1,000 people. Berry said (2:10:15) that intifada “literally just means ‘to shake off’ or ‘get rid of’.” She would not agree that intifada necessarily means the violent destruction of Israel, while it could mean that. She essentially educated the committee that ‘intifada’ is an umbrella Arabic word that could mean a silent protest or the raping and beheading of infidels. Lots of in between.
Unmentioned in the hearing were the perpetrators of the antisemitic attacks. Sen. Durbin mentioned “white supremacists” repeatedly in his comments but no one directly pointed to the pro-Hamas extremists in the fringes of the Muslim and socialist communities who are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of Jew-hatred crimes today.
The president of Rutgers University, Jonathan Holloway who is not Jewish, told a House committee in May 2024 that he did not believe that Israel is a genocidal state and that “intifada” and “from the river to the sea” are calls for violence. He and his family were subsequently threatened and he announced his resignation last week due to fear for his and his family’s safety.
Rutgers President Jonathan Holloway announcing his resignation due to fear for his family’s safety
The Intifadas in Israel are genocidal jihadist attacks to slaughter Jews and destroy Israel. The Diaspora Intifada is more “nuanced” as AAI’s Berry said, and may mean violence and rape or it may simply be taunting and harassment.
Imagine an employee of the New York Yankees donning a division rival Boston Red Sox shirt while serving customers at a game. Not only would members of the Yankees be angered but fans coming to the baseball game would be shocked by employees of the organization rooting against the team.
It sounds absurd. The Yankees (or any team faced with a similar situation) would enforce a dress code prohibiting such activity. They would terminate any employee who refuses to abide by the regulation.
Jewish institutions are facing an even worse situation, as employees seek to wear Palestinian kaffiyehs or pins at their place or work, in the middle of the Palestinian Arabs genocidal war against Jews in Israel.
New York City’s 92nd Street Y issued a policy banning patron-facing employees from wearing expressions of “politics or social issues.” According to some reports, a number of employees resigned and one was fired for repeatedly breaking from the policy after wearing Palestinian paraphernalia.
92NY is a “proudly Jewish organization…[which] enthusiastically welcomes and reaches out to people of all ages, races, faiths and backgrounds while embracing Jewish values like learning and self-improvement, the importance of family, the joy of life, and giving back to our wonderfully diverse and growing community, both locally and around the world.” All are welcome to attend their events but must abide by the rules at the Jewish institution.
An employee of the Yankees would not expect to be allowed to wear the jersey of an opposing team while at work. To do so would be a deliberate attempt to antagonize their employer.
Which is precisely the goal of extremists who wish to not only normalize jihadi violence in the shadow of the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, but to mock the victims to their friends and family.
The socialist-jihadi mob is actively provoking Jews and mocking their fear and suffering inside Jewish institutions in the center of the largest diaspora community. The mob does so with the knowledge that far-left allies in the district attorney’s office and Senate will shield them from any ramifications.
Facebook’s parent company Meta announced that it will permit the phrase “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free” on its platform despite protests from groups that it is a call for the mass genocide of Israeli Jews. Meta’s Oversight Board sided with pro-Palestinian groups which argued that it is simply an expression for equal rights for all Arabs in the region.
The decision stemmed from three situations in which the phrase was used on the platform, and concluded that “the three pieces of content contain contextual signs of solidarity with Palestinians – but no language calling for violence or exclusion. They also do not glorify or even refer to Hamas, an organization designated as dangerous by Meta,” suggesting that only when the phrase is used connecting to calls for violence will the language be banned from the platform. Or stated differently, the expression itself is benign, and it is only the calls for violence that will cause censorship, as “the phrase’s use by this terrorist group [Hamas] with explicit violent eliminationist intent and actions, does not make the phrase inherently hateful or violent – considering the variety of people using the phrase in different ways,” the board said.
In short, Meta decided to side with pro-Palestinians over Zionists and Jews who view the phrase as an open call for the genocide of Jews.
It is interesting to compare that phrase to the “N-word” which is also used a wide variety of contexts.
Many Black musicians use the word in their songs. The Black comedian Dave Chappelle uses the N-word repeatedly in his shows, both for Black people or White people. These artists are seemingly given a pass as they themselves use the derogatory term. Chappelle mocked such sensitivity openly and defiantly.
Yet the NAACP voted to ban the word in 2007 and issued a follow-up statement in 2014 which clarified the reasons to block the term, including by artists:
“the stigma of this word embodies and invokes painful memories and inhumane ill-will; and countless individuals including NAACP freedom fighters, have lost their lives due to the beliefs perpetuated by the use of this word.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEDthat the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People shall not condone, award, or engage any person that uses the N-word in any capacity, or in any artistic endeavor that does not allude to the historical context of the word, or that does not highlight the prejudicial nature of the word; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVEDthat the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People implement the following actions to reinforce its ban on the use of the N-word issued in 2007 and bolster education and awareness about the offensiveness of the word across racial and generational lines: Make the ban reinforcement a top civil rights priority for all units; and urge every youth unit in consultation with their corresponding adult branch develop a plan of action for implementation. Plan must include internal branch affirmation, public awareness, community outreach and a reporting process. In places where no active youth unit exists, the adult unit would be held to the same said requirement.”
While the corresponding derogatory term for Jews, the K-word, might be a better comparable to the N-word for Black people, it is not the antisemitic phrase that has often accompanied the slaughter of Jews.
“Free Palestine” is shouted at Jews on streets, painted on their synagogues and while they dine in restaurants. It is the placard hoisted at rallies in front of Jewish institutions and Hillels on college campuses. It is a taunt and threat, accompanied by the slogan “by any means necessary,” including burning Jews alive, as Palestinians brutality did en masse on October 7, 2023, to wild Arab support.
On October 26, 2023, not long after the barbaric attack on Israel, the Anti Defamation League (ADL), issued a statement that clearly tied the “Free Palestine” phrase to antisemitism:
“‘From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’ is an antisemitic slogan commonly featured in anti-Israel campaigns and chanted at demonstrations.
This rallying cry has long been used by anti-Israel voices, including supporters of terrorist organizations such as Hamas and the PFLP, which seek Israel’s destruction through violent means. It is fundamentally a call for a Palestinian state extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, territory that includes the State of Israel, which would mean the dismantling of the Jewish state. It is an antisemitic charge denying the Jewish right to self-determination, including through the removal of Jews from their ancestral homeland.
Usage of this phrase has the effect of making members of the Jewish and pro-Israel community feel unsafe and ostracized. It is important to note that demanding justice for Palestinians, or calling for a Palestinian state, should not mean, as this hateful phrase posits, denying the right of the State of Israel to exist.”
The Jewish victims of attack do not ask for “context” when people use the “Free Palestine” phrase; they know that more Jews “lost their lives due to the beliefs perpetuated by the use of this word” than any time since the Holocaust.
The U.S. House of Representatives voted on HR 883 in April 2024 to label the phrase as antisemitic by a wide 377 to 44 margin. It specifically stated that “the slogan, ‘from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free’, is outrightly antisemitic and must be strongly condemned;” and “this slogan perpetuates hatred against the State of Israel and the Jewish people.” Notable anti-Israel squad members Bowman, Bush, Dingell, Barbara Lee, AOC, Omar, Pocan, Schakowsky, Tlaib, Velazquez and Waters voted against the resolution.
Society has so internalized the Black community’s objection to a hateful word that it cannot be uttered nor written. Yet calling for the genocide of Jews has been given a passing grade at universities, and a green light on social media.
ACTION ITEM
Contact ADL and your member of Congress to pressure the group to demand Meta change its policy regarding the genocidal phrase “From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will be Free.” Mark the phrase with the same opprobrium as the N-word.
The antisemitic and anti-Israel dynamics have become so intolerable over the past months, that many people are rethinking their voting priorities to put Jewish issues before every other matter. Alan Dershowitz speaks for many when he says that he is forgoing every non-Jewish charity now and only giving to Jewish causes.
But there is a need to rethink the Jewish charities also. Some have become toxic to Israel and the Jewish people.
Let’s start with B’Tselem, the organization that claims to work on behalf of human rights.
On September 4, 2024, B’Tselem Executive Director Yuli Novak’s addressed the United Nations Security Council, the most senior committee in the global body that has the power to pass international laws. In her prepared remarks, she lambasted Israel repeatedly calling it a vicious state of racism, apartheid, ethnic cleansing and violence.
Some select comments include:
“Since Israel was founded, the guiding logic of its regime has been to promote Jewish supremacy“
“the Israeli government does not want to return the hostages in a deal, but to continue the war indefinitely.”
“The current government’s guidelines state that: “The Jewish people have an exclusive and unquestionable right to all parts of the Land of Israel.””
“it [the Israeli government] is waging war on the entire Palestinian people – committing war crimes almost daily.”
“Settlers are attacking Palestinians and carrying out pogroms in broad daylight, with support from the government.”
“Palestinian citizens of Israel [aka Israeli Arabs] are suffering an almost total suppression for their freedom of expression and freedom of protest”
“[Israeli] violence is possible because Israel has enjoyed impunity for decades”
“It is time for the Council to address the opinion of the International Court of Justice on the illegality of Israel’s entire occupation and settlement project.”
“Every day the Council does not act on the court’s call to end the occupation and apartheid, is another day you are abandoning us – the people suffering and dying needlessly under this cruel and unjust regime.”
B’Tselem Executive Director Yuli Novak’s addressed the United Nations Security Council
This was not a protest speech on an Israeli street corner but a damning indictment of Israel by an Israeli directed to the center of power which can impose tremendous damage on the Jewish State with a specific request to harm Israel. The smears of “Jewish Supremacy,” “apartheid,” “pogroms” and “war crimes” will be echoed on college campuses with a finger pointed to this very speech as defense.
B’Tselem is backed by a number of charities, some of which are nominally Jewish. They include the Moriah Fund, The New Israel Fund (NIF) and George Soros’s Open Society.
The Moriah Fund helps fund the anti-Israel Ford Foundation and antisemitic Tides Foundation. According to Influence Watch, “between 1999 and 2018, Moriah Fund has granted $45,718,829 to New Israel Fund,” and supports the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) campaigns against Israel.
According to Influence Watch, NIF gives money to several anti-Israel groups including Adalah and Human Rights Defenders Fund, whose leaders have called Israel “racist,” “murderous,” and an “apartheid state.”
NGO Monitor lists various charities funded by Open Society which include IfNotNow and Jewish Voice for Peace, rabidly anti-Israel organizations whose members are harassing college students everywhere, as well as other rabidly anti-Zionist groups.
It is not enough to prioritize Jewish and Israeli causes right now: it is important to stop the funding of Jewish groups which are doing their utmost to vilify and destroy the Jewish State and Jewish communities everywhere.
ACTION ITEM
Contact Jewish foundations like UJA and donor advised funds to block donations to B’Tselem, New Israel Fund, IfNotNow and JVP, as well as other toxic antisemitic and anti-Zionist charities.
The current Palestinian war on Israel is much less about borders and land swaps, security matters and the status of Jerusalem, and much more about the so-called “right of return” of descendants of Palestinian Arab refugees to move into Israel rather than a new Palestinian State. Any discussions between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, as well as at the United Nations, must bring the matter to the forefront and make clear that settling that point will be done at the national level.
If that sounds obvious, you do not understand the U.N.’s adoption of the Palestinian negotiating point, that the ‘right of return’ is for every individual to decide on his/her own about moving to Israel, outside of governmental negotiations.
US and Israel On ‘Right Of Return’
When President Bill Clinton formulated a peace agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians in 2000, mediator Dennis Ross summarized the working proposal as follows: “On the issue of refugees, there would be a right of return for the refugees to their own state, not to Israel, but there would also be a fund of $30 billion internationally that would be put together for either compensation or to cover repatriation, resettlement, rehabilitation costs. And when it came to security, there would be a international presence, in place of the Israelis, in the Jordan Valley.”
This was the stated policy of both Democratic and Republican parties for years. Republican President George W. Bush sent a letter to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in April 2004 that stated a “just, fair, and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.” The 2008 Democratic platform echoed the sentiment that “The creation of a Palestinian state through final status negotiations, together with an international compensation mechanism, should resolve the issue of Palestinian refugees by allowing them to settle there, rather than in Israel.“
Palestinians and UN On ‘Right of Return’
But when John Kerry tried to negotiate an agreement between the parties in 2014, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas pulled back from any discussion about refugees and said “Let me put it simply: the right of return is a personal decision. What does this mean? That neither the PA, nor the state, nor the PLO, nor Abu-Mazen [Abbas], nor any Palestinian or Arab leader has the right to deprive someone from his right to return…. The choice is yours. You want to return? You will return. You don’t? You’re free to remain; there is compensation and other details … I just wanted to remark on this point, that the right of return is a personal right. Even a father cannot forgo his children’s right.”
This ended any possibility of concluding the conflict via negotiations as Abbas handed the matter of refugees to millions of individuals.
The United Nations agrees with the Palestinian position.
In June 2023, the UN Office of Human Rights issued a report on World Refugee Day called “Right of return of Palestinian refugees must be prioritised over political considerations: UN experts.” It stated that “We urgently call upon the international community to adopt a rights-based approach that addresses the root causes of violence and prioritises the individual and collective right of return for refugees and internally displaced persons, over political considerations.”
The current formulation that Israel has no say on who it allows into its country and that 5.7 million Palestinian Arabs can unilaterally decide they can move to towns where ancestors lived will never be accepted by any Israeli government – right, left or centrist – EVER. It is a recipe for perpetual bloodshed and animosity.
To enable any chance for there to ever be a negotiated solution, the United Nations must be clear that the matter of the descendants of Palestinian Arabs who once lived in modern Israel is a matter to be handled by the PA, and not for individuals. Alternatively, the UN can state clearly that the ‘right of return’ is only limited to individuals who actually left Israel and not for their descendants.
The ‘two-state solution’ became unviable when the UN and Palestinian leadership decided that a ‘right of return’ for millions of Palestinians into Israel is an inalienable individual right. For there to be a chance of ending the bloodshed and conflict, it must be made clear that Palestinian leadership will negotiate the parameters of a “right of return” with Israel.
Many Jews have found it difficult to be at work since October 7. Some have been alarmed by the lack of empathy for the Jewish community after the Hamas massacre. Others are distraught over comments that Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza. Sometimes the comments come from peers and other times from people who are senior or clients.
The workplace is not like other forums. A person’s livelihood is at stake, and the office is where people work together for long stretches of time. It is a very different dynamic than passing a masked protestor on the street.
How does a person handle anti-Israel vitriol from a colleague on social media like LinkedIn? Is it different if they post something on X or Facebook?
Here are some suggested guidelines:
It is always safe to stick with facts
Opinions are best shared in reaction to something at work; in personal settings, proactive is fine
Emotions are fine to share, as appropriate for that work environment, with an emphasis on humility
Do not troll people on social media. Use your own platform to make your feelings known
Use professional work media like LinkedIn for work related matters unless you are so senior that you believe your Israel advocacy can influence people
You can share your pro-Israel positions in a permanent passive manner by posting your role on Zionist groups like StandWithUs or post pictures of you in Israel
If you feel close enough to a colleague at work and their views are within the framework of honest disagreement, ask if they are open to discussing the topic
Should someone in your office cross the line into intimidation, harassment or discrimination, bring it up with human resources immediately, whether the person is junior or senior to you
If a client crosses the line, bring the matter up internally, asking the firm to terminate the engagement or reassign the client to a different colleague
Crossing the line into intimidation, harassment or discrimination should always be called out regardless of a person’s seniority, and whether internal or external to an organization. It must never be allowed to be normalized.
Honest ignorance is still ignorance. Consider whether the person stating lies is open to learning facts and try to engage respectfully. If the person is irate and will not be swayed, there is no point in engaging directly; you could talk to others who may have witnessed the spectacle.
If you are unfamiliar with facts as you hear arguments, admit as much that you need to do more research. It’s an opportunity to learn more from respected sources and not take someone’s emotional outburst as gospel.
People often react to difficult situations with a desire to either fight or flee. In a business environment, take a breath and be more tactical.
He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say: It is not your duty to finish the work, but neither are you at liberty to neglect it; If you have studied much Torah, you shall be given much reward. Faithful is your employer to pay you the reward of your labor; And know that the grant of reward unto the righteous is in the age to come.
We have obligations at work, and we have obligations as Jews at work. It includes providing for our families and workers, as well as infusing the environment with Jewish values, but neither should fully supplant the other. Should that happen, it is not really a place of business where a Jew should be present.
The United Nations Secretary General released the biannual report on the threat posed by ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and Levant) on August 8, 2024. Vladimir Voronkov, Under-Secretary-General and Head of the United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism noted that the threat of terrorism has spread throughout the world, and in Africa in particular, noting “a vast territory stretching from Mali to northern Nigeria could fall under their effective control.”
Various countries commented on the report and the threat of terrorism by Islamic radical groups including Boko Haram, Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, Islamic State in the Greater Sahara, and ISIL-Khorasan. The representative of Sierra Leone, Council President for August, spoke in his national capacity, noting that “this new epicentre of terrorism [in Central Sahel and West Africa] accounts for almost 50 per cent of all deaths from terror acts globally.” Roughly 2,000 people in Burkina Faso were killed in 258 incidents in 2023, accounting for nearly a quarter of all terrorist deaths globally.
Many discussed the issue of border control as an essential tool in combating terrorism. Sierra Leone’s representative said that “terrorist groups often exploit porous borders, weak border controls and security vulnerabilities for cross-border illegal trafficking of weapons, drugs and people.” The Republic of Korea’s delegate warned that “terrorists can exploit a lack of governance in border areas, which exacerbates various security problems beyond those areas.” Natalia Gherman, Executive Director of the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate opined that there needs to be “an integrated approach to border security.”
Some members referenced the Accra Initiative which is designed to combat the spread of terrorism in Africa. One of the primary focuses was border security, where efforts led to the arrest of 700 people in 2018 and 2019. Albert Kan-Dapaah, Ghana’s national security chief said that unemployment was a factor in terrorism [a statement not proven by research] and his country would focus on job creation. “We don’t want to have a situation beyond our control, so we will also make it difficult for the jihadists to radicalise youth in border communities.”
Not one country mentioned Hamas, the jihadi Palestinian Arab terrorist group that killed over 1,200 people, until the United States was disgusted by an accusation by the Russian representative and rose to criticize Russia and “its growing influence with terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hizbullah and the Houthis, as well as with Iran — the leading State sponsor of terrorism — to end their terrorist attacks.”
While the U.S. was able to remember the threat of genocidal jihadi extremists when vilified by Russia, the Biden-Harris Administration has seemingly not been worried about terrorists streaming across U.S. borders.
The number of illegal border crossings from December 2020 (under the Trump Administration) to December 2023 went up an astounding 744% according to statistics compiled by the U.S. Center for Border Protection (CBP).
According to the March 2024 Global Terrorism Index (GTI), the United States accounted for 70% of the terrorist attacks among western countries in 2023, with only the U.S. and Belgium having fatalities from terrorism.
GTI noted that Hamas, a “designated as a terrorist organisation by several countries, including the United States, Israel, and the European Union” had been “relatively inactive as a terrorist organisation in the five years before the October 7th attacks, with only 14 attacks and one fatality recorded between 2015 and 2022.” But the political-terrorist group used that time to carefully prepare for an enormous attack which killed 1,200 and brought the region to an all-out war.
Israel is intent on maintaining a presence in the Philadelphi Corrider between Gaza and Egypt, which has long been used to bring in weapons, trained terrorists and tunnel building materials into the terrorism enclave. Doing so is blocking the restocking of Hamas in the current war and will impede its rearming in the future.
Global communities are focusing intently on their border security and immigration policy as well.
The United States is on edge with rampant antisemitism on streets and campuses with a jihadi-socialist alliance growing ever more bold. How much of it is from foreign students legally permitted into the country? How much from people entering illegally? What are they planning for the new semester? How soon until the vitriol and harassment becomes terror?
First One Through 