Anti-Zionism abets anti-Semitism

By Pamela Zuker On the night of November 9, 1938, Nazis unleashed unimaginable violence on the Jews of Germany. The wave of atrocities became known as Kristallnacht, the night of broken glass. Adolf Hitler, in one of his frequent cynical attempts to cloak pagan barbarism with Christian respectability, declared that the horrors were inflicted in honor of the vehemently anti-Jewish Martin Luther’s birthday the next day.

(Editor: Anti-Israel divestiture efforts at the University of Colorado prompted this historical essay by our friend Pamela Zuker, a scholar and writer in Aspen, on the long and shameful history of Jew-hatred. As she notes, it is a legacy in which Christians have sometimes participated, though without any valid theological warrant -- in repudiation of which, the Christ-followers in my family and church solemnly vow, in much the same words as Zuker quotes at the end from our brave Jewish friends: “Never again.”)

Until Kristallnacht -- despite the enactment of laws prohibiting intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews, a national boycott of Jewish stores, the exclusion of Jews from respected professions, the expulsion of Jewish students from German schools, the revocation of the German citizenship of all German Jews, and even the requirement that Jews wear yellow “Jude” stars on their clothing -- many Jews had refused to flee the country, believing that German anti-Semitism would abate.

In the immediate aftermath of Kristallnacht, however, virtually every remaining Jew in Germany attempted to emigrate. Sadly, even after the Nazi atrocities were known to the world, few countries would provide Jews asylum. When asked how many Jews his country could accommodate, a high government official in Canada replied, “None is too many.”? The British, bent on thwarting Zionism (the desire to create a sovereign Jewish State in Israel), imposed a prohibition on Jewish emigration to the Land of Israel, and even refused safe passage to a ship that arrived in British-controlled “Palestine” bursting with Jewish Holocaust refugees. By escorting them back to Europe, the British ensured that when Jews needed their ancestral home the most, it would not be their safe haven.

That dismal chapter in Jewish history finally cemented in the minds of the world’s Jewry the urgent necessity to return to a world with a sovereign Jewish State.

In 136 C.E., Romans forcibly expelled the Jews from the Land of Israel (then called Israel, Judea and Samaria). This expulsion brought to an end more than one thousand years of Jewish reign (with several intermittent periods of external rule by conquest), compelling the global dispersion of the world’s Jews, and inaugurating eighteen centuries of cruel oppression and genocidal persecution. In the nearly two thousand years between Jewish expulsion from Israel and their return, Jews were variously subjected to forced conversions, confiscations of land, money, and personal property, expulsions from several countries, slavery, prohibitions on the practice of Judaism, frequent massacres, the burning of sacred books, the burning of Synagogues, and being burned alive. Several countries attempted to obliterate their Jews, resulting in the annihilation of a third of the Jewish population of Germany and Northern France, during the first thousand years of exile. The entire population of Jews in England was murdered and/or imprisoned in the 13th century, and in 1472, when all Jews were expelled from Spain, even the descendants of Jewish converts to Christianity were prohibited from attending university, joining religious orders, holding public office, or entering any of a long list of professions. One third of Poland’s Jews were slaughtered in the 1600s, and during the Greek War of Independence in the 1820s, Jews there were massacred to complete elimination. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were murdered in Russian pogroms in the 19th and 20th centuries. The pogroms that accompanied the Revolution of 1917 alone orphaned more than 300,000 Jewish children.

The staggering Jewish genocide during what Jews have come to call the “Shoah” (calamity) of World War II, saw approximately six million Jews sadistically tortured and murdered at the hands of Nazis and their collaborators. At the war’s end, fully one-third of the world’s total Jewish population had been brutally butchered.

The history of Jews outside of Israel until the end of World War II is largely a history of oppression, genocide, and expulsion – punctuated by burnings at the stake, public torture, and insidious, malicious libel. Remarkably, Jewish “displaced persons” continuously assimilated into other cultures around the world while retaining their unique religion and identity as a people, a feat that Jews all across the globe are somehow still able to accomplish.

Eighteen hundred twelve years after Rome exiled the Jews from their homes in Eretz Yisroel (the land of Israel), and changed the names of the Jewish lands to Palaestinia (the land of the Philistines – so named in an attempt to sever Jews’ ties to their land), descendents of 2nd century Jewish refugees returned home as 20th century Jewish refugees.

In the first year of the existence of the State of Israel, roughly 500,000 homeless European Jews emigrated. Within ten years, the population of Israel had grown to two million. The majority of the Jewish immigrants, including 700,000 refugees from Arab countries, arrived with no possessions.

In contradistinction to neighboring states, Israel established free and fair elections, universal suffrage, a free press, and the right to a fair trial with an independent judiciary. Arab citizens of Israel, regardless of religious affiliation, are afforded the same rights and privileges as Jewish citizens, and all women who are citizens of Israel, regardless of religious affiliation, are afforded rights equal to those of men. In Israel, Jews created a country that allows both the freedom of religion and full access to Jerusalem’s Jewish, Christian and Muslim Holy sites that were denied Jews when Jerusalem was not under Jewish rule.

Despite this, in the rest of the world, particularly in difficult economic times, antisemitism rears its ugly head. Even – or perhaps more accurately, especially – in the world’s most respected international forum, the United Nations, antisemitism is rampant.

On November 10th, 1975, the 37th anniversary of Kristallnacht, rather than issuing a statement in memory of the Jewish victims of Nazi savagery, the United Nations passed Resolution 3379 branding Zionism, the reestablishment of a Jewish State in Israel, “a form of racism.” Although renounced by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., as “obscene,” it was through this resolution that Jew-hatred was sanitized, repackaged, and propagated globally as politically correct “anti-Zionism.” It took the collapse of the Soviet Union, which had voted in lockstep with Arab nations and other countries with anti-Jewish interests, for the U.N. to officially revoke the resolution, but the damage had been done and the precedent set.

As a particularly ludicrous example of the United Nations’ stance toward Israel, at the International Women’s Year Conference in 1975, a resolution denounced Zionism as an enemy of all women (despite women’s equal rights in Israel) but did not denounce sexism as an enemy of all women because the call for women’s rights was seen as an attack on the Arab-Muslim world.

Appallingly, on June 8, 2010, a Syrian representative at the United Nations perpetuated a modern version of the ancient blood libel to the United Nations Human Rights Council: “Let me quote a song that a group of children on a school bus in Israel sing merrily as they go to school,” he said, “and I quote, ‘With my teeth I will rip your flesh. With my mouth I will suck your blood.’” As shocking as this is, it should not be surprising given that these myths persist not only in Muslim countries, but even, according to anthropologists in a 2008 study, among Catholics and Orthodox Christians of all social classes in places as far from the Middle East as Southeastern Poland.

In November, 2010 the annual UN Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People featured speeches from Libyan and Syrian demagogues that referred to Israel as, “the cancerous settlement in all the Palestinian territories,” and included statements such as, “Zionism, in reality, is the worst form of racism,” “Israel shows and rears its ugly face,” and, “the word Israel has become synonymous with words such as aggression, killing, racism, terrorism.”

Words like “butchering,” “apartheid,” “ethnic cleansing,” “genocide,” “racism,” “brutality,” “crimes against humanity,” “torture,” “killing in cold blood” and “barbarism” were invoked not to describe the reasons for the creation of the state of Israel, but to condemn it. Opposition to “Judaization” – Jewish presence on what is perceived as Arab territory – was proclaimed and by default, legitimized.

For some reason, the depictions of a “cancerous” Jewish state with its “ugly, bloodthirsty” Jewish occupants – utterances that would be recognized as unambiguously anti-Semitic if spoken elsewhere – are not considered beyond the pale at the United Nations. By the end of 2010, half of the country-specific condemnatory resolutions and decisions ever adopted by the UN Human Rights Council targeted Israel.

Yet somehow, in the face of this, in the 1970s, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat had the courage to sign a peace treaty with Israel. In advance of the Israeli-Egyptian peace talks, Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir famously remarked with sadness to Sadat, “We can forgive you for killing our sons. But we will never forgive you for making us kill yours.”

Today in Colorado, Palestinian advocate Michael Rabb and his group “CU Divest” hope to convince the Board of Regents at the University of Colorado to divest its portfolio of any investments linked to our staunchest ally in a troubled and increasingly less stable region. While we have every right to choose to disagree with Israel’s policies, it is essential that we protect, defend, and support its right to exist and to defend its inhabitants from virtually unceasing violent incursions.

One can only hope the University will recognize that weakening Israel will not facilitate peace in the Middle East. In fact, only a strong and globally acknowledged Jewish state of Israel with widespread support from the world’s democracies will allow others in the region to enjoy the human and civil rights taken for granted in the U.S., Israel, and Europe.

In the decades since the Holocaust, the haunting mantra, “Never Forget” serves to define the Jewish people’s role and responsibility to humanity as a constant reminder of the moral imperative to treat every human being – regardless of race or religion – justly and with decency, dignity and compassion. The existence of Israel is a necessity for the world’s Jews as a safeguard against a recurrence of the horrors of the last two thousand years and a protection of Jews’ human rights. But it is also a necessity for the human rights of those surrounding that tiny island of democracy. It is how the world treats Israel that will determine whether it is possible to move toward a world with universal human rights.

The citizens of Israel along with the citizens of other democracies across the globe share a fervent hope that Israel’s neighbors will one day know freedom, prosperity and true peace.

Until then, Israel is their last best hope.

What's Jay Say? No mo' DOMA

President Obama proclaimed that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which states that marriage is between one man and one woman, is unconstitutional. He has instructed the US Attorney General to not defend the lawsuit against DOMA. Didn't the president swear to uphold the laws of the land? DOMA was passed by the Congress and signed into law by President Clinton. What else will Obama proclaim? This should concern everyone--unless you like dictatorships, which are being deposed now in north Africa.

Self-government needs newspapers

(Denver Post, Feb. 27) So Facebook brought down the Egyptian regime. Until now, the only thing I knew it had brought down was my productivity – and that of many other Republicans old enough to know better, after we all stampeded there upon hearing how Democrats rode it to victory in 2008. Obama in, Mubarak out, Zuckerberg to megawealth, and “Social Network” to the Oscars. Such is the Facebook scorecard so far, and there is 90% of the human race yet to be tapped – er, “friended.” Well, call me a dinosaur, but I still believe the front line of self-government in a free society is citizens reading newspapers. Your pretty pixels on a shimmering screen are fine. But ink on pulp, served up at the breakfast table for Printosaurus Retrogradus to devour, digest, and act upon, remains the superior medium for effective political engagement in my book. If you are reading this on newsprint – and about half the total audience of the Denver Post now may not be – you probably agree. Our task is to bring along enough of our fellow Americans, especially the next generation, so that newspapers can survive economically and the country, with their help, can keep renewing itself politically.

He’s gone apocalyptic, some will say. He’s a curmudgeon trapped in the 1950s, a technophobic troglodyte. He’s mad because his email service, America Online (itself pathetically passe’), has merged with the Huffington Post – and ISP wasn’t supposed to stand for “incessant socialist propaganda.” His prejudice for the fish-wrapping, birdcage-lining news medium of yesterday over the wild and woolly Web of today is groundless.

Maybe; the 1950s charge isn’t actually that far off. But the prejudice none of us who love newspapers should apologize for is simply a matter of setting value on their more comprehensive, structured, and reasoned interpretation of current events – in contrast to the fragmentary, fleeting, and impressionistic patchwork one is likely to get from the unedited maelstrom of online sources.

I want, and we should all want, the neighbors who share with us the duties of governance in city, state, and nation to be thinkers equipped for deciding responsibly. Does democracy carry the inescapable risk that your carefully considered vote will be cancelled by that of some shallow-minded flake? Boy, does it – which is all the more reason to work for a civic ethos where informed consent is encouraged and impulsive irresponsibility is frowned on.

Editorial gatekeeping and quality control in our news and opinion media cannot be mandated (thank God for the First Amendment), but they must not be lost. Twitter mustn’t become the only game in town. Newspapers didn’t lose their dominant agenda-setting and chaff-filtering function as radio and TV arose in the last century, and we need to hope they don’t lose it as the Internet burgeons today, even though electronic delivery may far outpace print delivery.

Election 2010 would have gone better here, in my opinion, if the Rocky Mountain News had still been around to compete with the Denver Post. But heaven help us if the people’s momentous decisions on candidates and ballot issues had had to be made with only the help of dueling websites and water-cooler gossip, and no Denver Post at all.

What keeps vital democracy-facilitating businesses like this one afloat as the new technology sorts itself out, I don’t know. I do know government subsidies are not an option. My personal crusade is more on the demand side, building readership.

That’s why, at every opportunity in my work on a college campus, I brace these laid-back millennial students to arm themselves for citizenship by reading print journalism and lots of it – the local paper, national papers, newsmagazines, opinion journals. Nothing else feeds your head in quite the same healthy way, I tell them. Please help me spread that message.

Obamacare on the ropes?

Activist courts are at it again, this time siding with the right to strike down Obamacare, says Susan Barnes-Gelt in the February round of Head On TV debates. No, says John Andrews, Judge Vinson ruled as the founding fathers would have, and the Supreme Court may well agree with him. John on the right, Susan on the left, also go at it this month over Egypt's revolution, Denver's lackluster mayoral contenders, Colorado's new governor, and a populist fantasy of state officials working at real jobs. Head On has been a daily feature on Colorado Public Television since 1997. Here are all five scripts for February: 1. COURT RULINGS DIFFER ON OBAMACARE<

Susan: A Florida judge ruled the Obama health care initiative unconstitutional – proving that activist courts – long the subject of conservative whining – cut both ways. Federal judges are split – three others are split – two in favor, one opposed. The issue will go to the Supremes. Too much fuzzy law and opinion.

John: If Congress can force you to buy a particular product, they can force you to do anything. Limited constitutional government is replaced by unlimited bureaucratic tyranny, and this is no longer the land of the free. Judge Vinson has the founding fathers on his side. The Supreme Court may toss Obamacare.

Susan: How ‘bout the Republican’s in Congress grant the American public the same cushy healthcare the taxpayer gives them? Now that their work week is down to 20 weeks a year – they ought to do something to respond to hard working Americans.

John: Hard-working Americans deserve a government that spends less, taxes less, borrows less, and regulates less – a government that gets out of the way so free enterprise can benefit everyone. The courts and the Congress can start by relieving families and businesses of the unworkable, unconstitutional Obamacare law.

2. HICKENLOOPER GETS STARTED

John: Hickenlooper has begun quietly but purposefully. No dramatic hundred days for him. McNulty the fiscal hawk and Gessler the moonlighter have dominated the headlines, but Hick understands that economic recovery is paramount. His cabinet is a mix of left and right, including a Republican as budget director.

Susan: Hick’s picks are terrific. It’s going to take bi-partisan thinking at the Capitol to address Colorado’s budget woes – failing dams, roads and bridges; underfunded higher ed and unmet social service needs. Let’s hope the Kumbaya is shared by the Legislature.

John: There’s nothing terrific about Ellen Golombek, a labor union militant, joining the cabinet just when we need a lean public-sector workforce and a welcoming private-sector job climate. The governor booted that one. But he did well in making peace with the oil and gas industry. That’s a winner for economic growth.

Susan: Hick is a pleaser and will figure out how to be all things to most people. His ability to accomplish that is enhanced by his aw shucks, extroverted personality. He will work hard to balance every interest, without taking a strong stand. That affect has worked for him - so far.

3. REVOLUTION IN EGYPT

Susan: Recent events in Egypt are significant. First – the power of social media – for good or ill – has marginalized the political establishment; forced foreign policymakers to respond immediately – without the necessary information. People power upends the status quo – sometimes for the best.

John: Egyptian strongman Mubarak may be gone by the time you see this. Too bad Obama failed to keep pressuring him much sooner for peaceful change, as Bush had begun to do. The danger now is that Muslim Brotherhood jihadists, sworn to destroy Israel and America, may fill the power vacuum in Cairo.

Susan: This is not a blame it on Obama moment. For decades, American presidents have backed stability over local democracy. Since WW 2 – if not before – we have backed despots and dictators. It’s been backfiring but the power structure’s covered up – based on fear. Those days are over.

John: Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and other undemocratic Arab regimes face overthrow as popular unrest spreads. There are no easy options for US policy. Thankfully Obama’s dangerous arrogance is no more. But the Muslim Brotherhood’s dangerous subversion is everywhere. Congress will and should investigate.

4. UNDERWHELMING MAYOR’S RACE

John: What’s twice as bad as seven dwarfs? Fourteen miniature mayoral candidates -- or whatever the number is this week. Romer, Boigon, Hancock, Mejia – they all seem like lightweights compared to past mayors such as Webb or Hickenlooper. No wonder the likable and capable incumbent, Bill Vidal, flirted with running.

Susan: Number 14 just entered the Mayor’s race. That makes 3 council people, a longtime political appointee, a former legislator, a woman with a public legal background, 3 city employees, a homeless man, a libertarian and four other guys. All told - not a very impressive field at a very important time.

John: Not to mention ten lords a-leaping and three French hens. Pretty underwhelming which is why a late entry with executive credentials, TV charisma, or both, is still possible before the petition deadline. The capital of the Rocky Mountain Empire needs an economic jolt and better public safety. Who will step up, Susan?

Susan: The Hick exercised his considerable power to keep the best candidate out of the race – Bill Vidal. Vidal loves the city, knows the city and has a strong management track record. Hick’s attempt to control both sides of Broadway is going to backfire – sadly on the city he seduced – and abandoned.

5. STATE OFFICIALS’ SALARIES

Susan: Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler started a brOuhaha when announcing he’d be working part time for his former law firm – election specialists – to supplement his paltry state salary of $68,500. He should have thought about that before running for office. However, full time state electeds should be paid more.

John: I see no shortage of capable people wanting to run for governor, attorney general, treasurer, or secretary of state – even though all of them do pay less than $100,000. Colorado is low on the scale nationally, yet we have cleaner and leaner government than the high-paying states. Ain’t broke, don’t fix.

Susan: Implicit in that view are two choices: 1 – only rich people can run for office or 2 –so-called full time elected officials – need to moonlight – whether it’s teaching or speaking fees or working at the Dairy Queen. I want leaders to be full time. And I don’t want only the well-to-do to apply.

John: Susan, you’re brilliant. Picture it: Hickenlooper working weekends at Dairy Queen. Gessler as a greeter at Wal-Mart. Attorney General Suthers on the UPS night shift. Treasurer Stapleton bagging groceries at Stapleton. Humility under the dome. Exalted politicos finally getting their hands dirty. Let’s not raise their pay!

Why unions fear school reform

(Denver Post, Jan. 23) The indignation was feverish. Teacher-union partisans trembled. Elaine Berman, a State Board of Education member from Denver, boycotted. Mary Johnson, an education consultant from Colorado Springs, raged. “A person known for nearly total lack of support for public education” was “bamboozling” Coloradans. The miscreant was William Moloney, our state’s past Education Commissioner under both parties from 1997 to 2007. He had been invited back on Jan. 13 by State Board chairman Bob Schaffer to testify on school reform. His crime was not burning books or blowing up buses; it was pointing out the obvious. He had come, Moloney began, to talk about “three incontestable realities concerning which America has been in denial for decades,” but which “the hammer blows of impending financial disaster” have now brought home to everyone. (Or almost everyone; financial disaster doesn’t faze the Johnsons of this world.)

Reality 1, said the former commissioner, is that America’s schools perform poorly in world rankings and when measured against their own past performance. U.S. seventeen-year-olds have made NO progress in math and reading scores over the past 40 years, even as per-pupil spending in real dollars has doubled.

Reality 2 is the unsustainable level of educational costs in this country. We’re near top dollar on international comparisons, reported Moloney. Worse, public schools in Colorado spend 60 percent more than in Utah and 80 percent more than parochial schools in Denver – while trailing both in test scores.

But Reality 3 is good news, the witness told his former employers: “There are abundant models of better educational performance coupled with lower cost, even some within walking distance” of the Berman-boycotted boardroom at 201 E. Colfax. The days of school spending as an unquestioned, unmonitored entitlement may be numbered.

Perhaps most promising in the magnitude of savings and the chance to do more with less, he added, is the evidence that America has begun to break “the national obsession with class-size reduction, an expensive and counterproductive policy that has never been shown to improve learning performance.” Examples exist in Florida, California, and locally in Aurora and Jefferson County.

Marcia Neal, the State Board of Education vice chairman, thanked Moloney for his “excellent work” on the policy research (available from the Centennial Institute, where I work, at Centennialccu.org). “There is very little we can argue with,” concluded Neal.

Impatient parents and weary taxpayers can expect fierce argument, however, from Beverly Ingle, Henry Roman, and Brenda Smith. You’ve never heard of this tough political triad; obscurity is to their advantage. But if Johnson and Berman want to know who is really bamboozling us into the insanity of doing the same thing in schools decade after decade, gold-plating it, and expecting different results, talk to them.

They head Colorado’s three largest teacher unions: the CEA, the AFT, and the Denver Classroom Teachers. The confession of the late Al Shanker, AFT national president, is their guilty secret: “When school children start paying union dues, I’ll start representing their interests.” Class-size reduction (read: ever more employees with ever less to do) is their cash cow. That’s why genuine school reform terrifies them.

So, will the Swalm bill for tuition tax credits and the Spence bill for outsourcing noninstructional costs, together worth $300 million in deficit reduction, succeed this year? Will reformer Laura Boggs survive on the Jeffco school board, and reformer Nate Easley on the Denver school board? Will national reform leader Michelle Rhee, featured in “Waiting for Superman,” be welcomed here by Hickenlooper as governors have welcomed her in Florida and New Jersey?

Or will the mindless labor mentality of Samuel Gompers, “More,” continue at our kids’ expense? It all depends on who gets traction: Moloney, Schaffer, and Neal, or Ingle, Roman, and Smith.