Stop Antisemitism

[Sixties Fan]

We wish that we were wrong in our prediction about PCUSA. Sadly, we were not.

No Jews were invited to committee meetings in preparation for the PCUSA’s upcoming General Assembly, but “Jews” were very much in evidence. A raft of anti-Israel resolutions, all of them unthinkable just eight years ago, were discussed and passed. And it’s not a huge surprise.

Over the last several decades, PCUSA has lost hundreds of thousands of members, and many dozens of churches.

When it comes to Israel, the PCUSA initially focused on the alleged evils of “the occupation.” Now its hate has vastly expanded, from discussions on withholding military aid from Israel, to labeling Israel as “apartheid” and supporting the Kairos Palestine statement — a pseudo-theological document that denies the connection between Jews and the land to which they were attached since Biblical times. PCUSA also gives a moral pass to Palestinian terrorism.

PCUSA’s fig leaf self-description as supporting both sides in a complex dispute has been dropped, leaving PCUSA’s naked anti-Israel worldview on full display.

Over the years, the PCUSA would mourn the destruction in Gaza without mentioning the thousands of rockets launched from Gaza into Israel. Throughout, however, PCUSA was careful not to attack Jews. At most, it was “Zionists” who were guilty.

But now, they’ve dropped the pretense. The commissioners who spoke at recent meetings spoke openly, not about Israelis, but about “Jews,” and things “Jewish” — such as, “The Israeli regime … advances one group, Jews, over another, Palestinians.”

The final spiral actually began last year, with a statement by PCUSA’s Stated Clerk, J. Herbert Nelson, who conveyed in the style of Louis Farrakhan: “The nation of Israel has declared Jewish supremacy from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.” He then went on to demand that Jews in America use their power to rein in their errant brothers and sisters. He thus channeled multiple stereotypes about Jews — collective guilt and monetary power — all while antisemites were attacking Jews walking the streets of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and other US cities.

None of this happens in a vacuum. The World Council of Churches (WCC), representing some 500 million Christians in 110 countries, has been antagonistic towards Israel since its inception in 1948.

The WCC’s hostility towards the Jewish state reached its nadir with the election of the Rev. Jerry Pillay of South Africa to its top position. Speaking to a PCUSA group in 2014, he advocated for global BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions), whose mission includes the dismantling of Israel, and has been recognized as fundamentally antisemitic by foreign governments and a number of US states. He has spoken of the “exclusionary and violent character of the Israeli Zionist project,” and decried the creation of a Jewish state “on the land of Palestine.”

In self-defense and with unmitigated chutzpah, Rev. Pillay wrote, “I sincerely value and cherish my Jewish friends and the Jewish community and faith.” Claiming to cherish the Jewish faith while ignoring the connection between Jews and their historic homeland is the equivalent of professing love for all Christians — except for those who believe in Jesus.

What churches say still has influence — from world diplomacy to the board room.

But today, we live in interesting times. We used to look to faith leaders for moral guidance. Now we invoke corporate CEOs. Want to know what’s wrong with BDS? Here is what Unilever said in reversing Ben & Jerry’s boycott of Israel:

Unilever “…rejects completely and repudiates unequivocally any form of discrimination or intolerance. Antisemitism has no place in any society. We have never expressed any support for the Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) movement and have no intention of changing that position.”

We will continue to work with Christians of all denominations to defeat the efforts of all who seek to demean, degrade, and ultimately destroy the Jewish people’s return to Zion.

(full article online)

Presbyterian Church (USA) Scrapes the Bottom of the Antisemitic Slippery Slope - Algemeiner.com

In 2014, the Presbyterian Church (USA) became the first Protestant mainline denomination to call for divestment from Israeli companies. When the PCUSA reversed itself in 2016, we at the Simon Wiesenthal Center cautioned against too much optimism. The goal of the anti-Israel lobby, we said, was...

www.algemeiner.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

In August of 2021, when most newly-arrived postdoctoral fellows at Yale were busy settling into new apartments and new labs, the “Racial Justice Subcommittee” of the Yale Postdoctoral Association (YPA) published a “Resource on Palestine” on the YPA website, which is an official platform of Yale University.

The statement was issued as a guide for, and in the name of, more than 1,000 postdoctoral fellows at Yale. In the short — and mostly fact-free — statement, one can find many of the usual anti-Israel (and antisemitic) tropes about a “colonial” power and an “apartheid” state that oppresses Palestinians. Why any of this propaganda belongs in a guide for Yale postdocs is not at all clear.

To their great credit, a group of (mostly Israeli) postdocs, knowledgeable about the realities in Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank, took exception to the “Resource.” They did so using reason and logic, and by drawing on facts and reports and reality — entirely unlike the original screed.

After eight months of patient and often painstaking negotiations with the YPA leadership, these postdocs succeeded in publishing a thoroughly-documented counter-argument on the YPA site (although there is as yet no link from the original to the counter-statement).

But now, the same postdocs who attacked Israel last year are at it again.
-------

To make matters worse, a co-author of the divisive and hate-filled “Resource” on the YPA website, Dr. Azmi Ahmad, a postdoc at the Yale School of Medicine, is now one of three candidates for Co-Chair. How he or the YPA can square his statements and candidacy with the Yale values of inclusion, non-discrimination, and civility, is anyone’s guess.

Lest one imagine that Dr. Ahmad’s 2021 statement is only accidentally antisemitic, consider his behavior during the recent screening of a virulently anti-Israel film, “Five Broken Cameras” by the YPA. When an Israeli postdoc asked to be recognized to give his reactions to the film, Ahmad and his friends blocked him from speaking. This cannot be squared with “every point of view is welcome” as proclaimed in their posted “Resource.”

Yale has many principles and procedures to engender a welcoming environment and academic and civil exchange. One is that Yale resources should not be used for private partisan purposes. But Yale has trouble enforcing its own rules.

When the Yale student government publishes an anti-Israel screed in the name of all students, no Yale entity objects. When Yale’s federally-funded Council on Middle East Studies continues to affiliate and pay dues to the Middle East Studies Association (MESA) that calls for a boycott of Israeli academics, Yale does nothing. This institutional inaction aids and abets antisemitism on our campus.

Yale is the home to many earnest, well-meaning people of all faiths and political persuasions. These good people populate its administration, its faculty, and the ranks of its postdocs. Now is the time for the good people of Yale to stand up.

At this juncture, it is Yale postdocs who must stand up to reject the candidacy of Azmi Ahmad. By his statements and actions, Ahmad has proved himself unfit to represent the whole postdoc community.

The YPA is in serious need of reform. Votes must be held in person, only after adequate time is allowed for the rank-and-file to examine and hear from the candidates, and according to proper bylaws that mandate quorums. The YPA Racial Justice Subcommittee has invalidated itself.

But the problem at Yale goes beyond the YPA. The faculty have responsibilities. Departments that currently have anti-Israel statements on their websites (conveniently posted anonymously) that represent partisan views but purport to speak for all affiliated faculty, must take down those statements. Anything less sends a strong message that Jews and Israelis do not belong.

The Yale administration can no longer ignore the growth of antisemitism and anti-Zionism in our midst. Statements of principle are fine, but principles don’t amount to much if Yale-sanctioned organizations intended to serve all can be commandeered to exclude some.

Trafficking in anti-Israel falsehoods, shouting down opposing views, and appropriating official organizations and their websites for partisan propaganda, are all anathema to academic exchange and an environment that welcomes all qualified scholars and professionals.

If left unchecked, these offenses damage the Yale brand and send the message that our great university is not a place for Jews, Israelis, or friends of Israel. We, the Yale faculty who train young scholars and doctors, have an interest in making sure that Yale remains a place for all views and all qualified trainees.

(full article online)

When ‘Racial Justice’ Means Antisemitism: A Takeover of the Yale Postdoctoral Association

Yale University Law School in New Haven, Conn. Photo: Juan Paulo Gutierrez/Flickr. In August of 2021, when most newly-arrived postdoctoral …

www.algemeiner.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

The United Nations released a report by Ahmed Shaheed, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, called Action Plan to Combat Antisemitism, a four-page report that is a follow-up to an earlier novel report. Both reports are especially notable coming from an organization that has long been accused of displaying bias against Israel.


The first-of-its-kind report identifies antisemitism as a pressing and enduring challenge that governments, as well as social media giants, religious leaders, government officials, and others, should confront with urgency.


"As UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres [stresses], antisemitism is not a problem for the Jewish community alone. Rather, antisemitism is a phenomenon that is toxic to democracy and mutual respect of citizens, that threatens all people’s human rights," it states.

(full article online)

UN presents follow-up to unprecedented report to combat antisemitism

The new report, which outlines in detail how nations can combat antisemitism, is a follow-up to a historic report from 2019.

www.jpost.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

One of the most important features of antisemitism is that it morphs over time to make Jews villains as circumstances change.

Jew-haters of the 18th century - where Jews were primarily considered Christ-killers (or the Islamic equivalent of "killers of prophets") - would not recognize the "scientific" antisemitism of Wilhelm Marr asserting that Jews were racially inferior and criminal. They would be mystified at the idea of the traditionally weak Jews in ghettoes being the Elders of Zion controlling the world.

Jew-hatred is insidious because it changes with the times, to claim that Jews are guilty of whatever the worst crimes of the age are. Today, that would be racism, violation of human rights, white supremacy, and colonialism.

But to Peter Beinart, in a discussion in Germany last month, antisemitism is exactly the same as it was in the 1940s, as he defines it here:



"By antisemitism I mean a kind of classical definition that says you don't like Jews because they're Jews, right, you say they have too much power, they stick together too much, you know, they're trying to rip everyone off, whatever."

As a master propagandist, Peter first frames the argument before he makes it. But he uses a false framework, and he knows it. He repeatedly says "classic antisemitism" because he knows that antisemitism does change, and today's antisemitism is as different from that of a hundred years ago as that one was from a hundred years before that.

The examples that he uses are telling as well. Beinart doesn't mention that classical antisemitism also says that Jews enjoy killing Christian children, that they poison the wells of the non-Jews, that they control the world politically. But he doesn't want to mention those examples in his definition, because the audience might realize that modern antisemites on the Left say that the Jewish State enjoys killing Palestinian children, that Israel poisons Palestinian water supplies, and that Zionists control the Western world.

Modern antisemites accuse the Jewish state of everything the "classic" antisemites accused Jews themselves of doing. Mentioning that fact would undercut Beinart's thesis that anti-Zionism has nothing to do with antisemitism.

His absurd extrapolation that Zionists are themselves antisemitic itself fits the pattern of how antisemitism morphs. After the Holocaust, antisemitism became a major social crime. So of course, anyone who supports Israel must be guilty of that crime, because Zionists and Israelis are guilty of every social crime, by the Left's definition. Beinart then twists reality to ensure that Israel is guilty of antisemitism just as Jews have been guilty of every social crime in history.

Beinart's selective definition of antisemitism is itself proof that anti-Zionism is modern antisemitism.

Peter Beinart pretends antisemitism hasn't changed since 1944

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

In the case of anti-Israel T-shirts, the wearer gets the positive feedback thrill because there are enough fellow haters that would respond positively.

The reason you don't see "End Chinese Genocide" or "End Myanmar Persecution of Rohingya" T-shirts is because they wouldn't elicit the same positive response. No one wants to hang out with those T-shirt wearers; their message is fundamentally anti-social. Anyone who reads them are likely to be offended, too, because real human rights abuses are trivialized when placed on T-shirts.

But publicly proclaiming you hate Israel brings a thrill that would usually be amplified by the positive reactions of other haters. It is like being part of a club - just like the appeal of the German "League of Antisemites."

The only nation that is is socially acceptable to publicly hate is the Jewish state. So the only T-shirts that Amnesty would ever sell that call out a specific nation would obviously be anti-Israel T-shirts.

Just like the only nation called out for hate in Amnesty's children's book is also Israel.

(full article online)

The @Amnesty T-shirts that prove anti-Zionism is antisemitism

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

• Why does the Palestinian cause get so much attention, when there are much more compelling causes around the world such as those of the Kurds, Uyghurs, and other stateless and oppressed people? There are more demonstrations on university campuses against Israel than against Russia, China, Belarus and Iran. Why?
• The answer has little to do with the Palestinians, and everything to do with Israel, as the nation state of the Jewish people. It is a political manifestation of international antisemitism. It is only because the nation accused of oppressing Palestinians is Israel.
• It has little to do with the merits and everything to do with antisemitism. It calls itself anti-Zionism, but it is only a cover for anti-Jewish bigotry.
• A recent example is the decision of Ben and Jerry's ice cream to boycott parts of Israel, while continuing to sell to countries in which far greater abuses occur. When asked why Ben and Jerry's limits their boycott only to Israel, its founders admitted they had no idea.
• Who is leading the crowd of antisemitic bigots? The movement to single out the nation state of Israel for boycott, known as BDS, was originated by a Palestinian radical named Omar Barghouti, who does not hide the fact that his goal is the destruction of Israel....
• Do the Palestinians deserve a state? Yes, but no more so than the Kurds and other stateless people. Why no more so? Because the Palestinians have been offered statehood numerous times and have rejected it.
• Palestinians were offered a state on the vast majority of arable land, as part of a United Nations proposed two state solution; the Jews were offered a state on a far smaller area of arable land. The Jews accepted the compromise two state solution. The Arabs rejected it and went to war against the new Jewish state seeking to destroy it. It was this act of unlawful military aggression that resulted in the Palestinian refugee situation, which they call the "Nakba" ("catastrophe"). But it was a self-induced catastrophe. And many current Palestinian leaders and followers fault their predecessors for not accepting the two-state solution offered by the United Nations 75 years ago.
• The Palestinians could have had a state in 1948, 1967, 2000-2001, 2005 and 2008. They still preferred no Jewish state to a Palestinian state living in peace with Israel. They can have a state now, if they would negotiate a compromise instead of fomenting terrorism.
• I wonder how many of those who demonstrate against Israel have any idea of this history.

(full article online)

Why is the Flawed Palestinian Cause So Prominent on the Hard Left?

Why does the Palestinian cause get so much attention, when there are much more compelling causes around the world such as those of the Kurds, Uyghurs, and other stateless and oppressed people? There are more demonstrations on university campuses against

www.gatestoneinstitute.org

 

[Sixties Fan]

A new book has just been published,titled "Bioethics and the Holocaust: A Comprehensive Study in How the Holocaust Continues to Shape the Ethics of Health, Medicine and Human Rights." It is a free download from the Maimonides Institute for Medicine Ethics & The Holocaust.

Chapter Two, "Teaching Medical Ethics in Nazi Germany: Debunking the Myth that the Nazi Physicians Abandoned Their Ethics," by Tessa Chelouche is mind-blowing.

Believe it or not, Nazi Germany was in the forefront of publishing a guide for medical ethics. medical ethics manual, Medical Jurisprudence and Rules of the Medical Profession,was written by Dr. Rudolf Ramm. In its own sick and twisted way, it created an ethics system that in some ways resembles the one used by doctors worldwide - but it was steeped in Nazi racial ideology.

The uncomfortable reality is that the physicians who executed these crimes were of the conviction that their actions were morally and scientifically right (Caplan 2010). These were not incompetent, insane physicians from the fringes of the profession. Many were distinguished, experienced professionals from mainstream German medicine, which was considered to be the most progressive of the time (Aly et al. 1994; Weiss 2005). The German physicians were not coerced to join the Nazi Party, but did so on their own initiative and in greater numbers than any other free profession (Kater 1989). Among them were university professors and experienced physicians who, like Rudolf Ramm, took it upon themselves to inculcate future generations of physicians precisely due to the fact that they believed that what they were practicing and preaching was ethically and morally right (Bruns and Chelouche 2017). In Ramm’s words: “So this book should be a companion and a guide to the student of medicine and to the young physician for his established goal and an adviser to the young person in his choice of profession.”

...Nazi Germany became the first country in the world to hold mandatory ethics classes in medical schools.
Antisemitism was an inherent feature of Nazi medical ideology. One of the first steps taken in the newly formed Nazi regime was the removal of Jews from medical practice, both academic and clinical. In reading the textbook we realize the extent to which the Nazi physicians internalized and embraced antisemitism as inherent to, and acceptable with, medical and ethical norms. Ramm praises the new antisemitic directives: “One of the first measures of the National Socialist Physicians leadership was the cleansing of the profession of politically unreliable and racially foreign elements, so long as the medical benefit for the Volk population was not endangered” “Cleansing the profession” refers to the expulsion of the Jewish physicians from medicine in 1938, whose licenses were revoked and who were no longer considered doctors, but rather healers permitted to treat only fellow Jews. “One can however today already grasp the blessings which are important to life and to our Volk in the offices of the states that have emerged after the forceful expulsion of the Jews from the profession” He rationalizes the self-righteous persecution and marginalization of Jewish physicians: “It was the Jew who forced some German doctors into a crass materialistic employment of professionally unworthy methods of competition; the Jew who endangered the German Volk, and the one who through extension of his souls-poisoning ideas, enabled the destruction of germinating life while generating the impression, through his methods of advertising in wide circles of the population, that he was indispensable as a medical researcher and medical practitioner…Today no full-blooded German would allow himself to be treated by a Jewish doctor”. Although these passages read as blatant racist propaganda, they are in essence what was deemed morally right to teach medical students in Nazi Germany.

The chapter goes on to discuss sterilization, eugenics and euthanasia as all being placed in an ethical framework.

Ramm's medical ethics manual created a framework that was 'ethical" in the sense that it had an ethical basis - the importance of the Volk and the nation, ensuring that the most fit people would lead the nation in the future. Those who would be deleterious towards that goal should be marginalized and ultimately eliminated. It is monstrous, but it is a self-consistent ethical framework that appealed to the medical professionals in Germany of the day.



The conclusion includes:

[E]thics instruction does not ensure future virtuous medical practice. In addition, the existence of codes and directives and in this case, ethical textbooks, does not assure moral integrity. In fact, Ramm’s work shows us just how training and education can be used deleteriously.

If we expand a little beyond the medical profession, this is exactly what we are seeing today. So called "human rights" groups, taking the mantle of the highest ethical arbiters as medical professionals have been, have created their own self-consistent definition of morality that just happens to be twisted against today's Jews. They created brand new definitions of "apartheid" and "persecution" and "colonialism" that have been custom built to apply only to Israeli Jews, or terms like "indigenous" that have been interpreted deliberately to exclude Jews.

The insidiousness of their methodology is that they are not just spreading hate. They are teaching their ethical framework as if it is the only ethical system that exists.

Within that framework, it is impossible to defend Israel (as well as the traditional family, religion, and a host of other issues.)

This chapter is meant to teach doctors that they cannot assume that their ethical training makes them immune to doing immoral things in service of the prevailing standards and mores. But others who claim to have the moral high ground should read this as well.

Bioethics and human rights both became much more prominent as a response to the Holocaust. This book reminds us that adhering to an ethical framework is not enough: sometimes the framework itself can justify even the most heinous crimes.

Nazi doctors and today's antisemites: Redefining ethics to justify persecuting Jews

Blogging about Israel and the Arab world since, oh, forever.

elderofziyon.blogspot.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

 

[Sixties Fan]

New York City Council’s Higher Education Committee held a long awaited hearing to examine Antisemitism at CUNY. I and my colleague NYC Council Member Eric Dinowitz chaired the meeting.

The hearing was originally set for June 8, 2022, but was rescheduled to the end of the month to accommodate CUNY Chancellor Félix V. Matos Rodríguez, as he said it was “important for him to attend.” Then, the night before the hearing, the Chancellor backed out in cowardly fashion and did not attend. Instead, he sent a lawyer and two CUNY representatives, who attended on Zoom.

Dozens of past and present CUNY students and faculty members lined up to testify and tell their stories about pervasive harassment, discrimination, bullying and assaults that the CUNY administration blatantly refuses to address. The line was so long that the hearing went on for close to eight hours.

CUNY is a publicly funded school system that claims to protect students from ethnic/religious discrimination. The City Council hearing demonstrated that in fact, CUNY actually enables ethnic/religious discrimination against only one group – Jews.

The Chancellor’s inaction and cowardice are unacceptable. He takes a salary of $670,000 from taxpayer dollars and has yet to do his job.

Those at the meeting demanded that CUNY Chancellor Félix V. Matos Rodríguez immediately RESIGN from his public, taxpayer-funded position and have initiated a campaign to achieve that result.

Here are some astounding excerpts from that hearing.

(vide videos online)

Watch: Shocking videos of CUNY antisemitism hearing

The message from the Higher Education Committee's hearing to examine antisemitism at CUNY is that CUNY does not care about its Jews. Op-ed.

www.israelnationalnews.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

Jewish Students/Faculty Complain to American Bar Ass’n that CUNY Law School Discriminates With Pervasive “Anti-Zionist” Anti-Semitism

The complaint letter charges CUNY Law discriminates against students, faculty, other employees, and prospective students, faculty, and employees, and that the law school faculty’s recently-adopted BDS policy puts the school out of compliance with ABA req'ts. Meanwhile, NYC Council Higher Ed...

legalinsurrection.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

“I’ve never seen so much antisemitism,” Massey University Sociology Prof. Paul Spoonley told 1News. “A lot of it is fueled by far Right conspiracy groups in the United States, in particular QAnon.”

What do most New Zealanders really think about Jews? Because Jews make up just 0.2% of New Zealanders, one of the questions asked in a new survey was if most New Zealanders even knew a Jew.


“The recent global emergence of left-wing associated antisemitism creates a particular paradox,” the survey summary stated. “While most forms of discrimination are unacceptable in ‘progressive’ thinking, antisemitism does not seem to count as racism because Jews can be accused of ‘white privilege,’ despite Jews being indigenous to the Levant and often of color, and latent hatred can be hidden under a cloak of Zionophobia.”

While there is a significant proportion of New Zealanders holding antisemitic views, there is also generally a high level of warmth toward Jews. A surprising result was that almost a third (32%) said they knew a Jewish person. This compares with 88% who knew an Asian, almost half (47%) who knew a Muslim, and just over one-quarter (28%) who knew a Buddhist.

Of those surveyed, only 42% could correctly identify the number of Jewish people killed in the Holocaust, and more than a sixth (17%) said they knew virtually nothing about the Holocaust. These results mirror a 2019 poll by the Auckland Holocaust Memorial Trust, which found that only 43% of New Zealanders knew six million Jewish people were murdered in World War II.


“This shows the importance of Holocaust education in New Zealand,” the survey summary noted.

(full article online)

Jewish org in New Zealand reports sharp rise in antisemitism online

What do most New Zealanders really think about Jewish people? Since they make up just 0.2% of New Zealanders – fewer than 10,000 people according to the 2018 Census.

www.jpost.com

 

[Sixties Fan]

An advertisement for discounted liquor in a Chilean newspaper featured the antisemitic “Happy Merchant” meme. Image: Screenshot

According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the “Happy Merchant” meme “is by far the most popular antisemitic meme among white supremacists, who have created a nearly endless series of images and variants featuring it.”

The ADL observed that the meme “has become nearly ubiquitous in modern online white supremacist and antisemitic iconography. A 2018 study by scholars examining memes displayed in various online communities determined that the ‘Happy Merchant’ was among the most popular memes on both 4chan and Gab, two major online outlets for alt right expression.”

Approximately 18,000 Jews live in Chile, which is also home to the largest Palestinian diaspora outside of the Middle East. Antisemitism has been a persistent problem; during the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza in May 2021, Palestinian activists and their supporters gathered outside the Israel Embassy with signs denouncing a “Palestinian Holocaust” and accusing Israel of practicing apartheid.

Last December, the country elected a far-left president, Gabriel Boric, with a record of stinging attacks against Israel. Following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February, Boric complained that the world’s attention was focused on Moscow’s onslaught, while “Palestine has been occupied for a long time, and we do not know much about what is happening there.”

More recently, however, Palestinian activists have expressed frustration with Boric, with one academic telling a pro-Palestinian outlet that the Chilean leader had “abandoned the Middle East, he doesn’t seem to be interested or seem to care in terms of political diplomacy.”

“He has domestic issues that keep him very busy, he has plenty of fires to put out and has too much on his agenda to make room for another problem,” the academic, Jorge Araneda, added.

(full article online)

Jews in Chile Outraged by Use of Notorious Antisemitic Meme in Ad for Discount Liquor

An advertisement for discounted liquor in a Chilean newspaper featured the antisemitic “Happy Merchant” meme. Image: Screenshot Jewish community leaders …

www.algemeiner.com