In the Wall Street Journal in December 2003, Natan Sharansky, a Jewish refusenik who was a political prisoner under the old Soviet regime, wrote this about “the longest hatred”.
Over the millennia, anti-Semitism has infected a multitude of peoples, religions and civilizations, in the process inflicting a host of terrors on its Jewish victims. But while there is no disputing the impressive reach of the phenomenon, there is surprisingly little agreement about its cause or causes.
Indeed, finding a single cause would seem too daunting a task–the incidence of anti-Semitism is too frequent, the time span too broad, the locales too numerous, the circumstances too varied. No doubt that is why some scholars have come to regard every outbreak as essentially unique, denying that a straight line can be drawn from the anti-Semitism of the ancient world to that of today. Whether it is the attack on the Jews of Alexandria in the year 38 or the ones that took place 200 years earlier in ancient Jerusalem, whether it is the Dreyfus affair in 1890s France or Kristallnacht in late-1930s Germany–each incident is seen as the outcome of a distinctive mix of political, social, economic, cultural and religious forces that preclude the possibility of a deeper or recurring cause. […]
Shocked by the visceral anti-Semitism he witnessed at the Dreyfus trial in supposedly enlightened France, Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism, became convinced that the primary cause of anti-Semitism was the anomalous condition of the Jews: a people without a polity of its own. In his seminal work, “The Jewish State” (1896), published two years after the trial, Herzl envisioned the creation of such a Jewish polity and predicted that a mass emigration to it of European Jews would spell the end of anti-Semitism.
Although his seemingly utopian political treatise would turn out to be one of the 20th century’s most prescient books, on this point history has not been kind to Herzl; no one would seriously argue today that anti-Semitism came to a halt with the founding of the state of Israel. To the contrary, this particular illusion has come full circle: while Herzl and most Zionists after him believed that the emergence of a Jewish state would end anti-Semitism, an increasing number of people today, including some Jews, are convinced that anti-Semitism will end only with the disappearance of the Jewish state.
I remembered this important article of Sharansky’s as I read his latest writing on Obama’s Iran debacle deal …
As difficult as this situation is, however, it is not unprecedented. Jews have been here before, 40 years ago, at a historic juncture no less frightening or fateful than today’s.
In the early 1970s, Republican President Richard Nixon inaugurated his policy of detente with the Soviet Union with an extremely ambitious aim: to end the Cold War by normalizing relations between the two superpowers.
Among the obstacles Nixon faced was the USSR’s refusal to allow on-site inspections of its weapons facilities. Moscow did not want to give up its main advantage, a closed political system that prevented information and people from escaping and prevented prying eyes from looking in.
Yet the Soviet Union, with its very rigid and atrophied economy, badly needed cooperation with the free world, which Nixon was prepared to offer. The problem was that he was not prepared to demand nearly enough from Moscow in return. And so as Nixon moved to grant the Soviet Union most-favored-nation status, and with it the same trade benefits as U.S. allies, Democratic Sen. Henry Jackson of Washington proposed what became a historic amendment, conditioning the removal of sanctions on the Soviet Union’s allowing free emigration for its citizens. […]
The Republican administration in the White House objected furiously. It also claimed that by improving relations with Moscow it would be better able to protect us personally and to ensure that some Jews could emigrate each year. […]
Now all that was needed for the amendment to become law was enough principled congressional Republicans willing to take a stand against their own party in the White House. It was a Republican senator from New York, Jacob Javits, who, spurred by a sense of responsibility for the Jewish future, helped put together the bipartisan group that ensured passage.
Later, when Javits traveled to Moscow as part of a delegation of U.S. senators, he met with a group of Jewish refuseniks and asked us whether the policy of linkage truly helped our cause. Although we knew that we were speaking directly into KGB listening devices, all 14 of us confirmed that Jackson’s amendment was our only hope. […]
The amendment made the principle of linkage the backbone of the free world’s relations with the USSR. The decaying Soviet economy could not support an arms race or maintain tolerable conditions without credit and support from the United States. By conditioning this assistance on the opening of the USSR’s gates, the United States would not only help free millions of Soviet Jews as well as hundreds of millions of others but also pave the way for the regime’s eventual collapse.
Today, an American president has once again sought to achieve stability by removing sanctions against a brutal dictatorship without demanding that the latter change its behavior. And once again, a group of outspoken Jews — no longer a small group of dissidents in Moscow but leaders of the state of Israel, from the governing coalition and the opposition alike — are sounding an alarm. Of course, we are reluctant to criticize our ally and to so vigorously oppose an agreement that purports to promote peace. But we know that we are again at a historic crossroads, and that the United States can either appease a criminal regime — one that supports global terror, relentlessly threatens to eliminate Israel and executes more political prisoners than any other per capita — or stand firm in demanding change in its behavior.
He is right. He articulates exactly what must be said in Congress to strike down this deal as written. This deal that the brain-trust of Obama & Kerry merely say “Trust us” while the terrorist-supporting Islamists of Iran continue to preach Death to America! Death to Israel!.
And as a postscript (and a warning) if ever there is yet another indication of the rise of anti-Semitism even in America is to peruse the comments to Sharansky’s article.
Not that it really matters, since the GOP was more concerned about being seen to oppose the deal than in doing anything that might actually block it….
This is a bad, bad deal; treasonous even.
Public Image Ltd – Rise
ClownUnderpantsGnome and HorkingKerry both have been propounding threats against the Jews for over a week now, as well as threats of charges of duel loyalty against any Americans who oppose their grand alliance with the Islamic Republic of Iran in the name of jewish and Israeli safety. These two, PresidentIVotePresentAndWatchTheJewsDie and InternationalDiplomat John Kerry are little better than outright racists. But then, y’all already knew that.
dual, dammit
We should probably note however that it will be the Kurds of Syria and Iraq who will feel the bite of ClownUnderpantsGnome’s lash before the Jews in the coming weeks, albeit the whip will be wielded by the Turks with ClownDiaster’s acquiescence.
So much for hoping salvation might come from the Americans, eh wot, O Kurds? Banking on this leader of the free world for help is akin to banking on Stalin to aim his anti-aircraft guns at the sky, rather than at the backs of his own advancing armies.
Speaking of ancient hatreds, Ted Cruz handles Medea Benjamin and another loudmouth at a rally in which he clarifies why the Iran Deal is so incredibly dangerous.
Public Image Limited – Public Image
Lee Smith, Tablet: John Kerry: If Iran Deal Crumbles, Blame Israel
Dual loyalty? If Harry Truman had sought end WW2 in Europe by leaving Britain open to later German attack, would he have accused Americans who objected of dual loyalty?
Israel is and has been our truest ally in the Middle East. The Gulf State petrotyrants like us because we buy their oil, and because we helped keep a lid on their fellow Muslim enemies. Like, y’know, Iran.
Now, of course, we’re outproducing them oil-wise, and we’re helping Iran become a regional superpower. The Saudi regime isn’t much longer for this world, nor the other Gulf States. Who will be our allies then?
I know, I know. “Alliance” is a social construct invented by The Man to keep the transfem-metagendered peroffspring down.
“Israel is” no longer conforms to the facts on the ground as the Commander-in-Chief deigns those to stand. Let’s both Americans and Israelis understand that any claim of continuing alliance with Israel is a fiction so long as ClownUnderpantsGnome remains in office.
Oh, and by the by, the frequently remarked predilection of nominal progressives like ClownCatastrophe to make charges against his opponents which he and his kind themselves practice in fact, as for instance the “dual loyalty” charge, is as good a measure in this instance as in any other. Though we have to say, ClownDeceptor’s dual loyalty is to himself first, and again to himself, second — since he shows no loyalty to his own nation at all.
The facts the Unicorn Prince deigns to stand include, “he won.” Pyrrhus of Epirus suddenly feels a lot better about his battles with Rome, yet marvels that O can’t see how the ground is falling out from under him with each stomp.
It is inevitable that The Jarrett Junto will eventually be dragged down into a black hole of it’s own making – such is the fate of all Ideologues – but, like so many before the, it will drag a lot of us down with it.
Evidently Colby King heard the call to arms and rushed to the battlements s
pmears at the ready.I’m always a little amused by people who ponder the source of antisemitism. It’s really not all that mysterious. It all started when God told Abram to pack up his bags and move from Ur to Canaan. Ever since God marked Abram and Sarai’s descendants as His chosen people, Satan–with plenty of willing accomplices–has been trying to wipe them out.
Lee Smith: *** What was lost on the White House, and what the Iranians understood early on, was that if the administration was so eager to have a deal, Iran would eventually back the U.S. side into a corner where it had no choice but to adopt Iran’s initial bargaining position. And that’s where we are now. Folding on PMD [potential military dimensions] means not only ignoring Iran’s past nuclear work, but also abandoning the possibility of gaining accurate knowledge about what work the regime is up to in the future. In effect, the JCPOA shows that the White House concurs with Iran—there is no weapons program, never was one, and never will be one. Because if there is, thanks to the administration caving on PMDs, we won’t have any knowledge of the nuclear program until Iran decides to break out. ***
Still inconceivable to many serious critics of the ClownDeceptor’s Iran deal is that the ends achieved were precisely the ends desired — on the “American” side — because this thought entails deliberate treachery to the United States by its highest sitting officer of government. It just cannot be.
Or so they think. I’d advise they should think again.
So do I, Sd, so do I.
#ShamelessBlogwhoring
Give a listen Bob, I think you’ll find the time worth it.
Ever since God marked Abram and Sarai’s descendants as His chosen people, Satan–with plenty of willing accomplices–has been trying to wipe them out.
Is there another logical explanation for the persistence, vehemence, and irrationality of the desire to scapegoat and then purge Jews from a population?
Is there any other ethnic group that gets this kind of hatred? Not even the Roma, who also are wanderers but tend to be traveling thieves rather than settled bankers, inventors, composers, and other productive society types.
Never again
Never isn’t a very long time.
Well, y’know, “never” is Lucy’s football, where “never” means “always”.
I will attempt to, SD.
My life is non-stop these days, especially with my research into Leftist Thinking.
I forgot to include the ‘Thank you’.
Klein, Weekly Standard: Iran: The Real Deal
Elements of the truth about the Iran deal begin to leak into the public, but the central question, “Why?”, remains offstage. It seems to me that the range of potential answers to the question “why?” are reasonably well understood, as is evidenced by their absence. They’re simply too disturbing to speak aloud.