Are the Anti-Gaza War Protests an Example of Anti-Semitism?

There is much talk everywhere about anti-semitism.  As a Jew, I experienced anti-semitism in my youth in the statements and actions of everyday people.  It is hurtful, and so I welcome any discussion that educates the public about anti-semitism and the baseless nature of its "causes."

But the cause of all the tumult today has little if anything to do with anti-semitism.  Anti-semitism is a bias against Jews for attributes supposedly descriptive of Jews or the Jewish people—rich, elite, manipulators, Christ-killers, controllers of the world.  All of these are easily disproven, which I shall address later in this post.  

But first I must address what is commonly referred to as anti-semitism today: being against the State of Israel, or more exactly, against Israel's conduct of the Gaza War against Hamas.  This is not anti-semitism.

First of all, there are many Jews in this country and around the world, myself included, who are very much against the way Netanyahu and his ultra-right nationalist supporters have turned a legitimate initial defensive response to Hamas' vicious attack on Israeli citizens on October 7 into an all-out war, out of total proportion to that attack, killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians and destroying vast areas of Palestinian occupied territory.

I and my fellow Jews who have opposed the war are not  anti-semites.  We are not even anti-Israel.   We are, however, very anti-Netanyahu and the ultra-right coalition that keeps him in power.

It is unfortunate that many well-intentioned supporters of a Palestinian state and opponents of the war have been led by provocateurs to turn that opposition into an opposition to the State of Israel, rather than the current leaders of Israel.  It's as though people who are against Donald Trump and MAGA were turned into haters of America instead.  Wouldn't that be unwarranted and ridiculous?

Yes, there has been some violence against Jewish students as part of these protests, but that violence has not been against them as Jews, but as supporters of Israel and the Gaza war.  This, again, is not anti-semitism.

But, there has also been an up-tick of violence against Jews, whether in synagogues or elsewhere.  This is clearly anti-semitism, and it is very worrying.  But whether the perpetrators are white supremacists taking advantage of the tumult or people against the war is not known; from the reports I've read, I suspect the former..

What of Trump's assertion of anti-semitism against Columbia and other universities and his assertion that he is the best friend Jews ever had?  As I've just shown, actions against these protests has nothing to do with anti-semitism; they are more actions against free speech.  This is just a ruse for him to attack liberal institutions and withhold funding for liberal issues that have nothing to do with anti-semitism.

As for his claim that he is the Jews best friend—how ludicrous.  Here is a man who as President has cozied up to white supremacists who are known to be anti-semites, as well as Blacks such as Kanye West.

And now to the supposed attributes of Jews that are the underpinning of anti-semitism:

  

* Rich - while it is true that a somewhat greater proportion of Jews are well-off relative to the rest of the white population, a large proportion of Jews are low-income  (31%).

* Elite - while it is true that a larger proportion of Jews are college graduates than the rest of the white population, Hindus and several Protestant denominations have as high or higher rates. The Jewish rate is a function of how Jews view the importance of education, mainly because as an historically oppressed people, education was an avenue to improve their lives. 

* Manipulators - The human race is full of people who manipulate others. This is not an attribute that can be attributed particularly to Jews.

* Christ-killers - While the Temple priests considered him a rebel and according to the New Testament urged Herod to crucify him, the Jews as a people, while mostly not considering Jesus the Messiah, were not involved in the process and so were not his killers.

* Controllers of the world - This charged is based on the so-called "Protocols of the Elders of Zion."  This fraudulent fabrication, which originated in Tzarist Russia—a very anti-semitic society—purports to show that Jews plan to dominate the world.  It would be laughable were it not still in this day a document that moves many to become anti-semites.

But even if these specific "causes" of anti-semitism are debunked, the real cause of anti-semitism is that it's been around so long that it's in some people's blood.  They heard it from their parents, and so they believe it.  As the song in Rogers & Hammerstein's South Pacific says, "You've got to be taught before it's to late, before you are six or seven or eight, to hate all the people your relatives hate, you've got to be carefully taught,"

Anti-semitism, just like racism, will be with us until the leadership of this country and its cultural institutions decide it's time at long last to have a national discussion of these issues, to show people the baselessness of these attitudes and their lack of humanity.

 

Trump/MAGA in Denial of the Historic Fact of Racism

Trump has taken an aggressive stand against any acknowledgment of racism or other society--sanctioned discrimination in our history as well as any efforts to address these issues.  He has, not surprisingly, missed an opportunity to do something good for this country.

First of all, for him to deny, by not acknowledging or letting anyone that the federal government funds speak to these matters, is classic denial.  These things have happened in our past and are still happening today.  And they have a grave impact on our country in many respects.

So eradicating any discussion of these issues creates a situation where they fester and become even stronger than when they were discussed.  Blacks and others may have used DEI efforts to fight the establishment, but by denying them a voice it actually makes the situation, the alienation and anger, worse.

Yes, there are problems, as I wrote in my post, "Pluralism or DEI?" with the way DEI has been implemented.  But there were important reasons behind DEI that affect the welfare of our country.  Instead of throwing out all DEI efforts, what Trump should have done was repurpose the DEI efforts into a broader effort to instill Pluralism in our society.

The need to acknowledge the past and work towards improving the present and the future in terms of discrimination is vital, but it needs to be done within the context of pluralism, where everyone has a seat at the table, all voices are heard and respected.  We are all one; we are all children of the same God or the creation miracle of the Universe—however one wishes to see it.  

In keeping with the doctrine of balancing rights and responsibilities, nothing that benefits one person should be to the detriment of another.  So to it must be with measures that remediate the discrimination that various groups have suffered in the past and in the present.  By doing something that helps Blacks or women, for example, to move forward, white males should not experience any detriment beyond that caused by the increased competition for positions, offices, etc..  There is enough wealth and opportunity in this country that these two things should be possible to implement at the same time.

Trump is not stupid.  Why did he not take this route?  I believe he chose not to because his base does not want a truly pluralistic society in which all are respected.  They do not want to view people of color or even women as their equal.  And so Trump did not take this route.

Trump has done many things in his first 100 days that have gravely damaged our democracy, but perhaps his actions against DEI are the worst because they go against all sense of decency, against humanity.  And a respect for humanity is perhaps the most essential spirit that underlies the American experiment that began in 1776.

  

The Radical-Right/MAGA Perspective Is Not True to the Intent of Our Founding Fathers

The Radical Right of the Republican Party—whether it's the MAGA movement or radical jurists and historians who may not be MAGA—all hold to the same basic tenet:  that the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are to be interpreted as the words were intended at the time it was adopted.  The theory is called "strict construction" by jurists weighing the Constitution or it's called "self-evident" truths by historians analyzing the Declaration.  They find a difference between what was intended when written and the way the words have been interpreted in modern times.

This theory is contrary to the perspective of liberal thinkers who view the Constitution as a "living" document, meaning that the words retain their essence, but their application changes as the world the words are applied to changes. They find the intent of the Founding Fathers to be different than the Radical Right does.  Are these two ways of looking at our founding documents contradictory or complementary?

First, let's discuss the idea of strict construction.  The Constitution was written to last a long time.  Jefferson may have famously said that having a revolution regularly would be a good thing and that the Constitution should be reevaluated every 20 years, but for most of the Founding Fathers, the Constitution was written in such a way that it could be applied as written for a long time, with appropriate amendments when needed. It was thought to be a flexible document.

And indeed, that's the only way of looking at the Constitution that makes sense.  Literally rewriting the Constitution periodically would create harmful instability.  Jefferson's thought about reevaluating the Constitution is exactly what the courts do—deciding what is covered and what is not; applying the original intent to current circumstances—so there has been no need to rewrite it, except for adding amendments.

If we look at the Founder's intent—and it always comes back to their intent—we see that they were creating a document for the future, not just the here and now.  The question should be how would the Founder's interpret their words applied to the current situation, not how we interpret their words looking at the context in which they lived.  See below.

Next, let's look at the meaning of "self-evident."   Matthew Spaulding, formerly Director of American Studies at the Heritage Foundation, says he is a believer in the self-evident truths proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence and argues that liberals do not believe in the self-evident truths.

On its face, his statement seems incredulous, for who more than liberals, i.e. Democrats, believe fervently in the principle of equality and that all of us, each and every one, has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

What becomes clear in reading Spaulding is that "self-evident", meaning obvious, is determined for him by what the a person would see or think looking around at the world he exists in.  As he sees it, the truth of equality then would not be the concept of equality that we have today.  The meaning of the word "men" would not have the all-inclusive implication we give to that word today.

But while the phrase "self-evident" does indeed mean obvious, requiring no reasoning, he uses the man on the street in 1776 to interpret what the words "equal" or "men" mean.  This is where Spaulding's interpretation is in error.  

John Adams and his fellow Founding Fathers were not the average man on the street in 1776.  The were men of the Enlightenment, the philosophical movement that held sway among learned men in the 18th century.

What did "equal" mean to John Adams?  While Adams said that there were many false notions of equality—words the Heritage Foundation focuses on—he goes on to say that equality "really means little more than that We are all of the same Species: made by the same God: possessed of Minds and Bodies alike in Essence: having all the same Reason, Passions, Affections and Appetites."

This is what the Declaration means when it says that it is self-evident that all men are created equal.  A more modern notion of equality could not be stated, except the reference to God.  (Today, those who don't believe in God would say that we are all the same miracle of creation.)  Clearly, Adams believed that regardless of color, regardless of social status, we are all basically the same when we are born, even as to how we are wired.

As for the meaning of "men,"  those who subscribed to the Enlightenment often used that word as a shorthand for "humanity."  Thus the use of that term by Jefferson in writing the Declaration means that all people are created equal.

In both cases, the intellectual/philosophical justification for the narrow reading of our Founding Documents used by both the intellectual thinkers of the Radical Right and the average Radical Republican or MAGA adherent does not hold water.  It is contrary to the intent of the Founders. And so their whole system of interpretation falls.

The Founding Fathers were not "small" men.  They were great men with huge intellectual capacity.  Some, like Jefferson, were bound to earth by their association with slavery, but their minds soared.  It is that soaring mind that is reflected in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  And it is their minds and intent that should form the basis for interpreting these documents and applying them to the present.

It's easy to cherry-pick statements from a life of writing to make your point as the Radical Right does.  Conservatives have done the same with the Bible in order to make their arguments.  But when the Founding Fathers' life work or the Bible is looked at as a whole, then the real self-evident truth is revealed.  There is no conflict between looking at the Founders' intent and looking at the Constitution as a living document.

 

The Ongoing Negative Cultural Impact of the Pandemic

How many times have I heard that things are the way they are today because our practices changed during COVID, because of the then-need to distance ourselves or isolate ourselves?

For example, it used to be that auditions for actors for parts in plays were done in person.  Today, there is almost no such thing as an in-person audition. Instead, actors are told to send the producer/casting director an audition video.

When I was told this, I was dumbfounded by this change because it not only robs the actor of the whole community experience of auditioning and practicing his craft before a live audience, but because it robs the the producer/director/casting director of the ability to see how the actor performs on stage. Performing on a video is something quite different for many reasons, one of which is that it can be done over and over again till the actor feels he is satisfied.  On stage, both in performance and the audition, one gets one chance and it is what it is.

Looking into this recently, I discovered that while there was some movement towards this type of auditioning for reasons of efficiency and convenience prior to COVID, it was COVID that made this practice universal.  And of course the rigors of COVID protection lasted for almost two years.  

During that time, producers got so comfortable with the system and used to its efficiencies, that they didn't want to go back to the old system.  Actors have no power or voice, so they just had to do as directed.  Although there are some actors that favor the new system as well for reasons of convenience and efficiency.

It seems that today, for so many things, considerations of efficiency and convenience rule the day, regardless of their impact on quality.  This point can be made, for example, about vast portions of the professional workforce working remotely.  It is certainly convenient and efficient, but the employer looses the ability to interact with employees on a frequent and more casual basis, and employees loose the ability to feel and be part of the larger dynamic which is a company.

Some will say that zoom meetings take care of much of that, but I would beg to differ.  I have been in many zoom meetings, both as an outside presenter and as a member of the group, and I have always been aware that I have not had the same interactive experience as I would have had had the session been in-person.

So to answer the question of why things have not returned to the practices which were in place pre-COVID and which almost everyone would agree were better from a quality perspective, the answer is efficiency and convenience.  These considerations have always been present, but in today's technological environment, they have become more than buzz words; to technology, they are the holy grail.

 

Why the Declaration of Independence Argues for the Removal of Trump

The Declaration of Independence set forth a list of grievances against the English king that warranted the revolution that the Declaration announced.

Some of these grievances dealt with the king's relationship with the judiciary.  To quote: “He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.”

To quote a Heritage Foundation paper, "The declaration stated that the executive was intent on bending the judicial power to his will. In short, these are the actions of an aspiring tyrant."

Trump's actions and words in his first 100 days against the judiciary certainly are an example of trying to bend the judiciary to his will. His call to impeach judges is like the Queen in Alice in Wonderland demanding, "Off with their heads!"  It is clear that he feels that there is no legitimate law other than his.  

Regarding the king's perspective on administration, the Declaration stated, "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to Harass our people."

While Trump has not erected a multitude of new offices, he certainly has destroyed a multitude of existing offices that protected the people.  And the descent of DOGE, Musk, and his acolytes on the agencies of government certainly sounded like a swarm off people harassing government officials.

Finally, while not enumerated in the Declaration, by trying by hook or crook to invalidate the 2020 election and even now refusing to accept that the people voted him out office—despite a multitude of court decisions rejecting his claims of fraud—he has defied one of the most central aspects of our democracy: free elections and the peaceful transfer of power.

These grievances, along with many others, would be sufficient for Americans to rise up against Trump and remove him from office.  

But that is not the American way.  Trump was fairly elected and there he must stay unless impeached.  The people can voice their displeasure, however, by backing Democrats for Congress in the 2026 midterms and electing Democratic majorities in both the House and Senate.  And returning a Democrat to the White House in 2028.

 

Are Liberals Destroying America's Ideals?

In the opening paragraph of the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, it wrote, "America is now divided between two opposing forces: woke revolutionaries and those who believe in the ideals of the American revolution,"  

What a perfect example of fake news.  By taking on the mantle of American values and attacking their opponents as destroying those values, the Heritage Foundation has done what Trump and his allies always do: they accuse their opponents of doing what they themselves have actually done.  In truth, it is the MAGA-Right that perverts and destroys our founding values.

This distorted view of our founding documents was formalized in Matthew Spaulding's 2009 book, We Still Hold These Truths.  Spaulding is a former Director of American Studies at the Heritage Foundation.  In the book, Spaulding faults liberals for perverting the vision of the Founding Fathers.  Liberalism is the enemy.

For example, in speaking of the "certain unalienable truths" proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, he states that liberals have "rejected the idea of self-evident truths and enduring principles."

How bizarre.  It is liberals, i.e. Democrats, who embrace the words of the Declaration of Independence.  Given the MAGA-Right's assaults on immigrants, LGBTQ, people of color, and women, it is clear that it is the MAGA-Right that has rejected these truths.

The position that support for conservative arguments can be found in our founding documents is not without basis, as I stated in my 2004 book, We Still Hold These Truths: An American Manifesto. But the MAGA-Right disavow traditional conservative positions. 

What they advocate instead is the dismantling of the Federal government to comport more with the Anti-Federalist view—a weak and limited national government—that was the basis of the Articles of Confederation, rather than the view that was adopted by the Founding Fathers after the failure of the Articles and was the basis for the Constitution—a strong and multi-faceted Federal government with proscribed checks and balances.  

True, some of the Founding Fathers, such as Jefferson, were concerned that a strong federal government would constrict the rights of citizens and so he proposed what became the Bill of Rights.

But for the MAGA-Right, there is no recognition, appreciation, or tolerance in their point of view of the rights of others.  For example, as MAGA Christians in what they consider a Christian country, they believe they can forbid gays to marry and demand that women act in accordance with MAGA beliefs. This is not protecting MAGA freedom of religion. This is imposing MAGA's religious views on others, violating others' rights.  They pursue the denial of liberty to others. 

If you read Spaulding's book—if you didn't read it carefully—you could come away thinking he is a reasonable man who respects our founding documents and history.  He has, for example, a section on equality and equal rights that is a powerful exposition, which one would think would presage support for all civil rights legislation as well as the DEI efforts of government.  He certainly talks the talk.  

But when it comes to the implementation, to the interpretation, of these words, he doesn't walk the walk, but distorts their meaning to suit his own political ends.  He and the MAGA-Right have a one-sided view of liberty.

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are profoundly liberal documents for their era that depend on the balancing of powers and of rights. What the MAGA-Right is attempting to do, and in the short-term are succeeding, is to destroy that balance—whether it's between the branches of government or the rights of people. Their goal is to create a government and system of laws that is a radical departure from our historic ideals and values.

This destruction of American ideals can only be stopped by the people, by their realizing what the Trump administration is doing, and how it affects them and their children.  It is only by their votes that this perversion of America can be stopped.

Given the massive misinformation campaign by the MAGA-Right, for this to happen the Democratic Party must mount a counter-campaign to inform the public what America's true ideals are—what our founding documents and the Founding Fathers said—how the Trump administration cynically perverts those ideals, and how that perversion impacts us all.  That is the focus of my book, We Still Hold These Truths: An American Manifesto.

The MAGA-Right and Spaulding speak of equality, of freedom of religion and speech, and liberty being dependent on a respect for both rights and responsibilities—these are indeed America's ideals—but they just mouth the words; their implementation of those concepts limits and perverts the Founders' meaning.  And that meaning comes from the Enlightenment—the words were aspirational—not from the facts on the ground at that time.

For example, in saying that all "men" are created equal, the Founders meant that all mankind have certain unalienable rights.  Their "self-evident" came from the fact of creation—that "we were all of the same species; made by the same God"—not what they saw looking around them. These rights don't belong just to white men or the MAGA-RIght.

The traditional meaning of "balance of rights and responsibilities" is that someone in the exercise of his rights has the responsibility not to thereby interfere with the rights of another.  But the MAGA-RIght's interpretation is that others have the responsibility not to interfere unjustly with the practice of their rights; for example, by regulating business.  Whereas they aggressively interfere with the rights of others because, again, they do not acknowledge the rights of others.

But beyond this information campaign, the Democratic Party must rediscover the source of their policies and communicate that source to the people.  This source is not "liberal" thinking, or progressive "woke" thinking.  Instead, the foundation of all their policies are the words of the Declaration of Independence. 

To this end, I have proposed a domestic Mission statement for the Democratic Party:

"To build a country of greater opportunity for all where:

• each and every American has a real chance to experience the promises made in the Declaration of Independence … ‘that all men [mankind] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights … Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness;’ 
• government meets its responsibility as set forth in the Declaration … ‘to secure those rights’ … within the constraints of fiscal responsibility; and
• all citizens have a shared responsibility to support the government’s efforts to secure those rights and promote the public good, each according to their ability, and to not, through the exercise of their rights, impinge on the rights of others."

This statement is the moral philosophy, the heart, the soul of American democracy. This is, or was, America’s common faith. 

I believe that this is the path out of the abyss of Trumpism and back to a government and policies that will truly make America great again—government of the people, by the people, and for the people.