The Brandeis Center is pleased to co-sponsor The July 9th Symposium: 10 Years and Counting…” with Heideman Nudelman Kalik and several major national organizations. The event will take place at 10:00 am at the United States Congress’ Capitol Visitors Center. Ambassador Ron Dermer and former Canadian Prime Minister Irwin Cotler will deliver keynote addresses. LDB…
The late Gary Tobin was often ahead of his time. Here is what he said about the Presybterian Church nine years ago: The vast majority of Presbyterians are neither anti-Semitic nor anti-Israel. Yet, a few activists were able to capture the institutional decision-making processes to pass anti-Israel resolutions. This phenomenon is widespread on campuses as…
At their General Assembly on Friday, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) voted to divest from three companies that supply Israel with equipment used in the West Bank and in the blockade of Gaza. Enemies of the Jewish community are rejoicing. Former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke exulted, “Bravo to the Presbyterian Church for standing up to Jewish racism and supremacism!” Duke is right to praise the Presbyterian divestment vote, which supports what the Ku Klux Klan stands for.
David Duke’s endorsement will undoubtedly embarrass the Presbyterian Church, since it underscores the anti-Semitic character of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement. Regardless of the Presbyterian delegates’ intentions, they have made common cause with a global movement that aims to marginalize and delegitimize the Jewish state. In this sense, the BDS movement continues longstanding efforts to marginalize and delegitimize the Jewish people.
The connections between BDS and anti-Semitism have not been lost on the Presbyterian Church. The divestment resolution (Resolution 04-09) contains an unusual formal comment by the Church’s Advocacy Committee for Racial and Ethnic Concerns (ACREC). In this statement, ACREC addressed the anti-Semitism charge explicitly, endorsing the unusual argument the Jewish community should “suspend their campaigns against anti-Semitism indefinitely” in order to focus exclusively on the Palestinians. In other words, their official position is that it does not matter whether their resolution is anti-Semitic, since anti-Semitism is not as important as Jewish organizations say it is.
This extraordinary argument is taken from American-born Israeli journalist Larry Derfner, whom ACREC quotes as arguing last year:
The ADL [Anti-Defamation League] goes after anti-Semitism with a fist, it goes after Israeli racism with a sigh. As a matter of fact, the ADL and the entire American Jewish establishment should suspend their campaigns against anti-Semitism indefinitely and take a look at what’s going on in Israel.
It is not hard to see why this would be appealing to David Duke, but it is disappointing to see it adopted by a mainline Protestant denomination. This argument, coming from within the Jewish community, supports Duke’s efforts to convince people to tolerate anti-Semitism. Derfner may not be a household word, but if he is known for anything, it is that the Jerusalem Post fired him a few years ago after he tried to justify terrorist attacks on Israelis, writing, “I think the Palestinians have the right to use terrorism against us.” Derfner has apologized for his apparent defense of terrorism, which may be explained by his tendency to write hyperbolically. Unfortunately, the Presbyterians have taken his arguments literally.
What is remarkable is that the Presbyterian Church would find it necessary to adopt Derfner’s argument about anti-Semitism as part of a resolution that does not purport to address anti-Semitism at all. But the connection makes sense. After all, the Church delegates must have felt some discomfort at advancing the BDS movement in light of that movement’s unsavory aspects. Derfner’s argument gives them the blessing they need, even if it comes from a man who seems to have tried to justify terrorism against the Jewish people in the past.
This argument, if taken as literally as ACREC appears to take it, is that Jews exaggerate the extent of anti-Semitism in order to diminish the suffering of other peoples. This is an example of what is called “anti-Semitism denial,” because it mimics the logic of Holocaust denial. The global resurgence of anti-Semitism is now well-established. Those who deny the existence of global anti-Semitism, or argue that it is greatly exaggerated, do not merely express an erroneous opinion. Rather, their position is that Jews abuse their power to intimidate governments and major institutions, deceiving others in order to gain unfair advantage. This argument would be entirely implausible, except that it relies on deeply entrenched anti-Semitic stereotypes, that even well-meaning Presbyterian delegates have apparently found convincing.
The Brandeis Center has joined the AMCHA Initiative in pressing for an investigation into San Francisco State University Ethnic Studies Professor Rabab Abdulhadi’s potential misuse of public university funds.
The organizations have sent a letter asking California State Controller John Chiang to investigate “a serious and blatant misuse of University and state funds.” Documents obtained by AMCHA through a California Public Records Act request suggest that Professor Abdulhadi received more than $7,000 from the University, after she misrepresented her intended destinations on forms needed for insurance and administrative purposes. On these forms, Abdulhadi had claimed she would be presenting a paper in Beirut at an academic conference, but she in fact went on a “political solidarity tour.” The AMCHA letter continues, “As part of the delegation organized and led by Abdulhadi, the group met with known PFLP terrorist Leila Khaled, as well as with Islamist leader Sheik Raed Saleh, who has been incarcerated by Israeli authorities for aiding and abetting Hamas, an organization who charter calls for the murder of Jews.”
In 2004, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) broke new ground by voting to “initiate a process of phased selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel.” Though the PCUSA voted against divestment in Israel in 2012 by the thinnest of margins, the General Assembly has now again revealed its true colors such as adherence to pro-Palestinian “replacement theology” delegitimating Judaism as well as the Jewish state.
This is the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Statement denouncing the PCUSA Genral Assembly latest anti-Israel resolution including distancing the Church from the quest for a “two-state solution.”
SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER: PRESBYTERIAN VOTE TO ‘RECONSIDER’ TWO-STATE SOLUTION ALIGNS CHURCH WITH THOSE SEEKING END OF ISRAEL
PCUSA Divestment Resolution Bolsters Anti-Peace Extremists
The Simon Wiesenthal Center denounced today’s votes of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) (PCUSA) in Detroit to reconsider its long-standing support of a two-state solution in the Holy Land, and to divest from a number of American companies doing business with Israel.
“We are shocked beyond words. With the crimes against humanity occurring in Syria and Iraq, with the Middle East in chaos, with African Christians regularly selected by terrorists for murder because of their faith, PCUSA chooses to flex its moral muscles by aiding and abetting those pledged to do away with the Jewish State,” said Rabbi Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Wiesenthal Center.
StandWithUs is reporting that the student government at Western Washington University unanimously voted yesterday not to consider boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) based on national origin. The Student government’s “Resolution Regarding International Divestment, Boycott, and Sanctions” is an extraordinary response to the BDS resolutions adopted at other schools. In a powerfully written statement, the Western Washington student…
The following article by LDB President Kenneth L. Marcus is distributed via JNS.org.
JNS.org — In a recent issue of Time magazine, Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie, former president of the Union for Reform Judaism, writes that anti-Semitism is “not a threat to American Jews.” He could not be more wrong.
Let us start with the obvious. Any threat to world Jewry is a threat to American Jews.
According to the Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) important newstudy, there are now one billion adult anti-Semites in the world. As Rabbi Yoffie acknowledges, this is fully a quarter of the world’s adult population. Can American Jewry shrug this off?
One can quibble with the ADL’s methodology, but it is not far-fetched. ADL considers a person to be anti-Semitic if they give a positive response to six out of 11 survey questions like these: “Jews are responsible for most of the world’s wars,” “People hate Jews because of the way Jews behave,” and “Jews have too much control over the United States government.”
Consider the magnitude of this finding. In 2012, according to the Kantor Center for the Study of Contemporary European Jewry at Tel Aviv University, there were 686 reported incidents of physical violence, direct threats, and major acts of vandalism against Jews and Jewish institutions worldwide. This is bad enough on its own, representing an increase of approximately 30 percent over the prior year.
Worse, these figures understate the problem. According to the European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency, 64 percent of European Jews who have experienced physical violence or threats do not report even the most serious incident. If this holds true for Jews elsewhere, the actual incident rate is approximately three times higher than reported, reaching 2,000 serious incidents annually.
But it gets worse. Even the adjusted figures suggest that Jews and Jewish institutions are enduring only one serious anti-Semitic incident per 500,000 anti-Semites annually. This means that in any given year, the overwhelming majority of anti-Semites are not acting on their aversions. Their reasons may be lack of opportunity, want of courage, fear of consequence, or adherence to convention. Economists call this “pent-up demand.”
As the post-Holocaust taboo against anti-Semitism erodes, the ramifications are troubling. Suppose that one in ten thousand anti-Semites should physically harm or threaten Jews or Jewish institutions in a given year. Under this scenario, serious anti-Semitic incidents would increase to 100,000 per year, even if anti-Semitic attitudes remain constant. In other words, things can get much worse.
The twenty-first century is providing fertile ground for the “artistic” transmission of anti-Semitism on two levels. For mass consumption, Mel Gibson’s film, “The Passion of the Christ” (2004), modernized the medieval passion play to which the Nazis had continued to pay homage at Oberammergau.
With a powerful flair for violent filmmaking in the tradition of Sam Peckinpah, Gibson could have limited his film to portraying the core New Testament story—whose redemption narrative certainly had sufficient wrenching violence for him to tap. The result would have been theologically anti-Judaic and uncomfortable to Jewish sensibilities, but it need not have been radically anti-Semitic. Instead, Gibson followed the gospels but drew his real inspiration from the passion plays which he updated by portraying Jews opposed to Jesus as literally demonic and by using bizarre costumes and even facial disfigurements to personify the Temple priesthood.
Evangelical Christians flocked to see Gibson’s “The Passion,” but not necessarily to imbibe his Jew hatred. Fortunately, most according to polling watched his film through philo-Semitic glasses, embracing it as a way to satisfy their hunger for the “pro-Christian” themed entertainment denied them for many decades by secular Hollywood.
Anti-Semitism was calibrated for “high culture” in John Adams’ 1991 opera about the Achille Lauro hijacking, ”The Death of Klinghoffer,” which had its New York premier at the Walter Reade Theater at Lincoln Center in 2003 when it was also released on DVD. Now, Adams’ opera is being resurrected by New York’s Metropolitan Opera following a 2009 Juilliard performance, defended by Julliard President Joseph W. Polisi on, among other grounds, that he has made ballyhooed visits to Israel to receive awards—or, to translate, that some of his favorite travel agent friends are Jewish.
Following the 9/11 attacks, when the Boston Symphony cancelled a performance of selections from “Klinghoffer” and Richard Taruskin in the pages of the “New York Times” criticized Adams’ opera as a bromance with terrorists, Adams defended himself by accusing Turaskin and other critics of the ultimate sin of being in bed politically with George W. Bush’s Attorney General John Ashcroft. Compared to such egregious guilt by association with Bushites, the anti-Semitism of Adams’ “Klinghoffer”—at least in Adams’ eyes—needed no denial.
Over the last few weeks, the Holocaust has appeared surprisingly often in the news. In most cases, the reason has been the surprising degree of ignorance or denial that so many people have about this cataclysmic event. The most disheartening reports have addressed the role of educators in spreading misinformation. Worse, they have illustrated that Holocaust denial is not just an ordinary form of ignorance but rather a modern cloak for the return of old-fashioned anti-Semitism.
The Anti-Defamation League’s much-heralded ADL Global 100 survey showed that 35% of adults worldwide have never heard of the Holocaust. Of those who have heard of it, 21% think it was a myth or exaggeration. One may quibble about the ADL survey’s methodology, but this study presents the best available evidence that we have about global attitudes. This revelation has been accompanied by three disturbing recent stories over the last few weeks.
First came news that the Rialto California school district had assigned 2,000 eighth-graders at five middle schools in the Rialto Unified School District east of Los Angeles to compose an essay on whether or not they believe the Holocaust was “an actual event in history, or merely a political scheme.” The district thought this to be an appropriate assignment to teach “critical thinking” skills.
Although the district has subsequently apologized, its apology reflects little understanding of why the assignment was so obscenely inappropriate. People who debate the Holocaust are not merely foolish or ignorant, like those who insist that the earth is flat. Rather, Holocaust denial is a particular form of bigotry. In order to deny anything as vast and well-documented as the Nazi Holocaust, one must assume that the world’s peoples have been victimized by a hoax of extraordinary proportions. Such a hoax could only be perpetrated by an enormously powerful and malevolent group of deeply crooked people who are able to control global media for their own sinister purposes. Unsurprisingly, these outlandish claims perfectly correspond with traditional anti-Semitic stereotypes. In encouraging students to debate this topic, as if it were merely a difference of opinion, Rialto gave credence not merely to absurd misinformation but also to virulent ant-Semitic defamations of precisely the sort that led to the Holocaust in the first place.
Next came reports that Temple Adjunct Professor Alessio Lerro was arguing that Jews are exaggerating the extent of the Holocaust to obtain policitcal advantages. In the course of supporting the Modern Langue Association’s new anti-Israel resolution, Lerro wrote this about the Holocaust: “6 million? Mh … we all know [ or should know] that the counting of Jews is a bit controversial.”” Lerro is a reportedly a gamer, and CBS Local’s Don Giordamo reports that “mh is internet slang for map hack, a term meaning cheating to gain an advantage. In other words, Lerro is arguing that Jews are “gaming” the Holocaust numbers in order to gain a political advantage in public debates. Lerro also reportedly accused “Jewish scholars” of manipulating academia and charged that it is “time that Zionists are asked to finally account for their support to the illegal occupation of Palestine since 1967.” Here we have a fine example of the ugly stereotypes that underlie Holocaust denial and Holocaust minimization. It is highly disturbing to finds these stereotypes circulated by a university professor.
On Friday, pro-Israel students at DePaul University stood up against divestment campaigns by the anti-Israel student group, Students for Justice in Palestine. By a referendum passage by a difference of only 242 votes, pro-Israel students came out in large numbers with the intent of rejecting the referendum. Said StandWithUs National Campus Program Director Brett Cohen, “The…