Memri Report on Threat to Jews

According to Memri Special Dispatch Number 8169 (July 15, 2019), Hamas official Fathi Hammad has called for attacks on Jews this coming Friday:

Hamas Political Bureau member Fathi Hammad said in a July 12, 2019 speech at a March of Return rally that aired on Al-Aqsa TV (Hamas-Gaza) that Israel has until the following Friday (July 19) to lift the siege on the Gaza Strip and implement its understandings with Hamas, lest the Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and all over the world use the "many methods and means" that are "up their sleeves" to "powerfully explode" in Israel's face. He said that, contrary to what Israel thinks, the Gazans are not rational, and that if they die, they will do so honorably while cutting off the heads of Jews and killing them with explosive belts, which he said Hamas has been actively manufacturing in factories. Calling on the seven million Palestinians abroad, whom he said have been "warming up" and "preparing," Hammad said: "Enough warming up... We must attack every Jew on planet Earth and slaughter and kill them." Hammad also encouraged Palestinians in the West Bank to purchase knives in order to cut the necks of Jews, saying that knives only cost five shekels. He added: "We will die while exploding and cutting the necks and legs of the Jews. We will lacerate them and tear them to pieces, Allah willing!"

This sounds rather violent, but do not be alarmed, for Mr. Hammad has already explained that those who carry out the attacks "will do so honorably while cutting off the heads of Jews and killing them with explosive belts."

The honor in this is not entirely clear to me, but it seems to have something to do with the necessity of killing each Jew twice: once by beheading and once more by explosive belts.

Oddly enough, Mr. Hammad does admit that this is not rational: "the Gazans are not rational."

According to rational actor theory, I suppose . . .

David Brooks on Three Kinds of Anti-Semitism

David Brooks
NYT

Since I've been speaking of religious intolerance lately, let's take a glance at an Opinion piece by David Brooks titled "How to Fight Anti-Semitism" (NYT, March 24, 2015), in which makes a threefold distinction among types of Anti-Semitism:

In the Middle East, anti-Semitism has the feel of a deranged theoretical system for making sense of a world gone astray . . . This sort of anti-Semitism thrives where there aren't that many Jews. The Jew is not a person but an idea, a unique carrier of transcendent evil: a pollution, a stain, a dark force responsible for the failures of others, the unconscious shame and primeval urges they feel in themselves, and everything that needs explaining. This is a form of derangement, a flight from reality even in otherwise sophisticated people . . .

In Europe, anti-Semitism looks like a response to alienation. It's particularly high where unemployment is rampant. Roughly half of all Spaniards and Greeks express unfavorable opinions about Jews. The plague of violence is fueled by young Islamic men with no respect and no place to go . . .

The United States is also seeing a rise in the number of anti-Semitic incidents. But this country remains an astonishingly non-anti-Semitic place. America's problem is the number of people who can't fathom what anti-Semitism is or who think Jews are being paranoid or excessively playing the victim . . .

I would alter what Brooks says about Anti-Semitism in Europe. It's not primarily a response to alienation, not among Muslims, anyway. The "young Islamic men" who turn to violence are absorbing much of the Middle East's "deranged theoretical system." This system, as described by Brooks, sounds like a religious one, given the talk of Jews as "evil," as a kind of "pollution," as a "dark force," even as the reason for this "world gone astray."

An article by Bernard Lewis, "The Roots of Muslim Rage," is good for understanding why much of the Muslim world has grown delusional about its failures. You can read this article in The Atlantic (but after clicking on the link, you have to wait for about 15 seconds for some sort of ad to disappear).

Howard Jacobson

Howard Jacobson

Amazon Site

I recently finished reading a novel titled "J." That symbol is intended to be a crossed-out capital letter "J." Why? Because the main character's father always "put two fingers across his mouth, like a tramp sucking on a cigarette butt he'd found in a rubbish bin[, which] . . . he . . . did to stifle the letter j before it left his lips" (page 6).

Why stifle the letter "J"?

To avoid accidentally pronouncing the word "Jew," a word no one in the novel ever utters even though every character has a Jewish surname, a name apparently taken on as an act of atonement for something terrible that happened - if it did happen - to the Jews, but also to pretend that nothing happened, surely not, since everyone is now 'Jewish.'

Okay, that's enough of a hint at a plot spoiler, so I'll stop now except to say that I liked the novel enough to purchase a second one by Jacobson: The Finkler Question.

It won the 2010 Man Booker Prize for literature, so it comes with an imprimatur.

Rhie Won-bok on Christian 'Misuse' of "Allah"

Rhie Won-bok
JoongAng Ilbo

Rhie Won-bok, a cartoonist who encountered some charges of antisemitism a few years back over his depiction of the US as controlled by Jews, has recently opined on Malaysia's decision to block non-Muslims from using the Muslim word for "God," i.e., "Allah." He concludes that this is analogous to differences in the name for "God" among Catholics and Protestants in Korea:

In Korea, the Catholics and Protestants believe in different gods. Catholics believe in Haneunim while Protestant Christians believe in Hananim. While Haneunim was the general term to refer to the Christian god when the religion was first introduced in Korea, Protestant churches differentiated their god by using a different spelling. Just as Allah is not for everyone, Haneunim is not the same god for all Christians. The Malaysian case is therefore not much different from the Korean situation. (Rhie, "'Allah' is not for all," JoongAng Ilbo, July 17, Page 28)

I don't want to be rude, but Mr. Rhie is all wet. Catholics and Protestants do not worship different 'Gods'! They simply use different Korean names for "God." Furthermore, no law exists in Korea forbidding one or the other usage by anybody. The Malaysian case is therefore completely different from the Korean situation, for the Malaysian legal system outlaws the use of "Allah" by non-Christians in certain contexts.

Moreover, Mr. Rhie never thought to inquire about the term used by Arab Christians for God.

That word is "Allah."

Inexplicable Data on Hate?

Seth Stephens-Davidowitz
NYT

Seth Stephens-Davidowitz is an economist with a PhD from Harvard (2013), and he offers some intriguing facts on Stormfront users in his article "The Data of Hate" (NYT, July 12, 2014). What's Stormfront, you ask? This:

Stormfront was founded in 1995 by Don Black, a former Ku Klux Klan leader. Its most popular "social groups" are "Union of National Socialists" and "Fans and Supporters of Adolf Hitler" . . . . The white nationalist posters on Stormfront have issues with many different groups. They often write about crimes committed by African-Americans against whites; they complain about an "invasion" of Mexicans; and they love to mock gays and feminists. [They find Asians "repulsive," though also seem to envy them.] But their main problem appears to be with Jewish people, who are often described as super-powerful and clever -- the driving force, generally speaking, behind the societal changes they do not like.

One might therefore expect Stormfront users to be uneducated. Not so:

The top reported interest of Stormfront members is "reading." Most notably, Stormfront users are news and political junkies. One interesting data point here is the popularity of The New York Times among Stormfront users. According to the economists Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse M. Shapiro, when you compare Stormfront users to people who go to the Yahoo News site, it turns out that the Stormfront crowd is twice as likely to visit nytimes.com.

Dr. Stephens-Davidowitz admits to being baffled:

Perhaps it was my own naïveté, but I would have imagined white nationalists' inhabiting a different universe from that of my friends and me . . . . Why do some people feel . . . [hatred toward African-Americans, Mexicans, gays, feminists, Asians, and Jews, among other groups?] I have pored over data of an unprecedented breadth and depth, thanks to our new digital era. And I can honestly offer the following answer: I have no idea.

Maybe he should ask them. They seem to have given some reasons. Concerns about the crime rate among African-Americans. Concerns about illegal immigration from Latin America being out of control. Those are two genuine issues, whatever one's stance might be. But what about gays and feminists? Dr. Stephens-Davidowitz writes only that Stormfront users "mock" these two groups. He might consider these points: gay rights are a topical issue, as the debate over homosexual marriage shows, and feminism is widely perceived by many men as being an anti-male ideology. As for beliefs about Asians and Jews, the view that they are "super-powerful and clever" -- a belief Dr. Stephens-Davidowitz cites about Jews, but it also tends to be a belief about East Asians -- might stem from the fact that both Asians and Jews are statistically over-represented in positions of power and prestige.

But why the hatred expressed toward these groups? From the points just noted, we might hypothesize that each of these hated groups represents ways in which white nationalists feel that they have lost control over their country. But why the hatred? Dr. Stephens-Davidowitz seems to assume that hatred is an unnatural emotion, one that requires an explanation. But what if that's incorrect? What if it's people's default position when confronted by difference?

What if hatred is easy?

Adam Garfinkle on the 'Jewcentric' Personality

Jewcentricity?

(Image from Wiley)

I receive regular articles emailed from the FPRI (Foreign Policy Research Institute) and yesterday received one in the "Footnotes" series (The Newsletter of FPRI's Wachman Center) with the odd title "Zionism and 'Jewcentricity' in American History" (Vol. 14, No. 12, August 2009). Written by Adam Garfinkle (editor of The American Interest) and based on a fascinating presentation, "The U.S., Zionism, and Israel," at a conference "U.S. Foreign Policy and the Modern Middle East" held in Philadelphia on June 25-27, 2009, the article and presentation are both advance reports from his upcoming book Jewcentricity: Why the Jews Are Praised, Blamed, and Used to Explain Just About Everything (Wiley, September 2009).

As I noted, the article has the odd title "Zionism and 'Jewcentricity' in American History" -- a rather disconcerting title, actually -- but here's Garfinkle's definition of the disconcerting term:

Jewcentricity is the tendency to exaggerate the role of Jews and Judaism in consequential human affairs.

As he notes, this can be expressed in antisemitic or philosemitic ways. Indeed, I've long considered these to be two sides of the same coin, and I've noticed that very little is sometimes needed for an individual to flip almost at random from one side to the other.

Mark Twain was a good example of this sort of 'Jewcentric' individual, for he wrote an essay published in Harper's Magazine, "Concerning the Jews" (September 1899), that expressed both attitudes. After writing the arguably antisemitic words that the "Jew is a money getter, and in getting his money he is a very serious obstruction to less capable neighbors who are on the same quest," Twain went on to write these rather more positive, arguably philosemitic words:

The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rule, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away . . . . [T]he Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit together in twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now who he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal except the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains.

This could, of course, easily flip back over into an antisemitic attitude, for the two attitudes share the view that the Jews play an overwhelming role in world affairs. Interestingly, even Jews can show both tendencies. Recall Garfinkle's definition:

Jewcentricity is the tendency to exaggerate the role of Jews and Judaism in consequential human affairs.

In the article, he then immediately observes:

Non-Jews do it, and Jews do it, too. Sometimes the exaggerations are philo-Semitic . . . sometimes anti-Semitic.

With that in mind consider our modern-day "Spengler" -- who has recently revealed himself to be David P. Goldman, associate editor of First Things -- for "Spenger" wrote an article published on September 17, 2007 in Asia Times, "It's easy for the Jews to talk about life," in which he expresses positive views that recall Twain's positive remarks about the Jewish talent for survival and success against the odds:

It's easy for the Jews to talk about delighting in life. They are quite sure that they are eternal, while other peoples tremble at the prospect impending extinction. It is not their individual lives that the Jews find so pleasant, but rather the notion of a covenantal life that proceeds uninterrupted through the generations . . . . What makes the Jews different is their unique belief that the Covenant gives them eternal life, a belief grounded, to be sure, by thousands of years of history, and survival against all odds against the depredations of the Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Alexandrine and Roman empires, not to mention more recent unpleasantness. It is not changing the baby's diapers or changing grandma's bedpan to which the Jews refer when they speak of delight in life, but rather the idealized, perpetual life of a kinship community.

Goldman is of course Jewish, but his 'Jewcentric' views have at times been expressed in less positive ways, for in 1978, he was associated with Lyndon LaRouche and co-wrote an article with Uwe Henke von Parpart for LaRouche's paper New Solidarity (November 18, 1978) titled "Israel Got H-Bomb From Wall Street Zionists -- USLP Readies Dossier" (pdf). The acronym "USLP" stands for "United States Labor Party," which was at that time the name of LaRouche's organization, and Goldman's views in this article are less than positive:

Operating under the cover of partnerships in Wall Street Brokerage Firms, executive positions in industrial companies, and hole-in-the-wall "scientific" firms scattered throughout the New York Metropolitan area, members of the Nuclear Club of Wall Street are the core of the atom spy network of Israel's foreign secret intelligence, the Mossad. These men are the most dangerous traitors in circulation now in the United States. Through their efforts, Israel has the means to provoke a third World War and destroy the United States.

The LaRouche organization is known for this sort of conspiracy-mongering. Goldman has long since left that organization, and his views on the role of Jews and Israel have grown far more positive -- as his "Spengler" articles attest -- but he remains a fascinating example of what Garfinkle might refer to as "the Jewcentric personality."

Not that Garfinkle ever mentions Goldman, for the name doesn't appear in Garfinkle's book Jewcentricity: Why the Jews Are Praised, Blamed, and Used to Explain Just About Everything, but the man fits the type.

Sarah Palin and the Jewish Question

David Brickner

Head of Jews for Jesus

(Image from Jews for Jesus Blog)

Yesterday's blog entry discussed the controversy over Governor Palin's remarks on the Iraq War, and for those remarks, I don't think that she can be seriously faulted, not any more so than Lincoln for making similar remarks during wartime, for neither she nor Lincoln claimed to know God's will.

The other controversy recently swirling about Palin is not directly about her but about David Brickner, leader of the organization Jews for Jesus, because of some remarks that he made while visiting her home church in Wasilla, Alaska. Brickner has helpfully posted the message that he gave that day: "The Jerusalem Dilemma," Wasilla Bible Church, August 17, 2008 by David Brickner

By dilemma, Brickner explains that although Jerusalem means "City of Peace," the irony is that it has no peace:

[This is] the Jerusalem Dilemma. Here is this city that represents a people, that represents a move of God; the name itself -- Ir Shalom -- means 'City of Peace.' And yet, what irony that there has been no peace, and there is no peace in the city of peace.

I think that Brickner is misusing the word "dilemma" to mean "irony," but perhaps I've misunderstood him. More importantly for our understanding of Brickner's talk in Palin's Wasilla church is this point:

Israel is an example of what all humanity has been saying to God since the beginning of time, shaking its fists at the heavens and saying, "You'll not rule over us."

And so all of the controversy that we see swirling in Jerusalem is really a mirror that the world looks in to see the controversy within. The Jerusalem Dilemma is the Wasilla Dilemma; it's the dilemma of the human heart.

I take it that Brickner is using Jerusalem, and therefore also Israel, as a symbol for all of 'rebellious' mankind, so we ought to keep this in mind as we come to his controversial words about "judgment":

But what we see in Israel, the conflict that is spilled out throughout the Middle East, really which is all about Jerusalem, is an ongoing reflection of the fact that there is judgment. There is judgment that is going on in the land, and that's the other part of this Jerusalem Dilemma. When Jesus was standing in that temple, He spoke that that judgment was coming, that there's a reality to the judgment of unbelief. He said "I long to gather you, but . . ." what? "You were unwilling." God never forces His way on human beings. And so because Jerusalem was unwilling to receive His grace, judgment was coming. He says, "Look, your house has left you desolate!" What did He mean by that? Remember where He is. He's standing in the temple there in Jerusalem, the place where God had promised, through Moses,

"There I will meet with you, there I will hear your prayers, and there I will forgive your sin."

And now Jesus in that temple, just before going to the cross, says, 'From now on this place is desolate.' And Jesus' words have echoed down through the centuries. Not a generation after He uttered this promise, Titus and his Roman legions marched into that city and destroyed both the city and the temple. And from that day until this very present there has been no temple, and there is therefore no sacrifice in Judaism. Only we could sacrifice in . . . the only place was in the temple. And therefore there has been, and there is today, no confidence of atonement, no confidence of forgiveness. If you were to stand outside of a synagogue on the day of atonement and ask those leaving the service, "Did God hear your prayers? Were your sins forgiven on this most holy of all days?" the answer would be, "I hope. I hope, but who can know?" Who indeed but those of us who have come under the wings of the Almighty, who've entered into that place of grace where forgiveness is assured for the dilemma of human life. Judgment is very real and we see it played out on the pages of the newspapers and on the television. It's very real.

When Isaac [i.e., David Brickner's son] was in Jerusalem he was there to witness some of that judgment, some of that conflict, when a Palestinian from East Jerusalem took a bulldozer and went plowing through a score of cars, killing numbers of people. Judgment -- you can't miss it. And Jesus talks about it, but He didn't leave us there. There's a promise of a return from this judgment. Jesus concludes His message there in the temple by saying this -- 'I tell you, you will not see Me again, you will not experience what I have come to bring, this place of grace which I have and will soon establish . . . you will not see Me again until you say, until you’re able with conviction to articulate, these words: "Baruch hab-ba bashem Adonai -- 'Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord."' Once again quoting again from a Psalm, this time Psalm 118:

The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief . . . the chief corner stone. And this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes.

Well, what are we to make of this? Is it antisemitic? Brickner himself is ethnically Jewish, but some Jewish converts to Christianity throughout history have turned against their own people in a hatred that is perhaps self-hatred. From my reading of Brickner's words here and elsewhere, I don't clearly sense hatred. We should also keep in mind that Brickner is using Jerusalem and Israel as symbols for all of humanity's relation to God. God offers either forgiveness or judgment, and each individual chooses one or the other. That's pretty standard evangelical language. But the example is problematic, and raises some troubling questions:

When Isaac was in Jerusalem he was there to witness some of that judgment, some of that conflict, when a Palestinian from East Jerusalem took a bulldozer and went plowing through a score of cars, killing numbers of people. Judgment -- you can't miss it.

In the context, since Brickner had first discussed the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. as judgment on the Jews for their rejection of Jesus's offer of God's message, this also would seem to be offered as an example of God's judgment upon the nation of Israel. That would be problematic, for it would imply that the Jewish-Muslim conflict as a whole is God's judgment on the Jewish people. Would this mean that the American-Islamist conflict is God's judgment on America? That 9/11 was God's judgment on America?

Or was Brickner offering the bulldozer example as an instance of God's judgment upon specific individuals? That would also be problematic.

Brickner would have done better to place the bulldozer story in the context of the Christian belief in the fallenness of the world rather than using it as an example of God's judgment on unbelief.

Brickner has gotten a lot of criticism for his remarks, and I must say that I think the criticism appropriate. Apparently, Brickner himself sees the some validity in the criticism, for he has posted a response:

The notion that the terrorist, bulldozer attack in Jerusalem this summer was God’s judgment on Israel for not believing in Jesus, is absolutely not what I believe. In retrospect, I can see how my rhetoric might be misunderstood and I truly regret that.

Of course I never expected the kind of magnifying glass scrutiny on a message where I was speaking extemporaneously. Let me be clear. I don't believe that any one event whether a terrorist attack or a natural disaster is a specific fulfillment of or manifestation of a Biblical prediction of judgment. I don't believe that the newspaper should be used to interpret the Bible. The Bible interprets the Bible.

I love my Jewish people and the land of Israel. I stand with and support her against all efforts to harm her or her people in any way. Please feel free to read my further explanations, in my Realtime article and in the interviews I did with Christianity Today and NBC.

I'll leave the reading and analysis of those links to others, but we should keep in mind that the controversy is David Brickner's controversy based upon David Brickner's words.

On the other hand, Governor Palin is reported to have been present during Brickner's presentation, so a question about her opinion concerning his words is a fair one. I haven't actually seen a direct, explicit statement by Palin on this issue, but I did find an article by Ben Harris, "McCain team: Palin rejects views of church's Jews for Jesus speaker," The Jewish Journal (September 3, 2008), which states this:

Vice presidential pick Sarah Palin says she doesn't share the views of a Jews for Jesus leader who in a speech at her church suggested that violence against Israelis resulted from God's judgment against Jews who have failed to embrace Jesus.

In particular, Michael Goldfarb, a spokesman for the McCain campaign, announced:

"Governor Palin does not share the views he expressed, and she and her family would not have been sitting in the pews of this church for the last seven years if his remarks were even remotely typical."

Although I'd prefer to hear Palin's own words, I don't see this controversy about Brickner's words having much traction in generating controversy about Palin.

On the side of the angels...

This image above, borrowed via the Czech site 'Navajo' from Wikipedia, has this as its caption "A modern depiction of Satan before his fall." No artist's name appears to grace this work of kitsch, but I wonder if the artist intended this as the first of a before-and-after series. If so, I also wonder how Satan would be depicted in his fallen state.

Most of all, though, I wonder why this unfallen Satan looks like a young Billy Graham:

You can see the original of this image, along with several others, at Sermon Index (2005). Here's the same photo, but with shoulders and partial torso:

And from Time Magazine (June 14, 1999), here's another image useful for comparison:

And from Religion & Ethic Newsweekly (June 24, 2005), we find another useful photo to compare:

The resemblance is uncanny, but perhaps intended (in which case, canny).

I've already openly wondered how the kitsch artist who depicted Satan would have depicted a fallen Satan. Similarly, I wonder what a fallen Billy Graham would look like. Crestfallen?

About three years ago in a Sunday school class, I heard someone refer to allegations that Graham had made antisemitic comments. That had surprised me because I had only ever heard him praise the Jews as God's chosen people.

I finally took the time to look into this issue and learned that Graham's comments had come in a conversation with President Richard Nixon that the latter had secretly taped. Here's what the BBC News (March 2, 2002) has:

In the taped conversation, Mr Graham said the Jewish "stranglehold" on the media "has got to be broken or this country's going down the drain".

"You believe that?" Nixon replies.

"Yes, sir."

"Oh boy. So do I. I can't ever say that but I believe it," Nixon says.

"If you get elected a second time, then we might be able to do something," Mr Graham replies.

Later in the conversation, when Nixon raises the subject of Jewish influence in Hollywood, Mr Graham says: "A lot of Jews are great friends of mine. They swarm around me and are friendly to me, because they know that I am friendly to Israel and so forth, but they don't know how I really feel about what they're doing to this country, and I have no power and no way to handle them."

That's pretty damning. How does Graham 'explain' it?

"Although I have no memory of the occasion, I deeply regret comments I apparently made in an Oval Office conversation with President Nixon some 30 years ago," Mr Graham said in a statement released by his Texas public relations firm.

"They do not reflect my views and I sincerely apologise for any offence caused by the remarks," he said, adding that he had spent his life building bridges between Jews and Christians.

I find this insufficient. While I can imagine that Graham might not recall a specific conversation from 1972, the specific details of his remarks to Nixon imply that he held strong though usually unexpressed views about a putative Jewish 'stranglehold' on the media that was sending the country "down the drain." Even if Graham doesn't remember the conversation with Nixon, surely he can recall views that his taped remarks imply were strongly held.

John Milton, who has himself been portrayed as the devil, presented us in Paradise Lost with a Satan that looks a lot like us -- or how we would like to appear if we were bigger than life. One 'wit' on the internet has brief photo essay (November 7, 1999) to 'prove' that Billy Graham is Satan.

In Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, the anonymous author presents Gawain as a model of Christian piety and knightly courtesy, a man to emulate. Yet, he falls for a winsom woman and chivalrously accepts a gift that turns out to be a test of his integrity, for in accepting the gift, he breaks his devotion to the Virgin Mary and his word to the Lord of the Manor where he has received hospitality. When he realizes what he has done, he privately puts much of the blame on women:

But 'tis no marvel if one be made a fool and brought to sorrow by women's wiles, for so was Adam beguiled by one, and Solomon by many, and Samson all too soon, for Delilah dealt him his doom; and David thereafter was wedded with Bathsheba, which brought him much sorrow--if one might love a woman and believe her not, 'twere great gain! And since all they were beguiled by women, methinks 'tis the less blame to me that I was misled! (SKGK, translated by Jessie L. Weston, Lines 2414-2428)

Graham received a lot of very postitive publicity in the media over the years -- a gift, one might say, but also a test of character. Gawain failed his test, and blamed women, yet the anonymous author doesn't portray Gawain as an evil man but merely as a flawed if otherwise exemplary man.

Maybe that's Graham: a flawed if otherwise exemplary man.