Catalyst for Jew Hatred

(First published at Israelnationalnews.com)

.

American Jews are dealing with the reality of distressing Jew hatred, manifested by sporadic physical attacks and more prevalent verbal confrontations. Worse, it has become mainstreamed in the Democratic Party, with elected officials and prominent nominees unafraid to spew hatred against Jews poorly disguised as anti-Israel “activism.” Some of these Democrats are poor excuse for Jews, such as Bernie Sanders, while others, like Chuck Schumer, are so blinded by ambition that they pretend it doesn’t exist or rationalize its presence by blaming Israel.

Increasingly, this is becoming a viral strain in the Republican Party as well, engendering an insipid debate over who is or isn’t an anti-Semite, and ignoring its true causes. Why, indeed, has Jew hatred exploded in America and become commonplace across the world? Is it because of Gaza, as if Israel should have just accepted the October 7 massacre and the brutalization of its hostages, licked its wounds, and prepared for the promised, next massacre? Is it because the world has suddenly determined that Israel – alone among countries and Jews unique among nationalities – really has no right to exist? Burundi and Bhutan have an undisputed right to exist – but not the Jewish state of Israel?

That doesn’t seem credible, and for the apparently abrupt escalation in Jew hatred we must look elsewhere. As is often the case, history is quite instructive.

The United States was founded upon religious tolerance. Indeed, there were very few Jews living in colonial America (not many more than 1000 Jews lived there during the Revolutionary War), and Jews were treated well – better than well. In President George Washington’s famous letter to the Newport Hebrew Congregation in 1790, using language literally borrowed from Moses Seixas, Washington wrote: “It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.” Tolerance? No. Jews are no different than any other group in America and are not “tolerated” but fully accepted.

As such, Jew hatred was largely unknown for almost the first century of the United States. Sure, there were some states that took time eliminating electoral provisions that barred any non-Christians (i.e., Jews) from holding public office, and General Ulysses Grant temporarily banned all Jews from entering the Tennessee territory during the Civil War, but there were few recorded attacks on Jews and Jews lived essentially unimpeded lives.

Could this be attributable to the dearth of Jews in America? Possibly, but not necessarily. There are plenty of Jew-hating countries in the world today where no Jews live. Jew hatred can flourish without Jews, as long as there are a sufficient number of Gentiles reared with this spiritual and psychological malady.

Even the large influx of German Jews to the United States in the mid-19th century did not provoke any Jew hatred, perhaps because they were generally assimilated, their temples and services reminiscent of churches, their day of rest not Shabbat but Sunday, and their intense desire to blend into American life, which they did quite successfully. In fact, there was far more fear and hatred of Catholics in 19th century America than there was of Jews.

Of the 300,000 Jews who lived in the United States in 1880, more than 200,000 were German Jews. But in the next forty years, more than two million European Jews came to America, such that by 1920, the Jewish population of the United States had increased tenfold, to over 3,500,000 people.

By the early 20th century, Jew hatred had become more common in the United States. Leo Frank was falsely accused of murder, freed, and then lynched. A host of Jewish “defense” organizations arose (they all still exist). Jews were hassled on the teeming city streets. But the 1920’s university quotas and job restrictions limiting Jewish opportunities became standard and even persisted into the 1950’s when civil rights laws cracked down on private conduct that had any public nexus.

What changed? Was it the mass influx of Jews that attracted Jew hatred?

No – it was the mass influx of European Gentiles. While two million Jewish immigrants came to America in that period, that number was dwarfed by the more than twenty million Gentiles who came – Poles, Germans, Russians, Italians, Irish, Slavs, and others. These immigrants, arriving from lands where they imbibed Jew hatred with their mother’s milk, brought their Jew hatred with them.

Jew hatred was never indigenous to the United States. It was imported, along with these millions of immigrants. Some of it was religious based – Polish, Irish, Italian Catholics reared on Jew hatred in their native lands – and some of it was sociologically based. Some of these newcomers, the lowest tier on society’s totem pole, simply sought out an ethnic group long despised in their native land, and disparaged them, persecuted them, and harassed them.

In a very short time, this imported Jew hatred spread to the establishment as well, and Jews (and blacks) became conventional targets for discrimination. For Jews it didn’t last or even sting as much because we were successful, skilled at adaptation, ambitious, educated, social climbers, and blessed. Law firms, hospitals, and country clubs didn’t want us? We just made our own, and better ones too. And built businesses. And Hollywood. In time, and the Holocaust played a role in this as well, Jew hatred receded from American life (although you wouldn’t know it from the billions of dollars spent for many decades combating it) and became unfashionable.

Jew hatred is again fashionable, and not because the culture changed, or Israel became too bellicose, or Netanyahu is unlikeable, or Jews are too successful. The same dynamic that swept America over a century ago has repeated itself in the last thirty years – the large influx of Muslims, especially radical Muslims, who have brought with them the endemic Jew hatred that characterizes their native lands.

Millions of Arabs and Muslims have immigrated to the United States in the last fifty years, many claiming refugee status because of the depraved conditions in their countries of origin. To be sure, not every Arab or Muslim is a rabid Jew hater (any more than all of the twenty million European Christians who came to the US were), and many have become productive citizens, embodying the American ethos. But many have not.

Armed with literal fortunes in money – donated by Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other Muslim countries – they have poisoned the American bloodstream with their radical ideas, even insisting in some locales on the implementation of Sharia law. They have infiltrated local school boards and endowed university chairs, not surprising then that most Jew hatred in America has emerged on college campuses. Their culture is one of hatred of Jews and Israel, if not America itself. And it did not take long for some of their most radical imports – immigrants or children of immigrants, like Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Zohran Mamdani, and others – to achieve important political positions.

They did it very slyly, cleverly, and surreptitiously. Who would have thought that a radical Muslim NYC mayor could preside next month over the 25th anniversary of the Arab terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001? It is because their PR teams and useful idiots in the media immediately identified the major crisis in US life after 9/11 as “Islamophobia,” statistically insignificant as a social phenomenon but dominant and pervasive as a deflection. What better evidence than the universal hesitation to characterize the attacks of 9/11 as “Arab” or “Muslim”? Instead, it is just a date, 9/11, no perpetrators need be identified, for propriety’s sake.

Not only is “Islamophobia” used as a shield against exposing odious behavior on the part of Muslims, but it also rests on a fundamental hypocrisy. “Islamophobia” is premised on the reasonable idea that all Muslims should not be blamed for the detestable acts of a violent few, or even many. Yet, that same deference is not showed to Jews, who must be held accountable, hounded, beaten, attacked, vilified, and persecuted for the (righteous) acts of the State of Israel.

It is not just that “Islamophobia” is a crock of drivel as a real phenomenon, but rather that it is employed as armor against any criticism of even the most radical Muslims, and in turn is used as a weapon that has intimidated many Americans into silence and acquiescence in the transformation of their country.

Similarly, the infiltration of billions of petrodollars into the university system in the US has changed curricula and radicalized students. When American campuses erupted in anti-Jewish fury on October 8 (!), with spirited defenses of the Hamas massacre and vile accusations of genocide in Gaza even before Israel had responded militarily (!), these campuses had literally been preparing for years for just such a moment. Tents, signs, fences, loudspeakers resolutions had all be readied in advance, and pressure points against vulnerable Jews had already been identified.

And, just like a century ago, the Jew hatred that emigrated to America along with the Arabs and Muslims, slowly spread to other classes as well – including some American blacks and Hispanics (who are disproportionately assaulting Jews in NYC for no discernible reasons) and the old WASP class that has long resented Jewish success.

Undoubtedly, the Jew hatred in Europe over the last several decades has a similar provenance – the large, and until recently, unstoppable incursion of Arabs and Muslims into the UK, France, Belgium, Spain, Germany, and elsewhere. It is no surprise that all those countries, like the USA, has been visited multiple times by Arab mass terror attacks, and no surprise that Jews are repeatedly victimized there. The Jew hatred in Australia and New Zealand follows the same pattern – Muslim immigration that is accompanied by Muslim Jew hatred. But go ahead and blame Israel for it.

Is there a solution to this problem? A century ago, time played the largest factor and Jew hatred receded within several decades because of our prosperity and societal integration, each a divine blessing of sorts. But time may not be our ally here. And the hoary staples of outreach and dialogue will be of limited value when dealing with an entrenched, religious-based hatred, which is not to say it won’t be tried, and when it fails, tried again.

America is changing. Its establishment is reproducing itself far below replacement rates and thus it is becoming ever more distant from the Enlightenment roots that spawned the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Hence, the current demand of the Socialists to gut the Constitution, the product of dead, white, European males. Jews, who do have a homeland that will welcome them happily if they so choose, will mostly try to ride out the wave, making deals with the devil when necessary (including turning on Israel), and wondering why the US continues to elect more and more radical Jew haters rather than the pareve Protestants who made the US such a palatable home for so many for so long.

Is it possible that the children of radical Muslim immigrants will over time mainstream and Americanize, what once was the dream of every class of immigrants? It certainly is possible, but the early returns are not good. The children of radical Muslim immigrants are just as radical but they have sufficiently acclimated to American society to perceive how to attract votes, money, and support, how to camouflage the most despicable ideas behind the toothiest and oleaginous smiles.

Immigration changes every nation, and many for the better, the United States among them. But some types of immigration transform in ways that obscure the national purpose and obliterate the founding ethos. That is what has occurred in Europe and is occurring now in the United States.

This is one of the ways in which exiles come to an end.

General Election

(First published at Israelnationalnews.com)

The newest kid on Israel’s political block, and this season’s general de jure, is Gadi Eisenkot, former IDF chief of staff and a relatively brief member of the wartime security cabinet. It has long been a tactic of the Israeli left to seek out a former general to lead its election campaigns in order to bolster its credibility on security matters, given its propensity for policies that weaken Israel’s security. And Eisenkot is what President Trump would call – and likely appoint – “right out of central casting,” tough-looking, son of Moroccan immigrants, career army man, and, most sadly, father of a soldier who fell in battle in Gaza. We all honor his service.

Nevertheless, most mature countries have moved away from the “general as president or prime minister” fantasy. The United States has not elected a general as president in almost 75 years (Dwight Eisenhower, in 1952) and only once since then has a general even competed for the presidency (Wesley Clark, in 2004). No other general has served as US president since the 19th century. No English general has served as prime minister in almost two centuries (the first Duke of Wellington). The general who assumes political power is the hallmark of banana republics.

Yet, many Israelis remain enamored with the general-turned-prime-minister model, and to our misfortune. As it turns out, the three greatest strategic blunders in the history of Israel were made by renowned generals who were elected prime minister.

It was PM Yitzchak Rabin, former IDF Chief of Staff acclaimed (rightly or wrongly) as one of the heroes of Israel’s victory in the Six-Day War, who foisted the Oslo Accords on the people of Israel in 1993. He thought that it was a grand idea to import into the heartland of Israel our sworn enemy, one with genocidal ambitions, and give them a governing authority and weapons. What could possibly go wrong?? What went wrong was a wave of terror that left Israelis dazed and despondent, and thousands of Israelis dead and maimed.

Almost as egregiously, the Oslo Accords essentially announced to the world that the Land of Israel does not belong exclusively to the Jewish people. Since then, we have struggled to prove to the world that we are entitled to any part of the land of Israel. But Rabin was Mr. Security, being a former general, and Israelis bought it.

It was PM Ehud Barak, also a former IDF Chief of Staff, and lionized as “Israel’s most decorated soldier,” who orchestrated the withdrawal of the IDF from Lebanon in 2000 in the dead of night, abandoning our Lebanese allies to their fates and leaving behind enormous stores of IDF weapons. This was in response to the campaign of the “Four Mothers” who mobilized much of society against the IDF remaining in Lebanon and Barak’s strong conviction that the IDF could return to Lebanon at any time to deal with terror.

Well. Instead, the hasty retreat emboldened Hezbollah to conquer southern Lebanon, which it did in due course, and build the elaborate underground terror infrastructure that we are slowly and painfully dismantling. Additionally, Israel has since been forced to fight several wars in Lebanon, extracting a far greater cost in life than the number of soldiers who were killed annually while the IDF still occupied southern Lebanon in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Barak’s tactical retreat was widely perceived by our enemies as a timorous surrender that has engendered even deadlier conflicts.

The failed Ehud Barak – who later served multiple terms as Defense Minister – was succeeded as prime minister by Ariel Sharon, one of Israel’s greatest generals and a genuine hero of the Yom Kippur War who crossed the Suez Canal into Egypt, turned the tide of war, and forced Egypt to its knees. And his legacy as Prime Minister was the forced expulsion of 9500 Jews in 2005 from Gaza and the northern Shomron and the destruction of two dozen thriving settlements.

That folly, twenty-one years ago this week, occasioned the speedy takeover of Gaza by Hamas, the construction of another elaborate terror network through diversion of all the billions of dollars of international aid that flowed into Gaza, constant terror attacks on Israel, multiple rounds of fighting, and all culminating in the catastrophe of October 7.

It is worth noting that all the generals who became prime minister claimed to know better than others what would provide security to Israelis and what would endanger our existence. They also claimed that their withdrawals were all easily reversible and that, if the need arose, the IDF could simply retake the territory surrendered. No harm, no foul.

The opposite, of course, was true; grave harm resulted from multiple fouls, all self-inflicted. And the land that each purported to surrender to our enemies in order to safeguard our security – land originally conquered and held at a high cost in Jewish blood – has mostly been retaken by saner heads (non-generals) responding to reality and not fantasy. That land has been reconquered, and again at a high cost in Jewish blood.

What then qualifies Gadi Eisenkot to serve as prime minister, other than that he has been designated as leader of the ABB (Anyone but Bibi) sect? He could be the exception to the rule but his tenure as Chief of Staff was unremarkable, mainly remembered for Eisenkot’s advocacy of a “small and smart IDF,” an IDF that relied more on technology than on manpower, something that debilitated us on October 7 and thereafter. He threw the book at Elor Azaria, provoking indecision among soldiers that factored into the deadly terrorist attack last Friday. His brief tenure on the wartime cabinet was also undistinguished, noted for his advocacy for the release of the hostages at any price and opposition to initiatives that actually worked. Apparently, he still supports the establishment of a Palestinian state and has suggested that we learn to live with an Iranian nuclear bomb. He also currently favors the immediate entry of 150,000 Gazans to work in Israel, as if that hasn’t been tried before with devastating results.  

It is not often realized that generals might be brilliant tacticians on the battlefield but simultaneously awful geopolitical strategists. Those are completely different skill sets. The affairs of state require the ability to navigate multiple and often conflicting interests, and on both the domestic and international stages. Clichés aside, does Eisenkot have an economic or educational policy, an objective more comprehensive than “Israel must win,” a position on the dictatorial excesses of the Supreme Court, or a desire to do anything other than topple Netanyahu?

The failed Israeli generals-turned-prime-ministers also had tenuous commitments to democracy, and especially to the rights of minorities, as evidenced by Rabin and Sharon’s contemptuous dismissal of their opponents and settlers. After all, generals are used to giving orders and are not always amenable to the give-and-take of democratic governance. Harry Truman, who chose not to run against Eisenhower, predicted that his successor would have a hard time getting things done: “He’ll sit right here and he’ll say do this, do that! And nothing will happen. Poor Ike—it won’t be a bit like the Army.”

If only that would be our problem! Our problem has been not military leaders turned prime ministers getting nothing done but in getting the wrong things done. Our problem has been generals spearheading and bulldozing their (and our) way into strategic calamities that cost us dearly in lives, treasure, international standing, and the fulfillment of our destiny.

A mature society knows better than to expect tough-looking generals to be successful politicians. A Jewish society should know to find leaders who can advance our national, spiritual destiny, until we merit true leaders as we had in days of old.

Semiquincentennial Fever

(First published at Israelnationalnews.com)

The United States celebrates this weekend its semi-quincentennial (literally, halfway to five hundred years) and a more easily pronounceable and spellable name would have been in order. It is an achievement; the world has changed so much since 1776, world maps have been re-delineated countless times and numerous countries have been founded or have had their forms of government changed. And yet, the USA endures.

The world and the Jewish people have benefited enormously from the founding of the USA, in mostly unanticipated ways. The great Torah leader, Rav Chaim of Volozhin, reportedly stated in the early 1800’s that the United States would be the last foreign refuge Jews would enjoy before the coming of Moshiach. Indeed, millions of Jews found safe haven in America in the 19th and 20th centuries, including three of my grandparents and my father, and for that we are eternally grateful. The idea that any nation on earth would welcome Jews – even for a time – and permit freedom of worship flabbergasted and gratified immigrant Jews, even if many exploited the freedom of religion to flee from their religion. And the US played an important, if occasionally reluctant, role in Israel’s creation and even our survival.

It was 250 years ago, that these words electrified mankind: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” No other nation then invoked G-d’s name in order to do anything but justify the absolute power of the monarch. No other nation perceived these rights as “truths,” much less self-evident truths. And no other nation had a system of government in which there were co-equal branches, each with checks and balances on the others.

None of this had to be and many Jews, as well as Americans, believed in the hand of Providence in America’s creation and statecraft. Abraham Lincoln, notably in his Second Inaugural Address, underscored this, and that, to paraphrase Bejamin Franklin, that the USA has been able to keep its republic for this long and to remain mostly faithful to its creed and values is remarkable, if not providential. No nation before had distributed power amongst the ruling classes in order to protect the individual. Is it easy to maintain co-equal branches or government? No, it is not, and exhibit one today in Israel is the seizure of supreme power by a runaway judiciary that essentially appoints itself, follows no laws, and capriciously asserts control over any and every aspect of society it wishes to.

For me, this anniversary recalls the far more pronounceable bicentennial in 1976, exactly fifty years ago. I was a teenager, in Israel at the time, and the day is forever etched in my memory because it coincided with the astonishing rescue of the Israeli hostages at Entebbe, Uganda. Israel had been on emotional standstill for more than a week with the lives of more than one hundred Jewish hostages in existential danger, and with the Rabin government in the process of negotiating a release of hundreds of terrorists in exchange for their freedom. That was the era when Israel prided itself on not negotiating with terrorists (how quaint that must sound fifty years later; for the more than forty years, we have just about only negotiated with and conceded to terrorists, beginning with the Abu Jibril deal in 1985 and reaching its full force with the Oslo Accords, and so on). But here the talks were designed to stall for time as Israel prepared for a potential military rescue.

We awoke that Sunday morning to the thrilling news of the rescue. We didn’t yet know that three hostages had perished along with one officer – Yoni Netanyahu. The sense of exhilaration was palpable. For one thing, almost immediately it lifted the gloom that had beset Israel in the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War. For another, the miraculous nature of the rescue – flying through the night thousands of miles, the decoys, the surprise assault, the quick escape with the hostages, and their safe return – all reaffirmed G-d’s role.

I recall traveling on a bus that afternoon from Netanya to Yerushalayim, looking at the clouds, which to me, seemed to form a hand, as in the hand of Hashem. The joy on the bus and on the streets was overwhelming. And where was I going? To the bicentennial celebration that was taking place in the football stadium of Hebrew University in Givat Ram. It symbolized for me the interconnection between the United States and Israel – how in many ways the American experiment was rooted in the Bible, how the Founders saw themselves as Providential actors – like Moses leading the Israelites across the Red Sea guided by the divine pillar of fire, itself Ben Franklin’s recommendation for the Great Seal of the United States – and how modern Israel sees itself, perhaps to a fault, as an American outpost in the Middle East, a nation guided also by biblical values.

There is no article about the USA (or Israel, for that matter) that omits the disclaimer that no nation is perfect, an indictment usually issued by citizens of nations that do not even aspire to goodness or virtue, much less perfection. One little known anecdote illustrates the point. On July 5, the day after the Entebbe rescue, US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, whose discomfort with being Jewish bordered on schizophrenia, called Israel’s US Ambassador Simchah Dinitz to complain about the Entebbe rescue operation.

“I have some bad news to tell you,” Kissinger said. “You used American equipment outside of Israel (the C-130 transport planes). We will have to apply the law… [and] put a temporary freeze on military shipments.” Dinitz responded, “you must be kidding,” to which Kissinger stated, “You know you have no right to do this without prior consultation.”

Dinitz, thinking quickly, replied that the transport planes are not “weapons, but equipment.” If the weapons freeze was eventually authorized, it did not last long.

Indeed, no country is perfect, and imperfect people in positions of power sometimes take inexplicable and mendacious positions.

It is a little surprising that there is not a semi-quincentennial celebration planned in Israel similar to the bicentennial, at least to my knowledge. And it has little to do with the reigning president and his policies towards Israel. In fact, the bicentennial year was preceded by Ford’s Kissinger-inspired “reassessment” of relations with Israel due to Israel’s sluggishness in surrendering to America’s dictates, then concerning the fate of Sinai. It is no matter. US-Israel relations have gone from cool to warm to very warm and everything in between. And many point to the United States current dysfunction and woes but, if anything, it was far worse in 1976. Inflation was in the double-digits, the US was in the middle of a bitter election campaign that would harp on the corruption of Watergate and the defeat in Vietnam. But anniversaries commemorate past events, not current events.

Despite my occasional pointed (and wholly justified) criticisms of the USA, suffice it to say that no other country aspires to do good in the world as does the United States. No other country has objective values that it tries to export across the world, and no country seeks the good and welfare of other countries as does the United States. Sure, it occasionally stumbles and even hesitates. As Winston Churchill – whose mother was American – reputedly said, “You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities.”

We are living through that again in real time.

But what is true about the virtues of US is also true about Israel. We also seek only the good of mankind, only to be castigated even by those we try to help. We are held to a standard of conduct that no other nation is – and often a standard of conduct that no nation could survive if truly implemented. And we seek their welfare even when they dream of our destruction. E.g., who feeds their enemy in wartime? A good question never asked until slightly more than two years ago.

And yet, that has left Israelis not bitter but still hopeful, knowing as we do that the arc of history bends not towards justice but towards redemption and Moshiach. Part of our hopefulness as Israelis is that the United States retain its course and its values and not surrender to the temptations of materialism and hedonism. Undoubtedly, the disinclination of many American Jews to make Aliya stems from the fact that despite the surge of Jew hatred, the USA still remains a wonderful place to live, a place to which foreigners across the world regularly informed of America’s evil still want to sneak in and live there. Its opportunities still dwarf those of every other country in the world. And despite the frequent vicissitudes in US-Israel relations, we should be clear that the US is the only power in the world that is predisposed to our wellbeing.

If that should change, it would frankly be worse for the US than for Israel. But the American experiment has surely benefited all of us and transformed the world. The very notion of self-determination of peoples in their indigenous land – the essence of the political Zionism – found a powerful booster in the United States.

It would not be wrong to say that there are only two countries that are forces for good in the world: the United States and Israel. Today and tomorrow, if we remain on course, the possibilities are endless and optimistic.

Happy 250th to the USA, all Americans, and the world!

The Price of Appeasement

(First published at Israelnationalnews,com)

It is outrageous enough that negotiations are taking place between the United States and Iran that directly affect the lives and well being of millions of Israelis but without the participation of Israel and with the expectation that we will simply acquiesce to any decisions that are made. This is eerily reminiscent of the treatment of Czechoslovakia in 1938, where its territory was dismembered at Munich and soon thereafter its sovereignty was entirely lost.

This analogy casts Iran in the role of the Nazis, which they would accept as a compliment. And it also casts Vice President JD Vance (if he were a rival, Trump would invariably nickname him “Shady J. D.”) in the role of Neville Chamberlain, with a full beard instead of a bushy mustache. In truth, it is Lebanon whose land is being segmented and whose sovereignty is being forfeited to foreigners, not Israel’s. But it is our lives that are at stake as well as the viability of our communities in the north, and all to appease a genocidal foe that has been able to humiliate the United States even from a position of abject weakness.

Worse, though, is Vance’s ill-disguised contempt for Israel and for Jews as indicated by a torrent of statements he made, some prepared, some improvised. As strange as it must sound to normal-thinking people, since Vance got involved the only nation he has singled out for criticism in the entire region has been Israel, which is the only nation in the region that has been threatened with extermination by Iran (Vance’s new pals, at least the “moderates” he has uncovered, as so many gullible Americans have as well in the last half-century when it suits them). He has not internalized this: if the deal “makes Iran weaker,” as Vance claims, why are they celebrating – and then mocking and threatening the United States? They don’t sound defeated, especially now that the US has effectively ceded control over the Straits of Hormuz to Iran.

What Vance has said is certainly offensive but nevertheless deserves answers. For example, this classic: “Over the last three months, two thirds of the defensive weapons that have protected your homeland have been built by American hands and paid for by American tax dollars.” And 100% of those weapons were improved, refined, tested, and deployed by the IDF, with the results shared with the US, at the price of Jewish blood and treasure, saving the US billions of dollars in research and development.

The good news is that Israel used them successfully, thank G-d, as opposed to the US military, which mostly did not. Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal reported what was previously concealed – that Iran essentially destroyed the major US naval base in Bahrain during the war. The American failure to dislodge Iran from the Straits or defend its Gulf allies undoubtedly played an enormous role in the US cut and run from this conflict. Trump can tout the US military with typical braggadocio as the “most powerful in the world,” but, sad to say, it underperformed and did not achieve US objectives in the war. The boast means nothing; the facts on the ground, in the air, and in the Straits prove otherwise.

Israel is grateful for American assistance, money that for many reasons is well spent for purposes of American security, but we would be better off without this dependence. And the suggestion being floated that the US should relocate its destroyed Bahrain base (or other bases) to Israel is insane and should be ruled out by Israel. The presence of American forces in Israel impairs our security. It would constrain our freedom of operation. Imagine having to consult with American officials every time our fighter jets departed; imagine US troops being killed, G-d forbid, in a future conflict or in a terrorist attack. We have always taken pride in defending ourselves without US soldiers to assist us, and we should adhere to that (and swiftly shutter the Kiryat Gat base).

What else did Vance say? In response to pointed criticism of the MoU by Ministers Smotrich and Ben Gvir, Vance suggested that “Donald J Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time.” And then he got testy. “If I was in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world… Anybody in Israel who thinks their biggest problem is the President of the United States needs to wake up and smell the reality of the situation in that country.”

Well, first, it is not true. There are plenty of heads of state sympathetic to Israel, even discounting our steadfast friends Micronesia, Palau and now Somaliland. Israel has warm ties with India (the most populous country on earth) and Azerbaijan, and most recently, relations with Bolivia and Colombia are strengthening. The Czech Republic is friendly as is Poland most of the time. Israel is Vietnam’s second largest supplier of weapons. And there are others who respect and sympathize with Israel but circumstances (fear of Muslim terror) force them to be less vocal about it.

Second, what Vance ignores or dismisses is precisely “the reality of the situation” in Israel. We are not surrounded by Canada, Mexico, and two oceans. We are surrounded by enemies – some of whom have “peace treaties” with us that preserve a non-belligerency without a real peace. And encircled by others who openly proclaim their genocidal ambitions – “to wipe us off the map, to drive us into the sea, to reverse this insult to Islam, to excise this cancerous tumor,” to use their words. It is a region of dictators and autocrats, some of whom seized power by force and others who ascended to power by heredity. That doesn’t even begin to address the designs of our enemies within our borders. Perhaps Vance needs to wake up. The United States might have the luxury of ignoring its enemies; Israel and the Jewish people do not. His only suggestion in dealing with those who wish to exterminate us is appeasement and heeding his every dictate.

Furthermore, Vance declared, “What is your exact proposal? You’re a ​country of 9 million people. You can’t just kill your way out of solving every single national security problem that you have. To which Ben Gvir responded, and good for him, “This is the proposal … To deal with the Nazis of the 21st century, just as the United States dealt with the Nazis of the 20th century.” If Vance thinks that genocidal foes will be deterred by words and agreements (forget, signing ceremonies, as the Iranians still refuse to appear in public with the Americans), then his isolationism is as misguided as it is hazardous for Israel and the United States. He has a peculiar morality that would grant immunity to terrorists who hide among civilians, even when those civilians are supportive and share the goals of the terrorists.

But one question lingers: Why isn’t the world sympathetic to us, in Vance’s language? This is a perplexing question that has deep roots and makes many people uncomfortable, including many Jews. Why are we so hated? Why are we the only nation on the globe that is the target of such disdain, and for whom nations actively plan its demise? The only one!

Why would nations as diverse as Spain, Burkina Faso, Brunei, South Africa, Turkey, Bangladesh, and Australia have such animus towards Israel?

For sure, it must perplex even kind-hearted people across the world: why are Jews so hated? Why were we the victims of repeated pogroms, expulsions, and the Holocaust? Why, having returned to our ancient homeland in accordance with biblical prophecy, does Israel remain the only nation on earth whose very existence is found threatening and unacceptable?

Such questions cannot be fully answered in a brief essay and perhaps never fully understood. The answers go to the mystery and majesty of the Jewish experience that bewilders many Jews and certainly affronts many of our foes. Many unthinking Jews just assume that we must be doing something wrong because, if not, we would be loved! After all, we bring so much good to the world – kindness, morality, inventions, development, culture, etc. We are the first to respond when natural disasters strike anywhere in the world and still remain unpopular even among beneficiaries of our kindnesses.

Thus, Herzl thought that Jew hatred would end if we had our own state. Many in the world, including misguided Jews, today believe that Jew hatred would end if we didn’t have a state. Others feel that if we are hated, it is because we don’t make a sufficient effort to be loved, or haven’t conceded or surrendered enough in Israel, or haven’t established a Palestinian state, or didn’t build settlements, or … whatever. None of this is true.

The roots of Jew hatred go back to our forefathers and their covenant with G-d, to the Torah that we received at Sinai, to our maddening and inexplicable survival for thousands of years despite being the objects of unending enmity. Our forefathers dealt with genocidal enemies, as did their descendants, throughout history and down to our day. Our foes despise us because of our religion, and theirs, or because they have no religion (like the Communists) and resent our fidelity to ours. They hate us as rootless cosmopolitans or as colonialist masters over a tiny parcel of land. They have long chanted “go back to Israel” until we did, and now they chant “from the river to the sea” we have no claims or right to be here. Their hatred is based on overt jealousy and ill-considered fear, on opposition to the notion of a “chosen people,” on resentment towards those who are deemed “the favorites,” on barely disguised religious antagonism. It has nothing to do with where we live and how we act but entirely with who we are as a nation.

Shady J.D. Vance opposed the war, so much so that he was the only leading national security official not to be present in Mar-a-Lago when the most recent hostilities were launched. But his particular snarkiness – the only nation on the globe he taunts, since his verbal attacks on Ukraine were ignored by Zelensky – seems to be based on his newfound faith about which he is peddling a new book, as if he is personally trying to resuscitate the ancient Catholic disparagement of Jews.

He would do well to consider not only the fates of Bilaam and Balak but moreover, the historical reality that goes back to ancient times, to G-d’s promise to Avraham: “And I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you, and all the families of the land will be blessed through you” (Breisheet 12:3).

May all those who support Israel share in the divine blessings.