Bret Stephens - intellectually superior perpetual victim

[yankeedoodle]

From Phil Giraldi:
The Intellectually Superior Perpetual Victim Again on Display
Bret Stephens tells us all about it
https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/the-intellectually-superior-perpetual-victim-again-on-display/

Those who have followed developments in the Middle East would likely agree that Israel covers up its war crimes and other human rights violations by regularly invoking its own victimhood. Whether the subject is U.S. aid to the Jewish state or media coverage of the illegal expansion of Israel into the West Bank, one will always find references to the so-called holocaust or claims of anti-Semitism to discredit any criticism. And the results of this assiduous effort to assign guilt are clearly seen as the mainstream media in both the United States and Europe exhibits considerable reluctance to report honestly on what is being done to the Palestinians while politicians in the west sometimes appear to count themselves more as "friends of Israel" than as representatives advancing the interests of their own constituents.

As defenders of all things Israeli go, there is no one more assiduous than Bret Stephens of the New York Times. He is, of course, Jewish, and was the editor of the right-wing Jerusalem Post between 2002 and 2004. The Times employs him as one of its resident conservatives, though he would be better described as a neoconservative. Stephens' recent piece entitled "California Ethnic Studies Follies" takes aim at California's controversial diversity program that is being imposed on the state's public school system.

Stephens' article is sub-headed "A proposed curriculum magnifies differences, encourages tribal loyalties and advances ideological group think." While it is clear that "Ethnic Studies," a precursor to the current Critical Race Theory and similar to programs in a number of other states, does all that and more, Stephens inevitably turns the whole argument around to the alleged victimization of own highly privileged caste, i.e. American Jews.

Stephens gets into it immediately, beginning his piece with "The first time California's Department of Education published a draft of an ethnic studies 'model curriculum' for high school students, in 2019, it managed the neat trick of omitting anti-Semitism while committing it. More than a million Jews live in California. They are also among the state's leading victims of hate crimes.

"Yet in a lengthy draft otherwise rich with references to various forms of bigotry, there was no mention of bigotry toward Jews. There was, however, an endorsement of the Boycott, Divest and Sanction [BDS] movement, which essentially calls for the elimination of the Jewish state. There was also an approving mention of a Palestinian singer rapping that Israelis 'use the press so they can manufacture' — the old refrain that lying Jews control the media.

"The draft outraged many Jews. And they were joined by Armenian, Assyrian, Hellenic, Hindu and Korean civic groups in a statement urging the California Department of Education to 'completely redraft the curriculum.' In its original form, they said, the document was 'replete with mischaracterizations and omissions of major California ethnoreligious groups.'

"Last September, Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would mandate ethnic studies as a graduation requirement in California's high schools, pending further review of the model curriculum. While some maintained that a critical ethnic studies curriculum was a mistake, and not just for Jews, others took the view that, when it came to those revisions, it was better to be at the table than on it. Progressive Jews helped redraft a curriculum that included two sample lessons on the Jewish-American experience, along with testimonials about Jewishness from the likes of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Dianne Feinstein. A victory? One can still quarrel with the curriculum's tendentiously racialized view of the American-Jewish experience. But at least the anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist dog whistles have been taken out and the history of anti-Semitism has been put in."

To be sure, Stephens makes some good points about how the California program, which is again going to be voted on by the Board of Education later this month, is indoctrination and not education. But Stephens is also blind to the reality of what constitutes political power in the United States. He observes that the Irish, Poles and Italians apparently do not need to be supported by inclusion in an Ethnic Studies program while he simultaneously accepts that if there is such a thing Jews have to be carefully protected by it. And based on some of his other articles, his view of his own ethnicity seems to go well beyond that and is flattering to him and those who agree with his apparent view that that Ashkenazi Jews are intellectually and genetically superior to other groups.

One can only imagine what the reaction would have been if Stephens had written instead that whites are superior to blacks. And the points that Stephens raises in support of revising the California document to highlight both Jewish suffering and achievements are, of course, extremely self-serving. They are also deliberately deceptive. Yes, Jews have been "victims" of so-called "hate crimes" but the crimes themselves are very rarely violent. It has been demonstrated that many recent so-called anti-Semitic attacks on Jews involve easily recognizable Hasidic Jews and are actually based on community tensions as established neighborhoods are experiencing dramatic changes with the newcomers using pressure tactics to force out existing residents. And after the Hasidim take over a town or neighborhood, they defund local schools to support their own private academies and frequently engage in large scale welfare and other social services fraud to permit them to spend all their days studying the Talmud, which, inter alia teaches that gentiles are no better than beasts fit only to serve Jews.

Much more often "hate crimes" against Jews consist of graffiti or reaction to criticism of Israel for its brutal suppression of the Palestinians. Indeed, there are now organizations at universities like Canary Mission funded by Jewish oligarchs which encourage Jewish students to claim damages from critics while also "exposing them" on campus on behalf of Israel. A Jewish student walking on a college campus who passes by protesters objecting to Israel's behavior can claim to feel threatened and the incident is recorded as anti-Semitism, for example, and slurs written on the sides of buildings or grave stones, not necessarily the work of Jew-haters, are similarly categorized. In one case in Israel in 2017, the two street swastika artists were Jews.

One is surprised that Stephens does not raise the issue of the "libel" of "Jews and money," as if the Republicans actually loved a repulsive toad like Sheldon Adelson, who was dedicated to promoting Israeli interests, and bought the GOP foreign policy for $100 million. And Stephens is way over the top when it comes to characterizing BDS as a hate group that seeks to the "eliminate the Jewish state." The group is explicitly non-violent and does in fact have significant liberal Jewish membership. It seeks to use economic pressure to compel Israel to behave better towards the Palestinians, similar to what produced change in apartheid South Africa.

But the most interesting aspect of the Stephens piece is the demand that Jews be universally recognized for their unique suffering. He considers it a libel when one maintains that Jews control the media...has he looked around the newsrooms at his own paper, the Washington Post, CNN, CBS and MSNBC lately? And as for bigotry and discrimination, how about consideration of the fact that Jews run Hollywood and the entertainment industry, are the wealthiest and best educated demographic in the country, are grossly disproportionate in high status and high pay jobs, and hold many of the top positions in the Biden Administration. Authorities like Professor Alan Dershowitz are quite outspoken in their praise of Jewish power in the United States. And Jewish organizations already receive more than 90% of the discretionary funding from the Department of Homeland Security to "protect themselves." American Jews hardly seem to constitute a minority that needs more consideration and breaks because it is under siege, so when will Stephens stop whining?

And as for the claim of widespread anti-Semitism, one recalls the comment by former Israeli Education Minister Shulamit Aloni, speaking about calling critics anti-Semites. She said "Well, it's a trick, we always use it. When from Europe somebody is criticizing Israel, then we bring up the Holocaust. When in this country people are criticizing Israel, then they are anti-Semitic. And the organization is strong, and has a lot of money, and the ties between Israel and the American Jewish establishment are very strong and they are strong in this country, as you know. And they have power, which is okay. They are talented people and they have power and money, and the media and other things, and their attitude is 'Israel, my country right or wrong,' identification. And they are not ready to hear criticism. And it's very easy to blame people who criticize certain acts of the Israeli government as anti-Semitic, and to bring up the Holocaust, and the suffering of the Jewish people, and that is to justify everything we do to the Palestinians."

Shulamit Aloni has described Bret Stephens and the political culture that he comes out of. Criticizing Israel or the sometimes predatory behavior of American Jews is one of the few remaining total taboos in America. One marvels at the recent account of a basketball player who apparently blurted out the word "kike" while engaged in a video game. Even though he apparently did not know that the word referred in derogatory fashion to Jews, he was suspended by his team and fined $50,000 by Adam Silver the NBA commissioner. Does anyone seriously believe that if he had said "Wop," "Mick," "Spick" or "Polack" he would have been punished at all? He was also required to publicly express contrition and forced to go through a counseling session with a representative from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which is, if I might be so bold as to suggest, the U.S. based enforcement arm of the powerful Israel Lobby.

[yankeedoodle]

Z3 Project Presents: Bret Stephens
https://www.jta.org/2021/12/02/israel/z3-project-presents-bret-stephens

Bret Stephens isn't just a political affairs columnist at the world's most famous newspaper. He's a Pulitzer Prize-winning opinion writer whose conservative views put him at odds with his employers and colleagues at The New York Times.

That's fine by Stephens, who is comfortable running against the tide. A Mexico-raised grandchild of European Jewish refugees, Stephens cut his chops at The Wall Street Journal, then moved to Israel in the early 2000s to take the post of editor in chief of the Jerusalem Post — all while he was still in his 20s. After he moved back to the United States to return to the Journal, this time on the editorial page, in 2013 he earned a Pulitzer in commentary "for his incisive columns on American foreign policy and domestic politics, often enlivened by a contrarian twist."

Today, Stephens, 48 and a father of three, is deepening his involvement in the Jewish community. In addition to his job at the Times, he is the editor in chief of the new Jewish quarterly Sapir, a publication of the Maimonides Fund that seeks to explore "the future of the American Jewish community and its intersection with cultural, social, and political issues."

Stephens is a speaker and participant in the Z3 2021 Futures Workshop, which explores new ways for Israel and Diaspora Jewry to reimagine their relationship. Ahead of his Z3 appearance, Stephens talked with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency about why wokeness should be seen as a threat by American Jewry, what President Trump got right about Israel while also putting the U.S.-Israel relationship at risk, and what stories about Israel are being missed by mainstream media.

This is a condensed version of that conversation with him.

A Pew survey released in May found that only 40% of Reform Jews and 58% of Conservative Jews feel very or somewhat attached to Israel (compared with 82% of Orthodox). The trend lines seem clear. What's the argument for why American Jews should care about Israel?

I don't think there's a future for American Jewry in the absence of a secure and prosperous Jewish state. Israel has single handedly resurrected Jewish civilization and culture in a way that would have been difficult if not impossible in the absence of Israel. As evidence, just look at the opposite trajectories of Yiddish vs. Hebrew, the Jewish language of the Diaspora vs. the Jewish language of its national homeland. Second, the notable increase in antisemitism in our age of supposed tolerance, pluralism, enlightenment and wokeness is another reminder that life in the Diaspora is never going to be fully secure — and is increasingly less secure, less comfortable, and less bright.

I am seriously concerned, especially by that number you cited about Reform Jews. The argument seems to be that Israel has gone from being a pole of attraction to a pole of repulsion, if not revulsion, for American Jews. I'm not buying that. Maybe it's lost its magnetism for a lot of Reform Jews, but I don't think it's become a pole of revulsion, except in the most vocal corners of the Jewish extreme.

There's no question that there are zones of ideological intimidation, notably on college campuses, and that's obviously hugely concerning — most of all, because those campuses are supposed to be zones of thoughtful free expression. It's concerning from a Jewish point of view but also from the point of view of the state of American liberalism. But whatever the far left is doing clearly isn't working, and the evidence comes in that happily lopsided vote in Congress for Iron Dome funding. Boy, was the progressive caucus ever shut down — not by Republicans but by mainstream Democrats.

So much Jewish philanthropic money goes into trying to shore up the relationship between American Jews and Israel. Is this money well spent? How could we be doing better?

You have to compare North American Jewish attachment to Israel to the attachment of other American immigrant groups to their respective homelands. The Irish in America are less attached to Ireland, and the Germans in America to Germany, than American Jews to Israel. I think many of the programs have been pretty successful. Birthright has been widely successful, on the whole, as a program that has awakened an attachment to Israel in the lives of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of young Jews who would otherwise see Israel as a distant cousin in a faraway place. The caliber of American Jewish leadership may be higher today than in generations past because of those connections to Israel. Are there programs that fail? Of course. That's in the nature of philanthropy.

Much is written about the Israel-Diaspora relationships. In your view, are there any underreported themes/stories worth exploring?

People forget that Israel ranks 11th on the list of the world's happiest countries. You would scarcely know it. This little country — which demands more of its citizens than nearly any other democracy in the world, that arguably is in greater danger for war or even extinction than any other democracy in the world — manages to produce a remarkably happy group of people. Why is that? What explains that? It goes beyond the question of what Israel provides its citizens in terms of material well-being.

I think it has to do something about the nature of national purpose. Happiness, I think, is connected to a concept of purpose in life, and Israel is one of those countries in which purpose comes preprogrammed. That's not true in the United States or most of Europe. If you're born in Paris or Omaha or Toronto, what's your purpose? You kind of have to figure it out. Concepts of civic duty are so attenuated.

That's not the case in Israel. Israel is a country that has managed to marry a politics of purpose with a reasonably free society. That's quite incredible, all the more so in this day and age.

You've been a consistent critic of Donald Trump, though you've praised some of the positions he took as president. He's called himself the best president ever for Israel. Do you agree? How would you rate his performance?

I agreed with a lot of the policy, and I always said so. I believe in giving any president credit where credit is due. Moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, withdrawing from the JCPOA, recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, the historic achievement of the Abraham Accords — I praised every one of those.

But I also had deep misgivings that go beyond the question of policy and go to ideology and character. Ideologically speaking, the America First principle is antithetical to Israel's interest in an engaged, internationalist America. Under America First, U.S. interests always take precedence, in a zero-sum game between America and the rest of the world. That sort of truculent nationalism in the long term is a deep threat to Israel, which counts on America having a sense of global engagement and support for the free world, standing for freedom and democracy and liberalism and values.

Under Trump there was an Israel exception to the America First rule. But would there be an exception like that under a Rand Paul presidency? Trump strikes me as a man who has no sense of loyalty. So he was pro-Israel, maybe because his favorite daughter married a Jew. Good thing his favorite daughter didn't marry an antisemite. Good thing the son-in-law didn't do something to irk him. Trump's pro-Israel line did not feel principled. I balance my praise for much of the policy with an abiding suspicion of and concern about the nature of the thinking that went into the policy.

How's President Biden doing on Israel?

He's doing better than Obama. I think Biden has the good sense to realize that the United States has more important priorities than trying to roll the Sisyphian ball up the hill known as a Palestinian state. He at least has not undermined the Abraham Accords. I can't register any major complaints about the Biden administration on that count. On other accounts, yes.

How much do you think intersectionality, wokeness and cancel culture threaten the Israel-US Jewish relationship?

I think it threatens American Jews. I think wokeness is a real threat to a thriving American Jewish life. No. 1, it's attempting to make race the primary form of identity in American life in a way that is anathema to Jewish experience and tradition. We are being shunted into a racial category which many of us don't recognize as our own and deprived of the uniqueness of our particularistic ethnic and religious experience.

No. 2, it is trying to change the nature of success in America to a function of what it calls privilege. Jews have thrived in the United States because in America success was admired and emulated, whereas in Europe Jewish success was envied and hated. That's why America was such a great deal for American Jews. Wokeness threatens that.

A third aspect is that wokeness insists on a kind of intellectual and moral conformity which also is anathema to the Jewish American tradition of impishness, irreverence, dissent, activism. To the extent that Jews have made their mark intellectually as a people that takes a contrary view, wokeness really threatens that and potentially undermines it.

Wokeness has to be a central concern of every major Jewish American organization, because it's not a liberal ideology; it's a totalitarian ideology posing as a progressive ideology. Even if it's not overtly antisemitic, it has a remarkable way of sliding into antisemitism, which you see again and again. It's almost uniformly, virulently anti-Zionist — if you want to make a distinction between antisemitism and anti-Zionism. I think this has to be a front-and-center concern of Jewish leadership and organization life. Not only is it a threat to the liberal ethos writ large, but a threat to Jewish thriving within that liberal ethos.

What are some the insights/perspective you gained form your experience living in Israel and running the Jerusalem Post that you might not have picked up on had you stayed in America?

Well, I certainly learned how Israelis can simultaneously be both the most delightful and infuriating people on earth — said with affection. I learned what national resilience is all about. I lived down the street from Café Moment in Jerusalem. My wife was supposed to be in the café the night it blew up (in March 2002), when 11 people were murdered and rivers of blood flowed down the incline of Azza Street. We used to go to Café Hillel in Jerusalem's German Colony all the time. We were lucky we weren't there the day it blew up (in September 2003). And every single time Israel picked itself up. That to me is an indelible lesson for life as it should be lived.

Has it been difficult being a conservative journalist at America's most famous liberal paper? What about your experience at The New York Times has surprised you?

It is always challenging to be the fish swimming in the opposite direction, at any institution. It was challenging to be the Never Trumper in the News Corp family, and it is sometimes challenging to be the more conservative voice in a broadly liberal institution. Fortunately, I'm a born contrarian, so it kind of aligns with my personality. The biggest surprise is the extraordinary reach of The New York Times. I didn't fully appreciate it until I joined the Times. The rest of American journalism feels like islands at the edge of a continent, and that continent is the Times.

You are the editor of Sapir, a new quarterly journal of Jewish ideas published by the Maimonides Fund. How's that going, and what's the theme of the next one?

It's now a permanent thing. We started with the idea of four issues on four big topics. We've done social justice, power, and continuity, and the theme of the next one is aspiration. The fifth issue will probably be about Zionism. We've had a good response. A lot of people have said to us: We needed this.

We're trying to do something that's a little bit different from other Jewish publications. We are trying to stress the prescriptive end of issues — the 'What do we do about this' side of things. It's not meant to be simply another catalogue of Jewish lament. It's meant to be a handbook for Jewish action. Second, we are not looking for a mass audience. We are looking for an influential audience. We are interested in getting this into the hands of people who can make things happen, in finding ways to bring together thought leaders with doers in the philanthropic and organized Jewish world.

I'm not trying to put together a right-wing journal or stamp it with my own brand of politics. You will find voices like Benny Morris, Anshel Pfeffer and others who are unmistakably on the left in our pages, and I'm very proud of that fact. We want this to be a conversation, and you can't have a conversation where everyone is singing from the same song sheet.

[abduLMaria]

The Jew Cries Out in Pain as He Strikes You.