Anti-Semitism and the U.S. Left

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government begins a three-part examination of the growing acceptance of anti-Semitism by Leftists and Progressives in the United States.

Anti-Semitism has become acceptable to the American Left. It is occasionally masked as merely being sympathetic to the cause of the Palestinians, but that is only camouflage.

Anti-Semitic incidents rose in 2015 by 3%, according to the Anti-Defamation League. The organization’s 2016 statistics are also expected to be disturbing. But it is not just in reportable, specific crimes that the trouble manifests itself.

The new anti-Semitism is broader than the traditional ethnically-based hatred that history is all too familiar with. It contains the seeds of the broader Progressive/Left’s disdain and hatred for all religion. A devotion to religious principles means that individuals see a higher power than government, a belief that the Left, which places the power of government on a solitary pedestal above individual rights, cannot tolerate.

The reality and political power of modern anti-Semitism in the political Left is clear, and one need look no further than the recent race for national leadership of the Democrat Party itself for evidence. Keith Ellison, a member of Congress from Minnesota, came extremely close to being elected head of the DNC. His past association with anti-Semites, and his statements that U.S. foreign policy is “governed” by Jewish interests should be noted.

In a Haaretz article generally sympathetic to Ellison, Michael Olenick, “a Jewish student who clashed with Ellison and who was the opinions editor at the [Minnesota Daily, the student newspaper], recalled Ellison maintaining that an oppressed group could not be racist toward Jews because Jews were themselves oppressors. ‘European white Jews are trying to oppress minorities all over the world,’ Olenick remembers Ellison arguing. Keith would go on all the time about ‘Jewish slave traders.’”

A Daily Caller examination of Ellison notes:
Men experience different situations too from not having the ability to get truly erect to not staying solid all through the discount viagra india whole sexual contact. This is a condition when there is creation of stores on the layers of the penile supply routes making the erectile tissues limit the stream of blood subsequently avoiding erection. purchase levitra online Things such as having friends, goals, and a life story are shown tadalafil online 40mg to increase ones satisfaction. The penis is one of the most http://amerikabulteni.com/2015/06/01/fifadaki-yolsuzluklar-ve-ibn-i-haldun/ viagra pills from india important sexual organs of the human body.
“… a 33-year-old Ellison read aloud that he was there to ‘support the truth’ of [Joanne Jackson’s] alleged comment that ‘Jews are the most racist white people…in some Black areas, some exploitative shopkeepers are, yes, Jewish.’ In his 2006 campaign that ultimately won him his first term in Congress, Ellison received roughly $50,000 campaign contributions that were given or raised by officials of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which was spun off of Hamas front group Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP). Several senior CAIR employees have been jailed and convicted for ties to terrorism, and IAP apparently shuttered in 2004 after it was found liable in a 2004 civil court case of supporting terrorist organization Hamas.”

Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) President Morton A. Klein, in a statement concerning Ellison’s leadership bid, noted: Ellison was a devotee and worked for anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan for many years… and co-sponsored anti-Semitic speeches by Kwame Ture entitled, “Zionism, Imperialism, White Supremacy or Both.” The anti-Israel smears in Ellison’s “Gaza 54” letter are still being used today to promote anti-Israel, anti-Semitic boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS), on the website of the leading [anti-Israel] BDS [boycott, disinvest, sanction] group in the U.S…Ellison also spouted “blame President Bush” 9/11 conspiracy theories. Ellison analogized Bush’s prosecution of the war on terror to Hitler’s rise to power…”

Longtime Democrat party loyalist and legal scholar Alan Dershowitz had threatened to leave the party if Ellison was elected. Unfortunately, the problem didn’t end after the election. The new chair, Tom Perez, immediately named Ellison his top deputy.

The acceptance of anti-Semitism has extended to both the popular culture and academia.

The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs notes that “Political cartoons often have more of an immediate impact in reinforcing negative stereotypes about Jews than a lengthy essay…A yet uncharted field of hate cartoons against Jews is that in progressive blogs…Most of the progressive blogs…containing such anti-Semitic imagery cited in this essay generally fail to remove such hateful cartoons, despite blog policies expressly prohibiting posts that contain “hateful” or “inflammatory” content…A yet uncharted field of hate cartoons against Jews is…in progressive blogs. .. The cartoonist most frequently appearing on the progressive blogs analyzed…is an extreme left-wing political activist who [participated in the] … notorious Iranian Holocaust Cartoon Competition. …[this cartoonist has] a staggering amount of work dedicated to advancing explicitly anti-Semitic political imagery.”

The Report continues tomorrow

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.