Black Hat Conservatives

A group of ragtag ultra-Orthodox Jews who love the State of Israel, the United States, its constitution and the values they stand for...

Friday, August 23, 2019

Jews No Longer ‘At Home’ In America - Irving Moskowitz

October 18, 1991
Jews No Longer ‘At Home’ In America

            Not a long ago, a prominent Jewish professor authored a history of American Jewry entitled At Home in America. Certainly, it is true that for most Jews, the phrase “at home in America” was precisely how they have felt about the United States. But now that an American president has, for the first time, openly attacked the American Jewish community, perhaps the time has come to reconsider just what that phrase “at home” really means.
            Jewish tradition, of course, utterly rejects the concept that Jews could be “at home” anywhere outside of the Land of Israel. Judaism, in contrast to other religions, is very much a land-centered faith. Many of the Torah commandments are dependent upon Jews being physically resident in the land. Many of the prayers are for the reconstruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, or for the return of the exiled Jews to their homeland.
“At home” in Crown Heights or the Valley? Impossible, say the classic Jewish texts. The Diaspora – or, more accurately, the Exile – is depicted as a punishment, a curse, a tragedy – not an opportunity to grow fat and comfortable.
Still most American Jews have never paid a great deal of attention to those texts, and even some of the observant Jews who are familiar with them prefer to skip over those “Land of Israel” – related passages whose implementation would be especially inconvenient.
So feeling right “at home” in America, Jews set to work contributing their talents and energy to making it a better country. They succeeded as no other ethnic minority group has ever succeeded. Their contributions have been unparalleled. Who can count the Jewish comedians who have made Americans laugh, the Jewish playwrights who have moved audiences to tears, the Jewish Hollywood producers who have entertained millions, the Jewish doctors who have healed, the Jewish lawyers who have pleaded, the industries built by Jewish sweat and Jewish brains...?
All of this was possible because anti-Semitism in the United States, while always present, never reached the levels of intensity that it reached elsewhere. Certainly, this country has had its share of “American First" rallies, Ku Klux Kim torching’s, and neo-Nazi marches, but in American political life they have always been the exceptions, not the rule. Anti-Semitism was always regarded by the governmental authorities as illegitimate.
Now all of that has changed. For the first time in this county’s history, a president has publicly attacked the American Jewish community for the “crime" of exercising its democratic right to lobby. Let nobody be fooled by his use of euphemisms like “the Pro-Israel lobby." That phrase means Jews. He knows we know it, and they know it. The “they” to whom I am referring are the millions of potential anti-Semites in this country who will interpret the president’s words as a declaration that it is open season on the Jews. These potential Jew—haters range from the editors who immediately filled their newspapers with wildly exaggerated stories about the amount of aid America has given Israel (read: the Jews) to the blue—collar workers in the neighborhood bars who nodded and grumbled about "the Jews" getting $10-billion while other Americans struggle to make ends meet.
If Jews begin to feel like they are no longer really “at home in America," it is with good reason. It used to be that the only time one would discover anti-Semitism in the White House was long after the official in question had retired — for example, former Vice-President Spiro Agnew’s rantings about the “Zionist lobby," or former President Richard Nixon's taped remarks about Jewish anti-war protesters. How times have changed. Now even the occupant of the White House can go after the Jews, provided only that he use the appropriate euphemisms.
Dr. Irving Moskowitz is a Member of the Board of Governors of Americans For a Safe Israel.

Thursday, August 15, 2019

The Enemy Within: Jewish Turncoats, Then And Now - Dr. IRVIN MOSKOWITZ

August 23, 1991 - Still very relevant today as it was then

ONE MINUTE TO MIDNIGHT – Dr. Irving Moskowitz

The Enemy Within: Jewish Turncoats, Then And Now

The tragedy of individual Jews siding with their people’s enemies is a phenomenon well known to anyone familiar with Jewish history. From the medieval Jewish converts to Christianity who became prominent anti-Semites, to the pro-PLO Jewish radicals of our own time, those renegades have caused untold damage to Jewish interests. It is no wonder that the verse in Isaiah, “Your destroyers shall come from among you,” is interpreted by most biblical commentators as refereeing to Jewish traitors who wreak havoc upon their people.”

Time after time throughout Jewish history, Jewish turncoats have joined forces with the enemies of the Jews and played important roles in the formulation of anti-Jewish policies. During the Spanish Inquisition, some of the fiercest Christian fanatics involved in the torture and murder of innocent Jews were former Jews who had converted to Christianity in order to escape their Jewishness and find material security in the Christian world.

In other European countries during the Middle Ages, individual “Court Jews” curried favor with the ruling authorities at the expense of the local Jewish community. In some instances, of course, Court Jews played a necessary and even valuable role as intermediary between the Jewish community and the local king. But all too often, Court Jews misused their positions to gain personal advantages, while the rest of the Jews suffered from poverty and oppressions.

Entire books have been written about the role of Jewish "Kapos," or collaborators, during the Holocaust. There can be no doubt that local Jewish leaders were in many cases forced into impossible situations by the demands of the Nazi occupiers: nobody should be quick to judge or condemn them. for in many cases they truly did their best to assist their fellow-Jews, despite the extreme circumstantiates in which they were trapped. Yet there can be no denying that some Jewish leaders went too far, becoming actual collaborators with the Nazi enemy in order to save their own skins. Ben Hecht's powerful book Perfidy (first published in 1962) told the horrifying tale of one such traitor. Rudolf Kastner, who deliberately  hid news of the gas chambers from the Hungarian Jewish community In exchange for a promise by the Nazis to spare him and a handful of his friends and relatives. After the war Kastner actually signed an affidavit on behalf of a Nazi war criminal with whom he had become friendly, resulting in the Nazi being set free by the Allies.

In this context, one cannot help but think of the role currently being played in the formulation of U.S. Middle East policy by President Bush’s handful of Jewish advisers. The Administration’s ferociously pro—Arab slant has been shaped to a large extent by Jewish turncoats like Dennis Ross, the Director of the Policy Planning for the State Department; Aaron David Miller, a senior member of the State Department’s Policy and Planning Staff, and Daniel Kurtzer, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near East and South Asian Affairs.

These Jewish Arabists operate almost entirely behind the scenes, so the Jewish community is generally unaware of the nature of their actions. But two years ago, the New York Times revealed that it was Kurtzer who, more than anyone else, had been the architect of the U.S. decision to recognize and negotiate with the terrorist PLO. This past April, a stunning expose of Bush’s Jewish henchmen, which was published in Moment magazine, detailed how Kurtzer and company have continued to push the pro-Arab line in U.S. foreign policy. The Moment article is must reading for every Jew who cares about Israel.

Kurtzer’s background will no doubt raise some eyebrows. He claims to be an Orthodox Jew, and at one time he actually served as a dean at Yeshiva University. One might think that in a view of Kurtzer’s anti-Israel activity, the Yeshiva University administration would forcefully criticize him. Instead, however, Y.U. president Norman Lamm has been quoted in the New York Times  as praising and defending Kurtzer.

Jewish turncoats who help plot the U.S. abandonment of Israel do not deserve to be praised or defended; they deserve to be condemned, forcefully and unequivocally, and made a persona non grata in the American Jewish community.

Dr. Irving Moskowitz is a Member of the Board of Governors of Americans For a Safe Israel.


Editors note: this is very relevant to today as well

One Minute to Midnight - March 9, 1990


There are Jews with pride. But is Efraim Zuroff one of them?
Zuroff, the Jerusalem representative of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, lives in the Jewish settlement of Efrat, which means that he and his family are the potential targets of Arab rock-throwers every time they leave home. Yet in a recent interview with the Jerusalem Post, David Horovitz writes that Zuroff is extremely unhappy with “the stereotypical image of the settler with his bushy beard, his gun in his belt and his eternally pregnant wife.”
Zuroff seemed to be echoing the sentiments of Shimon Peres, who in a 1988 outburst declared that “the appearance of the settlers, with their kippahs and beards, invites contempt, and ridicule.”
“Self-hatred" may be too strong a characterization for such expressions, but it is clear that Zuroff and Peres share a sense of acute embarrassment, even shame, at the thought that such Jews might be seen by the outside world as representatives of Israel.
What is not clear is exactly why Zuroff and Peres should be so perturbed. The kippahs and beards of the settlers are traditional signs of pride in one's Jewish identity. The settlers' guns are evidence that Israeli Jews have learned the bitter lesson of Diaspora Jewish history — that it is better to be armed and alive, than vulnerable and victimized.
And what in the world is wrong with a pregnant wife? Zuroff‘s profession involves documenting Nazi war crimes, so surely he must appreciate the devastating impact on World Jewry of the Nazis‘ murder of two million Jewish children. Jewish settlers who choose to have many children are patriots who are fulfilling the Jewish religious obligation to replenish the shrunken ranks of our people. In this era of “me-first” Yuppies and abortion-on-demand, we should welcome the sight of Jews who are prepared to sacrifice their personal material comfort for the sake of a higher goal. They deserve to be praised, not mocked.
If the Simon Wiesenthal Center wants to continue its world-wide reputation, and maintain its credibility, perhaps those in the leadership positions of the Simon Wiesenthal Center should give some in-service preparatory training to their representatives before sending them out to represent the Simon Wiesenthal Center.
The origin of the Zuroff-Peres line of thinking is no mystery. The ceaseless barrage of international criticism aimed at Israel has made some Jews excessively sensitive to world opinion. But being ashamed of the traditional symbols of Jewishness will not impress non-Jews. One must have some self-respect before it is possible to win the respect of others.
Dr. Irving Moskowitz is a Member of the Board of Governors of Americans For a Safe Israel.

Monday, January 15, 2018

The Battle for The Legacy of Martin Luther King vis a vis Israel

Dr. King and the Rabbis
It goes without saying that one of the most recognizable names in American history (of the last hundred years or so) is none other then Dr. Martin Luther King. 

Dr. King, to many, represents the pinnacle of courage against adversary as he has become known for his courageous efforts on behalf of the US civil rights movement. The movement, pioneered by Dr. King, pressured the American government to end legalized segregation in the United States and bring about a truly free United States where all people were created equal on paper - but in practice as well

With such an outlook reflecting the dream of Dr. King, it would only make sense that Dr. King had been supportive of the Jewish cause and its fledgling Jewish State. This would be the case simply based on the reality that the State of Israel, since its inception, had been the one country in the middle east where all individuals were able to live (in Dr. Kings time as well as today) in a democratic society, with freedom of religion and without the concern for racism or oppression...

If the above video is of any indication, then the above presupposition was exactly what Dr. King felt regarding the State of Israel and its standing within the greater middle east community. 

Yet despite of the video above, it would seem that when it comes to the legacy of Dr. King and State of Israel matters may not be as clear cut as we would like..

This is not only best illustrated in an interesting write up Times of Israel but further solidified in  articles on the Electronic Intifada, where many anti Israel groups have been calling Dr. Kings perceived viewpoint into question and as pointed out by Lebovic in the Times of Israel, seems that the view point of Dr. King on Israel is stuck in a constant tug-a-war between the strong pro Israel voices in the black community. Voices such as those of Dumisani Washington of the Institute for Black Solidarity with Israel and those in  support of the Black Lives Matter movement seem rather contentious on whether or not Dr. King was pro Israel or rather one of its vehement opponents.

Intersectiontality at work
Interestingly however, the oft-quoted statements attributed to King on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict come from a Q&A session in which Dr. King participated during the annual convention of the Conservative movement’s Rabbinical Assembly in 1968. As alleged by Lebovic, "Dr. King was to consider the questions ahead of the event, and it is clear King had carefully considered both sides of the ongoing conflict." thus making his statements in this session the most accurate portrayal of his outlook and views...

With that said, Dr. Kings statements take a rather politically correct prose and in some ways even reflect to some extent his pacifist nature - Dr. King's comments at the assembly where as follows: 

I think it is necessary to say that what is basic and what is needed in the Middle East is peace. Peace for Israel is one thing. Peace for the Arab side of that world is another thing,”
Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all of our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity. I see Israel, and never mind saying it, as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world, and a marvelous example of what can be done, how desert land almost can be transformed into an oasis of brotherhood and democracy. Peace for Israel means security and that security must be a reality.
“On the other hand, we must see what peace for the Arabs means in a real sense of security on another level. Peace for the Arabs means the kind of economic security that they so desperately need. These nations, as you know, are part of that third world of hunger, of disease, of illiteracy. I think that as long as these conditions exist there will be tensions, there will be the endless quest to find scapegoats. So there is a need for a Marshall Plan for the Middle East, where we lift those who are at the bottom of the economic ladder and bring them into the mainstream of economic security.
It would seem that Dr. King viewed Israel, "as one of the great outposts of democracy in the world" but nonetheless, somewhat naively I might add, viewed the Arab world as a third world population, which desperately needed the assistance on the international community htrough the implementation of some kind of iteration of the Marshall plan. 
In other words, it is a safe bet to speculate that Dr. King held of the viewpoint that the Arab community and the Palestinians specifically, we're not only an oppressed people, but a people which - with the intervention of the global community - are able to rehabilitate themselves as a people with the right to self determination. This outlook of Dr. King is rather utopian as history has proven time and time again. Namely the Palestinian people have no interest in living side by side with their Israeli cousins in spite of the many efforts and offers to improve and rehabilitate their lives.

Interestingly, Dr. Kings pacifist and apolitical outlook on the matter can be solidified from excerpts of a phone call to confidants in 1967 where Dr. King was rather skeptic of the possibility of visit to Israel after the six day war. In the conversation he was quoted to say as such: 
"I'd run into the situation where I'm damned if I say this and I'm damned if I say that no matter what I'd say, and I've already faced enough criticism including pro-Arab.  I just think that if I go, the Arab world, and of course Africa and Asia for that matter, would interpret this as endorsing everything that Israel has done, and I do have questions of doubt...  Most of it [the pilgrimage] would be Jerusalem and they [the Israelis] have annexed Jerusalem, and any way you say it they don't plan to give it up... 
In other words, Dr. King did not want to get stuck between a rock and a hard place feeling that either side would not be placated by his actions. However, this does beget the questions whether Dr. King understood the historic significance of the six day victory or the true unjust that was undone as a result of the young states miraculous survival. Seemingly, this is simply because of the perception that not only does Dr. King seem to express his reservations about the actions of the Israelis during the six day war but was apparently opposed, or at least held strong reservations, to the annexation of Jerusalem and its reunification as the capital of the Jewish state and people. In essence, it would seem that Dr. King - due to his reportedly pacifist nature - was not willing to recognize the Jewish people's (and by proxy the state of Israel) aboriginal rights to the land, despite of the totally justified circumstances, as such an action - allegedly - was done in spite of the rights of the so called Palestinian people.
Sadly Dr. King is not the only one, with such a perception, many both gentile and Jew, choose to ignore the historical truth that the land of Israel (in its post 1967 expanded borders) and have thus not not accepted the universal truth that the the territory of the historic kingdom of Israel is not only in the land of Israel but its political capital was and always will be in Jerusalem. Viewing the reality in any other way is not only a blatant disregard for the historic truth but emboldens the oppression those who live in Gaza and Judea and Samaria by Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.

This brings us back to Dr. King. as the questions remains on where he would stand in present times on the issue of our day, namely would Dr. King support the State of Israel or the Palestinian people and the BDS movement.
With some reflection, and due to the lack of evidence it is indeed hard to tell but one thing is certain Dr. King viewed criticism of Israel as Anti Semitism and perhaps that can give us, although a not definitive, hint in the proper direction. 

Sunday, November 5, 2017

Rep. Ron DeSantis: Hollywood Sexual Misconduct Must Be ‘Thoroughly Investigated’

During the interview, Marlow asked DeSantis whether the misconduct scandal surrounding Hollywood — first sparked by an October New York Times report about decades of sexual harassment and assault allegations against move mogul Harvey Weinstein — might become the subject of an official Congressional inquiry.
“Look, Hollywood is a cesspool. The idea that Weinstein is alone, or even that conspicuous, I don’t think is true,” DeSantis told Marlow. “I think this is pervasive behavior in Hollywood, and I think it does implicate the media. I think they’ve been complicit in it, I think businesses have been complicit in it.”
“I think the issue for [Congress] is, is there a jurisdictional hook for government activity, that government has been involved with regulating or not, and I don’t know the answer to that,” he added. “It definitely needs to be throughly investigated, so I think we just have to figure out whether Congress is the appropriate venue. But I think whatever we’ve seen come out of the woodwork, I think it’ll be exponentially greater if we, or some entity, actually brought in witnesses to testify about all the filth that happened there.”
LISTEN [Discussion on Hollywood begins at 16:40 mark]:
DeSantis’ comments come as at least one Republican lawmaker has called for Congressional hearings on Hollywood’s treatment of women.
Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) told Breitbart News in an exclusive interview Thursday that Congress should help expose the widespread “criminal conduct” in the entertainment industry.
“Now that we are discussing the tax bill, I think our leadership should make it absolutely clear that we are not going to allow deductibility of settlements for the conduct of sexual predators and give a tax benefit to the entertainment industry for criminal behavior,” Buck said.
More major Hollywood figures were accused of sexual misconduct this week as the scandal has continued into a second month. Actor Kevin Spacey was accused Sunday of making a sexual advance on a then-14-year-old actor at a New York City party in 1986, while director Brett Ratner was accused of misconduct by at least six different women.
In all, more than 50 prominent figures in Hollywood and media have been accused of sexual harassment, assault, or other misconduct in recent weeks.
Listen to Rep. DeSantis’s full interview above.
Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.