There are no people as persecuted as the Jews. Subject to pogroms, ethnic cleansing, blood libels and genocides throughout history and around the world, they have been the victims of the powerful and of the weak.
Rep. Jamaal Bowman represents New York State’s 16th Congressional District which covers lower Westchester County, just north of New York City. It is estimated to be over 20% Jewish and has one of the largest Jewish populations in the United States.
From his powerful podium, Bowman deliberately insults Jewish history and incites hatred for the Jewish State.
“There’s so much we’re dealing with within our own borders that it’s often difficult for Americans to turn our attention to the problems of people overseas, but it’s hard at this moment not to be struck by the extent of suffering around the world. Whether it’s the infringement of human and civil rights of Palestinians living in Sheikh Jarrah, the violence against those praying in the Al-Aqsa mosque during the holy month of Ramadan in East Jerusalem, police violence against Colombians, a military coup in Myanmar, an ignored genocide in Ethiopia, or the ethnic cleansing of the Uyghurs in China, my heart is breaking for people around the world experiencing oppression and hurt.”
Bowman started with events in Israel – twice. He only referenced the perceived wrongs against Arabs, not the violent Arab attacks against Jews exercising their basic human rights to pray with dignity at their holiest location.
He then compared those relatively minor events to vicious global activities.
In Colombia, police attacked and killed peaceful demonstrators protesting income inequality
In Myanmar, the military essentially took over the entire government and arrested public officials
How are any of these horrible actions against hundreds of thousands of peaceful civilians remotely close to Israel protecting Jews who want to visit the Temple Mount? Bowman deliberately abused language to stir up anger and violence against the Jewish State. Which is exactly what happened over the next days, with Jews around the world being attacked.
Further, to use words like “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” against the Jewish State, when Jews just suffered a true genocide in Europe, and ethnic cleansing in Israel at the hands of the Jordanian and Egyptian army who expelled all of the Jews from Judea and Samaria and the eastern part of Jerusalem, is to spit in the faces of actual victims.
Jamaal Bowman helped inflame violence against Jews around the world with malicious smears against Israel. He is unfit to serve in congress.
On August 2nd, shortly after J Street-endorsed candidate Rep. Andy Levin (D-MI) lost in the Democratic primary, J Street lambasted AIPAC and Democratic Majority For Israel for supporting Rep. Haley Stevens. The progressive group took particular aim at the two groups’ “aggressive outside spending…[which] is harmful to American foreign policy, to the Democratic Party and ultimately to the State of Israel. (J Street’s emphasis)
It was obvious sour grapes coming from a group that had endorsed and funded a campaign just like AIPAC and DMFI, but lost.
Not three weeks later, J Street has entered the race of New York’s 16th Congressional District, in lower Westchester County. And in a very hypocritical and disgusting fashion.
Neither the bipartisan group AIPAC nor the centrist Democratic DMFI spent one dollar on the NY-16 race. Neither group even endorsed any of the three candidates running. While both groups strongly dislike the anti-Israel Rep. Jamaal Bowman who is the incumbent, they have refrained from engaging in the race as the odds of defeating him are low, so have opted to focus elsewhere.
J Street endorsed Bowman early but did not put in any money into the race. Until now.
Wealthy and Poor Voters Split
After witnessing the near loss of another anti-Israel incumbent member of “the Squad”, Ilhan Omar (D-MN) on August 9th, J Street became nervous. Omar won her Democratic primary by 2,400 votes out of 110,000 cast. Omar won the poorer, densely populated city area of Minneapolis but lost the wealthy suburbs. If AIPAC and DMFI had put resources into the race, Omar would likely have been defeated.
There are potential lessons for the NY-16 race, where Omar’s close colleague Bowman is the far-left incumbent.
J Street endorsed Bowman in January 2022 when NY-16 included a large section of the Bronx section of New York City. In May, the district was redrawn, removing almost the entirety of the Bronx which had been in the district, and replacing it with wealthier suburbs of lower Westchester. This dynamic could theoretically swap the rank-and-file reliable liberal voters of the Bronx with more moderate ones, threatening a far-left incumbent like Bowman.
A review of the 2020 presidential voting offers some color on how the new NY-16 towns of Westchester (many of which were in NY-17 previously), vote compared to the sections of the Bronx (now in NY-15) which were replaced.
There are a couple of takeaways from the voting patterns of the poorer sections of the Bronx which were removed from NY-16 relative to the wealthier sections of Westchester which were added. The biggest one is that Westchester was much more content to put in “protest” votes in leaving the choice blank (+6.9%), rather than follow the front-runner, Joe Biden (-6.4%).
The second is that the wealthier towns of Westchester, a county which is roughly 20% Jewish, did not rally to Michael Bloomberg. This observation should be discounted by the Bronx having him as mayor for three terms while Westchester did not.
Lastly, Westchester and the Bronx voted in a similar pattern for the far-left. While Westchester backed Warren more than the Bronx did (+1.0%), the Bronx voted in a similar percentage favoring Bernie Sanders (-0.8%).
The political strategists at J Street know these things: that Westchester is just as likely to vote liberal BUT is also likely to stay away and not support the frontrunner incumbent, especially in an off-cycle end of summer primary. The lower voter turnout and Westchester’s challenge to the frontrunner could spell the end of Bowman’s political career.
Westchester Jewish Community Rallying For Vedat Gashi
There are specific reasons for Bowman to be concerned beyond macro trend lines, which brought J Street into the action.
Bowman’s positions are very unpopular in lower Westchester. Those include:
Call to “Defund the police”
“Abolish ICE”, the immigration and customs enforcement department, and a call for “open borders”
Push for teaching “Critical Race Theory” in schools
Voting against the Infrastructure Bill, and then lying to constituents that he supported it
Sponsoring a bill that called the founding of Israel a catastrophe
Not signing a bipartisan letter to fight anti-Semitism on campuses
Not supporting the Abraham Accords which set peace and normalization agreements between Israel and four Muslim countries
His vote to condition aid to Israel, in contrast to President Biden’s pledge not to do so
Bowman’s being one of the least bipartisan members of congress, going into a session that will likely see a split in Democratic and Republican control
The vast majority of the Westchester Jewish community is against these policies. Further, reading of Bowman’s tight relationship with the noxiously anti-Israel group IfNotNow where he said “I couldn’t be more grateful that IfNotNow Movement has had my back in Congress this year and I know that our partnership is just beginning,” made people search for an alternative.
J Street wasn’t initially concerned by the anger of the Jewish community, as there were three candidates running against Bowman. His victory was a near certainty as people were likely to split the vote. With AIPAC and DMFI concluding the same and staying out of the race, J Street opted to place its money bets on other races.
However, over the last few weeks, Jewish grass roots efforts led to coalescing behind Vedat Gashi, a secular Muslim immigrant from Kosovo. The Jewish community was pulled in by his powerful story, his pledge for “commonsense” policies which would NOT defund the police, which would support investments in infrastructure and would support Israel. Gashi lawn signs began dotting the suburban landscape. The easy Bowman victory was now hotly contested.
So J Street came in to fight the local Jews.
J Street Pours Money Into Campaign Against The Local Jewish Community
With primaries scheduled for August 23rd, J Street announced on August 17 that it would pour $200,000 into the races of Rep. Jerry Nadler and Rep. Jamaal Bowman. The hypocrisy of funding Bowman in a race without any PAC involvement after slamming “aggressive outside spending” is just the beginning.
J Street’s flood of money in the final days of the race is not only going against the desires of the local Jewish community; it is trying to get the non-Jewish community out to vote. Its press release states that its “Bowman ad running across streaming platforms including ESPN, Vevo, MLB, NBC, CBS, ABC and BET.” BET is predominantly watched by the non-Jewish African-American community.
The Westchester Jewish community is rightfully outraged.
J Street is attempting to undermine the local Jewish community’s desire for a moderate pro-Israel candidate to represent them in congress, by spending tons of money to get the non-Jewish community to vote for a far-left anti-Israel candidate. It’s appalling, and the ramifications will likely last well beyond this immediate election.
Much of the global media covered Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ disgusting comments while he was in Germany, as he tried to gain international support for his approach to dealing with Israel. Their coverage was quite different.
While standing alongside German Chancellor Olaf Schloz, a reporter asked Abbas if he would apologize to Israel for the Palestinian kidnapping and murder of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics, as Germany was set to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the event in a few weeks. Abbas ignored the question, and instead offered “From 1947 to the present day, Israel has committed 50 massacres in Palestinian villages and cities, in Deir Yassin, Tantura, Kafr Qasim and many others, 50 massacres, 50 Holocausts.“
The condemnations for the Palestinian leader’s trivialization of the Holocaust – in Germany of all places – in response to a question about Palestinian terrorism, and inverting Jewish victim to murderer, came from around the world. Some news organization opted to focus squarely on the Holocaust denial and rebukes, while other for-profit media companies decided to provide context.
Some of the background proffered was shocking and says much about the news organization’s biases, their readers and sponsors.
Basically all news groups focused on Abbas’ “50 Holocaust” statement and the condemnations. Almost all – including AP News and The Guardian – provided background that 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, except for Axios, which delivers news in an abbreviated bullet point format. None of the major news outlets informed readers that Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany, as the country feels a moral duty to not obfuscate its historic crimes against humanity. Depending on when the story broke, the media reported on the “clarification” posted on Abbas’s political party’s website.
The 1972 Palestinian massacre of Israeli athletes, the focus of the question to Abbas, was only referred to as an “attack” by Axios and Reuters. Each declined to write that eleven athletes were murdered by Palestinian terrorists.
Very few media shops gave their readership color that Abbas has a long history of Holocaust denial, including writing his doctoral thesis on the idea that Zionists conspired with the Nazis to make life unbearable for European Jews to get the Jews to move to Palestine. Abbas falsely alleges – to this day – that Jews have neither history in, nor interest to move to Palestine, so Zionists worked with the German government to prod the Jews to move. Both CNN and The New York Times gave some color on Abbas’ history of anti-Semitism.
On the fringe, CNN, Reuters and The New York Times tried to explain Abbas’s revolting comments.
CNN and Reuters essentially reprinted the Palestinian “clarification” statement which wrongfully stated that “Israeli forces” have been engaged in “massacres” of Palestinians since the “Nakba” of the founding of Israel. Reuters and The New York Times elected to write about recent battles between Palestinian Arabs and Israel that left many Arabs dead, as if somehow the slaughter of defenseless Jewish Germans by the Nazi government is akin to a war between two armed groups.
The New York Times went even further. It quoted a disgraced former Prime Minister from over a decade ago who served time in prison, who “welcomed” the Palestinian non-apology, making the matter seem like water-under-the-bridge. Such ridiculous editorializing could only happen at the anti-Zionist Times. Or maybe Qatari-owned al Jazeera.
In case readers were not satisfied that Abbas was cleared of charges of anti-Semitism by four prime ministers ago-Ehud Olmert, the Times added a bunch of information that has absolutely nothing to do with the story. It wrote that Abbas has worked closely with Israeli security to prevent violence, and that “right-wing Israeli politicians” try to isolate and demonize Abbas, even though he helps keep the peace. If that doesn’t convince the reader to absolve Abbas, the Times added that Abbas is deeply unpopular among Palestinian Arabs anyway.
The New York Times has long peddled in anti-Israel editorializing. It has now added Holocaust denial-enablement to its revolting repertoire.
To spend time in Berlin, Germany is to be surrounded by echoes of the Holocaust. The silhouettes of Jewish victims can be seen in the memorials of concrete coffins emerging from the ground, brass plaques cemented into the sidewalks, sculptures of men, women and children atop pedestals, and the anti-Semitic edicts drawn on placards hoisted on street poles.
The small community of Israeli Jews who moved to the epicenter of the Jewish genocide since World War II have made a peculiar peace with this past. Some came when the city was divided in two and settled in West Berlin, and others are recent arrivals, former Ukrainians and Russians who prefer Eastern Europe to the Middle East.
They all know the city’s history and they know the oddity that they represent.
Speaking to these Israeli Jews about their relationships with German neighbors is a course of curiosity and incredulity. They offer that perhaps as many as 20% of Germans today are Nazi sympathizers much like their grandparents, and a similar percentage probably don’t think about the past at all. The Israeli-German residents estimate that most non-Jewish Germans are embarrassed about their legacy but don’t want to hate their own flesh-and-blood. Such Germans are left in an awkward situation when they talk with Jews: the unsympathetic descendants of murderers are engaged with the much more sympathetic descendants of their victims, creating an unbalanced state.
The Jewish Berliners dislike the dynamic, and argue that today’s generation of Germans cannot be held responsible for the sins of the past. They argue that today’s Germans have atoned as best they could through memorials and compensation to survivors. These Jews offer that they bemoan the preferred position they have in society as children of victims; they do not want such inherited status. Instead, they seek their righteous rank earned from sympathizing with the challenging constellation that places today’s Germans alongside Jews. The Jews and Germans are equally inheritors of the past, no more, no less.
Today in Berlin, I heard Jews talk about two different Children of the Holocaust. While I have long been familiar with children of Survivors like myself, it was shocking to hear some Jews relate to the grandchildren of Nazis as victims as well, albeit of familial reputational stain rather than of genocide. Perhaps that is how these new German Jews live surrounded by Jewish and Nazi ghosts: imagining that today’s Germans live with those same ghosts as well.
The New York Times used four journalists to cover the August 14 Arab terrorist attack on Israeli Jews in Jerusalem. The journalists reporting from Jerusalem, Seoul and Hong Kong (I have no idea why correspondents from thousands of miles away were needed) could not muster a clear and balanced report.
The article started with the usual anti-Israel bias with the headline “Eight Injured in Shooting in Jerusalem” which did not clearly label the attacker as an Arab Muslim nor the victims as Israeli and American Jews. While the article would eventually reveal that the attacker was a “Palestinian man”, it would never clearly state that the victims were all Jewish. Instead, the attack was crafted as between warring countries, continuing a trend of Palestinians and Israelis killed over the past few months.
The Times then mentioned Silwan, the neighborhood from where the Arab terrorist came, as having tension “between its Palestinian residents and a small but growing number of Israeli settlers.” While the Palestinian Arabs and Israelis are both “residents”, the Times opted to use the biased Palestinian narrative to describe the Israelis.
At that point, the paper shifted squarely to religion:
“Sacred to both Jews and Muslims, the nearby Temple Mount houses the third-holiest mosque in Islam and was the location in antiquity of two ancient Jewish temples that remain important to Jewish identity.“
According to the Times, while the Temple Mount is “sacred to both Jews and Muslims”, the site is really more important to Islam, as it “houses the third-holiest mosque in Islam”. For Jews, the site is merely a talisman and “important to Jewish identity.”
That’s a deliberate insult to millions of Jews around the world. The Temple Mount is THE holiest location for Judaism.
Continuing the trend, the article mentioned that “Hamas, the Islamist militant group that runs the Gaza Strip” celebrated the attack, but did not quote Fatah, the party of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas cheering the shooting as well, posting on Facebook “Praise to the one whose rifle only speaks against his enemy. Long live our people’s unity and long live the free hero. Praise to the rifle muzzles, our people will fight the occupation with all kinds of resistance. Save your bullets and use them against the occupation, only the occupation!!”
Why did the paper opt to only refer to the “Islamist” political-terrorist group but not the secular political one which controls the presidency and Areas A and B? Does the Times believe that the conflict is a religious one or a political one? It pivoted back-and-forth in the article inelegantly.
The four journalists contributing to the story made a final pivot at the end of the article, writing “Israeli efforts to build archaeological and tourism attractions in Silwan, mostly celebrating the area’s ancient Jewish heritage, are perceived by Palestinians as a means of eroding Palestinian claims to the city.” This pivoted the conflict as neither political nor religious but a historical one. In this case, the Times seemed more comfortable pointing out that Jews have a much longer history in the region than the Arabs who first came more recently. Perhaps it does so, questioning whether history truly fuels the conflict, or is a talking point between the parties.
The Times is dancing around the political and religious nature of the Israeli-Arab conflict. While the anti-Zionist paper is comfortable making political arguments which make Israel look like the larger and more powerful political actor, it is loathe to point out that Israel has a much deeper religious claim to the land and Jerusalem. Perhaps the liberal media fears that too much information will educate readers about the profound logic of Israel retaining full control of the Old City of Jerusalem, in direct opposition of Palestinian political goals of seizing the site from the Jewish State.
In the 1986 film “Highlander”, immortal demi-gods roam Earth, interacting with people but caring mostly about other immortals. They live knowing that they must confront others like themselves and battle to the death, because in the end, only a single one can exist.
Monotheistic faiths often behave similarly.
Adherents of Christianity, Islam and Judaism have fought each other for supremacy. Many wars demanded death or conversion. As it related to places, the victor often took over holy sites and either demolished them or changed them to the winner’s religion, demonstrating superiority of their God.
Consider the Hagia Sophia in today’s Istanbul, Turkey. The building was originally built as a church around 537CE. When Ottoman Muslims conquered the city in 1453, they converted the church into a mosque. It remained so until the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, when shortly thereafter, the secular Turkish leader Mustafa Kemal Ataturk turned it into a museum. In the summer of 2020, Islamist Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan converted it back to a mosque, angering much of the western world.
Christianity and Islam battled for superiority in Europe and in the holy land for centuries. From 1095 to 1291 the church waged several crusades. The demand for armed pilgrimage to Jerusalem set the region on fire, with the paltry number of Jews in Europe and holy land left as victims on both sides.
When Christians ultimately failed to take Jerusalem, they turned to purge the Jews and Muslims of Europe. Various edicts preceded and followed the expulsion of the Jews of Spain in 1492 and in Portugal in 1497. Thereafter, Muslims were effectively routed from the peninsula, virtually completely by early in the 17th century.
Polytheists fought with monotheists as well. When Alexander the Great came to the Jewish holy land, he Hellenized the region. When the Romans came a few hundred years later, they destroyed the Second Jewish Temple and installed pagan gods. They renamed Jerusalem and the region in an attempt to vanquish the monotheist Jews.
Jews however, have uniquely not waged religious wars. While Christians and Muslims have long histories of invading lands and forcing people of different faiths to convert, Jews have no such imperative.
The reason is quite simple and completely misunderstood by non-Jews. While most religions contend that their belief system is supreme and that adherents to other faiths are either an affront to their god(s) and/or are doomed to damnation, Judaism is a particular faith, not a universalistic one. It does not demand that people of other faiths convert or that they are damned. It was always designed to be a local religion in the land of Israel for a specific tribe – the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Other faiths are free to worship as they desire.
The notion seems conceited to many and has sometimes led to anti-Semitism.
How can a supreme God produce a bible just for one community? If that were true and others want such relationship with God, they need to become the new Jews. This replacement theology placed Christians as the successors to Jews through Jesus. Islam held much the same, replacing Christians via their prophet Mohammed.
The Jews contend that they didn’t supplant any faith nor have they been supplanted. However, they do object to their religious places of worship being destroyed.
While Christians and Muslims may seek to place the Dome of the Rock and al Aqsa Mosque on top of the Jewish Temple Mount to show that their faith is supreme and replaced the old, Jews have no such dogma. There is no desire to “supplant”; just to have their own place of worship once again.
Today, Islamic fanatics shout that “al Aqsa is in danger” to foment a jihad against the Jews. It is based on tenets not found in Judaism but in their monotheistic faith. Jews simply want to pray on the Temple Mount and rebuild their temple, but not to confront or show superiority to Islam.
The sentiment is captured in the Jewish Bible in a section read on the eighth day of Passover, in the book of Isaiah. While Isaiah 11:6 is famous, reading through to ninth sentence captures the fuller message:
6 The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.
7 The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8 The infant will play near the cobra’s den, and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.
9 They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.
That “holy mountain” is the Jewish Temple Mount. It can house the monotheistic faiths that believe in peace and coexistence. “The wolf will live with the lamb” will occur when the world’s great religions internalize their common bonds and stop fighting each other for dominance. Together, “they will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain,” enabling the Third Jewish Temple to exist beside the al Aqsa Mosque.
The Islamic false perception that al Aqsa is in danger is rooted in its own conception of religious superiority and how it is manifest. When Muslim leaders internalize that Judaism has no such ethos, hopefully it will welcome the building of the Third Jewish Temple and help realize the vision of the prophet Isaiah.
The race to represent New York’s newly redrawn 16th district – now one of the most Jewish congressional districts in the United States – has had a number of inconsistencies and consistencies this election cycle. The common refrain from lower Westchester was a strong dislike for far-left wing “Squad” member Rep. Jamaal Bowman to represent the district. What remained unclear, was whether the community would rally behind a single candidate to defeat Bowman, or split the vote to enable Bowman to coast to victory.
For the past two months, members of the Jewish community divided their support between Vedat Gashi and Catherine Parker. Gashi, who entered the race early, received a significant amount of support from everyone. When the district lines were redrawn in May, Parker entered the race and gathered support from local constituents and people who wanted to see a woman take the congressional seat, much as Nita Lowey had for decades.
Critical to the Orthodox community’s decision was the significant endorsements Gashi has – and continues – to accumulate, including from Mike Spano, the mayor of Yonkers, the largest city in the district and home to a significant base of Bowman support. Spano and Tom Meier, Chair of the Yonkers Democratic Committee will be hosting an event for Gashi on August 16.
Other endorsements this week came from former Rep. Nita Lowey on August 3rd as well as former Rep. Eliot Engel, whom Bowman defeated two years ago. Members of the Orthodox community in White Plains decided to back Gashi on August 2nd, and from New Rochelle on August 4th. The Orthodox community from Scarsdale has been behind Gashi from the start, supporting his moderate, common sense approach to legislation and support for Israel.
Other reasons for picking Gashi include his solid organizational infrastructure set up for the final weeks of the race, with several more months and significantly more money to campaign than Parker, who entered only recently.
It’s never easy to defeat an incumbent, even one with a horrible track record like Bowman. Yet there is a path.
It remains to be seen if the broader Jewish community will get behind Gashi the way the Orthodox community joined in common cause this week. If they do, it might encourage Parker to drop from the race, thereby winning support from the community for her to pursue another political run in the future, and pave a clearer path to defeat a member of the far-left “Squad” on August 23rd.
Israel’s biggest critics in Congress came out to support Rep. Andy Levin (D-MI) in his Democratic primary against Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI). They included Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and J Street.
Tlaib often falsely slanders Israel as an “apartheid government” committing “ethnic cleansing” of Palestinian Arabs. She calls the founding of the Jewish State a “Nakba” (catastrophe) and opposes countries normalizing relations with Israel.
Those sentiments make her a favorite of the extremist fringes of the left and right.
J Street, a far-left pro-Palestinian group marketed as “pro-Israel”, poured over $700,000 into Rep. Levin’s progressive campaign against moderate pro-Israel Rep. Haley Stevens, who was backed by the bipartisan group AIPAC. Stevens won 59.5% of the Democratic primary vote on August 2nd, which brought out roughly 110,000 voters.
When Stevens prevailed over Levin, J Street issued a press release claiming that AIPAC’s involvement in the race was a “sad moment for diplomacy and democracy.” J Street was appalled that AIPAC spent $5 million on the race and had labeled Levin as “fringe”. Therefore, the progressive fringe group asked Democratic politicians to stay far away from AIPAC in the future.
J Street is peddling its extremist socialist policies as “mainstream” as it tries to become the sole voice regarding Israel in the Democratic Party. It is aggressively attempting to defeat any politician with moderate and pro-Israel views and replace them with alt-left voices who adhere to their socialist principles.
It’s completely within their right to lobby and say what they want, but they are both hypocrites and liars. The group lies when it says it is pro-Israel when in fact it is pro-Palestinian first and foremost, and when it claims its policies are mainstream. They are hypocrites when they state a desire for a “political space for open and healthy debate over US foreign policy” and then attempt to shut down AIPAC.
A long-time liberal Democrat, Gary Ackerman (D-NY) once said that J Street is “so open-minded about what constitutes support for Israel that its brains have fallen out.” He concluded that “America really does need a smart, credible, politically active organization that is as aggressively pro-peace as it is pro-Israel. Unfortunately, J-Street ain’t it.”
J Street, Rashida Tlaib and Bernie Sanders worked their hardest to defeat a moderate pro-Israel Democrat, and they are continuing to publicly push Americans to “disavow” bipartisanship and moderate solutions to today’s problems.
Some of Rep. Haley Stevens comments about Israel and anti-Semitism which seemingly offended pro-Israel progressives:
“I am deeply concerned by the persistent and growing effort to demonize Israel, the world’s only Jewish state and a close American ally, on the international stage. Whether through the chronic bias displayed by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) or accusations put out by groups like Amnesty International, I stand opposed to efforts to unjustifiably brand Israel as an “apartheid state,” and I will always work to mitigate the threat of delegitimization against our closest friends in the Middle East.” – February 2, 2022
“Make no mistake about it: a strong and enduring partnership between the United States and the State of Israel is paramount to our interests at home and abroad. Bipartisan support for Israel and a two-state solution promotes lasting peace and democracy in the Middle East. I’m eager to reaffirm my support for Israel, condemn anti-semitism in all its forms, and make clear that my beliefs on Israel and any other policy topic for that matter will never be bought and paid for.” – February 11, 2019
Quite a contrast from Levin saying “Unless Palestinian human rights are respected, we cannot fight antisemitism.” Levin’s appalling statement was rebuked by Liora Rez, director of Stop Antisemitism.org, saying “Neo nazis and radical Islamists quite frequently hold Jews in America responsible for the Israel/Palestinian conflict. For a sitting U.S. Congressman to mirror this horrific rhetoric does nothing but feed the Jew hating machine. Andy Levin should be ashamed of himself!”
And in even sharper contract to Levin-supporter Rashida Tlaib:
US President Joe Biden announced on July 31 that he had ordered the killing of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, a mastermind of several terrorist attacks against the United States. In his comments about the targeted assassination of one of the leaders of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Biden said “Justice has been delivered, and this terrorist leader is no more.”
Biden added that “We make it clear again tonight that no matter how long it takes, no matter where you hide, if you are a threat to our people, the United States will find you and take you out.” However, it is unclear whether al-Zawahiri posed any current threat to the United States. Biden administration officials made no attempt to relay any planned attacks and did not offer whether there was any attempt to arrest al-Zawahiri instead of killing him.
The justice was seemingly solely based on al-Zawahiri’s past actions killing thousands of innocent lives.
Biden’s view of justice served to terrorists is in sharp contrast to the Palestinian Authority that same day.
To mark the twentieth anniversary of Palestinian Arabs blowing up a cafeteria at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, murdering nine and injuring over 80, the Palestinian Authority raised the salaries of four terrorists by 14.29%.
As reported by Palestinian Media Watch, “Four of the members of the terrorist cell that carried out the attack – Wael Qassem, Wassim Abbasi, Alla Aldin Abbasi and Muhammed Odeh – were arrested shortly after [the bombing], in August 2002. Having now spent 20 years in prison, this month, the PA will give each of the terrorists a 14.29% rise in their basic salary, from 7,000 ($2,251) to 8,000 shekels/month ($2,572). Since the terrorists were residents of Jerusalem, the PA pays them an additional supplement of 300 shekels/month ($96). To date, the PA has paid each of the these four terrorists a sum of 1,034,500 shekels ($332,637). Four of the other terrorists convicted for their part in the attack on the university and other attacks include Muhammad Arman, Walid Anjas, Abdallah Barghouti and Ibrahim Hamed. Each of these terrorists is similarly receiving a monthly salary from the PA.
“To date, the PA rewarded the terrorists responsible for the bombing 8,022,600 shekels ($2,579,614).”
PA President Mahmoud Abbas defended these payment before the United Nations in September when he said “Why should we have to clarify and justify providing assistance to families of prisoners and martyrs, who are the victims of the occupation and its oppressive policies? We cannot abandon our people and we will continue striving to free all our prisoners.“
The murder of innocent civilians is reprehensible. While it is unfortunate that the offending terrorists are killed instead of tried and imprisoned, it is often necessary. Justice requires as much.
The stain of inhumanity is not confined to the terrorists but permeates those who support, encourage and incentivize them. The Palestinian Authority has shown its moral code in its twisted definition of justice as rewarding terrorists.
In the United States, justice for terrorists and their victims means punishing terrorists. For Palestinian Arabs, justice requires cash compensation for the murderers and falsely labeling the slain victims as foreign invaders.