Feed aggregator

Le propos qui suit s'intéresse à ce que peut faire un décideur public pour favoriser une souveraineté numérique. En réfléchissant à la notion de géopolitique du numérique et de ses conséquences sur la France, un des mots clefs paraît être celui de souveraineté. Or, il est intéressant que ce substantif qui, dans une conception classique, était absolu (la souveraineté) s’est vu ajouter des adjectifs : celui de souveraineté numérique (à la suite d’un débat lancé au début des années 2010 par Pierre Bellanger et devenu aujourd’hui commun) mais aussi celui de souveraineté économique, lui aussi ancien : cependant, il était réservé à une certaine partie de l’échiquier politique et il a vu son emploi élargi à la suite de la pandémie de Covid 19, quand  l’opinion s’est rendu compte de la dépendance industrielle de l’Europe envers la Chine.

Source

Quelques rappels sur la souveraineté

A l’origine, la souveraineté est un mot issu de la philosophie politique classique. Le terme a traversé les siècles pour reprendre en France un nouveau relief au cours de la seconde partie du XXe siècle. En effet, il est très lié à la puissance et le débat autour de cette notion de souveraineté est typiquement français et continue de contribuer à l’exception française. Entre la France première puissance militaire à la sortie de la 1GM (regardons ici le défilé de la victoire en 1919) et le désastre de 1940, la France a connu les extrêmes de la puissance. Ce traumatisme traverse le XXe siècle, d’autant qu’il a été renforcé par les échecs des guerres de décolonisation et de l’intervention de Suez en 1956.

Aussi le discours sur la souveraineté croise-t-il deux autres thèmes : celui de l’indépendance (qui est très proche de la souveraineté) et celui de la puissance. Ces trois mots font partie de l’ADN des armées dont c’est au fond une mission principale. Le général de Gaulle a réussi à construire un discours sur l’indépendance qui a convaincu une majorité de Français (souvenons-nos toutefois qu’il était très controversé en son temps et que l’unanimité que son nom rencontre aujourd’hui est largement posthume). L’indépendance a été assurée par une autre décision, celle de devenir une puissance nucléaire (décision prise, toutefois, sous la fin de la IVe République), mise en œuvre par l’armée. Au fond, l’armée nouvelle voulue par De Gaulle est celle qui permet d’assurer militairement l’indépendance du pays. Le consensus bâti autour du nucléaire en résulte.

Mais l’indépendance, sous le mot de souveraineté, a aussi été soulignée dans les institutions. Sans parler de la coutume constitutionnelle qui attribue un domaine réservé au Président de la République, observons que le mot de souveraineté est régulièrement employé dans la Constitution : tout d’abord, la souveraineté émane du peuple et c’est sur cette souveraineté populaire qu’est fondée notre démocratie. Mais la souveraineté est aussi la souveraineté extérieure (l’autre face de la souveraineté populaire) et rejoint en ce sens l’indépendance.

Insistons : dans cette conception originelle, la souveraineté est donc d’abord politique et repose sur des moyens militaires pour être garantie. Et puisque nous nous intéressons au numérique en général et au cyber en particulier, examinons plus précisément la question de la souveraineté numérique.

Critères de décision de la souveraineté numérique

A la différence de l’espace physique sur lequel repose la conception traditionnelle de la souveraineté (qui s’entend sur un territoire, celui-ci étant un espace occupé par ses habitants qui en revendiquent l’occupation), le cyberespace n’a pas de limites physiques évidentes. Cela ne signifie pas qu’il n’a pas de limites physiques, simplement qu’elles sont difficiles à appréhender. Aussi, pour les besoins de l’analyse, il nous semble qu’il faille considérer la souveraineté selon les trois couches du cyberespace : couche physique, couche logique, couche sémantique.

De même, il convient de s’interroger sur l’échelle pertinente : s’agit-il de l’échelle française ? de l’échelle européenne ? d’une éventuelle échelle occidentale ? Autrement dit encore, quel niveau d’interdépendance est -on prêt à accepter ? Or, le cyberespace ne bénéficie pas de l’arme ultime (la silver bullet) qui marche à tout coups et assure à son détenteur un pouvoir de destruction imparable sur son adversaire. C’est bien pour cela que tous les discours sur la cyberdissuasion nous paraissent reposer sur une compréhension erronée tant de la dissuasion nucléaire que de la nature du cyberespace et de la conflictualité qui s’y déroule. Dans le monde classique, celui de la souveraineté, l’arme nucléaire a apporté à la France ce qu’elle avait perdu : l’assurance de pouvoir éviter le désastre de 1940, ce qu’elle avait vainement essayer de chercher entre les deux guerres avec la ligne Maginot.

Cela signifie que dans le cyberespace, une sécurité absolue paraît impossible. Ce qui semble invalider la possibilité d’une action seulement solitaire : plus exactement, le traitement de la souveraineté cyber suppose de savoir étager ce qui reste de la responsabilité absolue de l‘échelon national. Cela ne peut être qu’un domaine réduit en volume (peu d’informations à protéger) aussi à cause des moyens nécessaire à mettre en œuvre pour assurer cette protection maximale. Nous sommes alors au cœur de souveraineté et la souveraineté militaire doit obtenir tous les moyens pour l’atteindre. Hormis ce petit échelon national, la question se pose alors de ce que l’on doit protéger en plus (quel périmètre) donc de ce qu’on doit partager relativement (quels moyens).

A titre d’exemple : faut-il conserver en France, en Europe, en Occident, une capacité de fabrication de semi-conducteurs les plus avancés ? si oui, quel en est le modèle économique ? S’il s’agit (c’est probable) d’un bien dual, comment s’assurer que ledit produit rencontre la faveur du public tout en étant rentable ? L’exemple choisi appartient à la couche physique mais on pourrait à l’envi reproduire le raisonnement sur les autres couches, en articulant le besoin, l’échelon géographique pertinent et l’équilibre économique. Il faut ici se méfier de nos visions colbertistes qui ont quand même, en matière de technologie, produits assez d’échecs pour que nous nous méfions de nous-mêmes. Mais l’on voit bien que ces questions sortent du champ de responsabilité du décideur militaire qui peut difficilement les influencer.

Enfin, une troisième série de facteurs vient compliquer l’analyse, il s’agit des évolutions technologiques. Une culture d’ingénieur aurait tendance à ne voir ici que de la science. Or, dans le numérique, ne considérer que les aspects techniques risque souvent d’aboutir à l’échec. Le minitel fut une belle aventure rencontrant un vrai succès populaire, mais sa conception centralisée ne résista pas à l’architecture décentralisée proposée par les Américains. Or, nous avions les ingénieurs (je pense à Louis Pouzin) qui avaient proposé et mis au point cette architecture décentralisée. Ainsi donc, l’innovation est aussi, forcément, une innovation d’usage. On peut mentionner les beaux mots de 5G, de quantique, d’IA, de blockchain, si on n’anticipe pas les usages on court à l’échec. La veille ne doit donc pas être seulement technologique, elle doit s’intéresser aux usages….

L’équation est donc extrêmement difficile. Plus exactement, une fois qu’on a défini le périmètre à défendre absolument, (le cœur de souveraineté que j’évoquais à l’instant), il va falloir travailler pour la sécurité du reste avec un oxymore : une souveraineté relative. Les politistes ont choisi des mots compliqués pour essayer de rendre ce paradoxe : interdépendance, autonomie stratégique, etc… Ce n’est pas très convaincant, d’autant que le décideur en dernier ressort fixera peu de directions claires.

Ici, il me semble qu’une boucle OODA est appropriée. Attention toutefois à ne pas vouloir l’accélérer car la vitesse ne nous semble pas le critère le plus pertinent. Mais il s’agit bien d’organiser une veille (orientation et observation) qui permette d’identifier (dans les trois couches) les points sensibles. Quel serait le critère de la sensibilité ?

• Cette innovation affecte-t-elle le cœur de souveraineté ?
• Si oui, comment y suppléé-je ?
• Sinon, est-elle suffisamment sensible pour que j’envisage de nouer des partenariats plus ou moins approfondis avec tel ou tel acteur ?

Nous voici ici au D de décider. La veille pour la veille n’est pas utile, la veille doit être effectuée aux fins d’action. Le chef doit exiger des comptes-rendus réguliers de la veille mais aussi des propositions de décision associées. C’est d’ailleurs pour cela aussi qu’il ne faut pas accélérer le rythme de la boucle OODA (contrairement à l’intuition de John Boyd). Ce processus est récurrent (à la différence de la bataille qui est temporaire) et il faut suivre le temps du chef (et donc ses disponibilités). La boucle OODA doit ici être lente.

L’action vient ensuite (là encore, la nécessité de l’action signifie que les points de veille ne doivent pas être trop rapprochés). Elle doit être suivie et surtout évaluée, car de ses résultats dépendent l’orientation du cycle suivant. Il faut donc des critères d’évaluation associés à chaque décision. Ces critères permettront de relancer la boucle sur le prochain cycle.

En conclusion, la souveraineté numérique semble impossible à atteindre (sauf pour un cœur très limité de cybersouveraineté nationale). On doit donc décider d’une souveraineté relative, tout paradoxale que soit l’expression. Cela suppose un dispositif de veille mais qui soit articulé sur des décisions, notamment de partage avec des alliés, dûment choisis et évalués.

O. Kempf

Dans le cadre du dossier annuel d'ER, voici un premier artticle pour cette année. J'ai un peu l'intention de revenir plus souvent... Il faut juste que je trouve le temps....

Thomas (ici) a en effet parcouru le vocabulaire militaire que notre confinement actuel pouvait évoquer : blocus, embargo, endiguement, autant de termes opératifs qui renvoient à notre expérience présente. A un détail près cependant : notre confinement n’a rien de militaire. On peut certes évoquer les hôpitaux de campagne qui ont été mis en œuvre, les liaisons aériennes par hélicoptères ou kits Morphée, les quelques PHA mis en alerte au profit des DOM-COM mais finalement, l’outil militaire a été peu utilisé. Certes, il faudrait aussi évoquer les conséquences opérationnelles du confinement sur les forces : entre les cas qui se sont déclarés sur le Charles de Gaulle ou sur le bâtiment américain Théodore Roosevelt au printemps, ou les mesures de confinement ajoutées à la préparation opérationnelle avant les Opex (ou au retour d’Opex). Rien là finalement qui n’attire l’intérêt au-delà des spécialistes.

 

Source

Mais du coup, si l’on réfléchissait en termes de grande stratégie, celle qui est au-dessus de la stratégie militaire, celle que doit conduire le stratège politique qui préside aux destinées de la Nation ? Voyons cela...

Les pays fermés

Car le confinement est une stratégie qui peut se décider pour des raisons politiques et pas seulement sanitaires. Deux exemples viennent à l’esprit : la Corée du Nord et le Turkménistan.

Le cas de la Corée du nord est le plus connu. Pyong-Yang a en effet décidé de fermer ses frontières avec l’extérieur et de ne pas autoriser la libre circulation de ses citoyens à l’extérieur, et même à l’intérieur du pays. Mais l’expression de « royaume ermite », utilisée souvent pour désigner le pays, s’applique en fait à toute la péninsule, tant elle a été prise en tenaille entre de multiples puissances expansionnistes : Chine, Japon et Russie, traditionnellement. Depuis le XVIIe siècle, face à tant d’invasions, la Corée se ferme et se méfie de tout ce qui est étranger. En fait, la dynastie Kim reprend une vieille tradition coréenne. Dès lors, malgré l’ouverture de quelques zones franches, le pays vit refermé sur lui-même, ce qui constitue un de ses piliers géopolitiques.

Le Turkménistan est moins connu. A la suite de l’éclatement de l’URSS, le pays devient indépendant sous la houlette d’un dictateur, Saparmurat Niazov (qui meurt en 2006). Ce « Turkmenbachi » (père des Turkmènes) conduit une politique d’indépendance nationale autour de la langue turkmène, à la fois pour se dégager de l’influence russe et pour dépasser la structure tribale de la société. Cependant, malgré d’énormes richesses en hydrocarbures qui en font un eldorado gazier et constituent l’essentiel de ses relations extérieures, le pays s’enferme. Membre à l’origine de la Communauté des Etats indépendants qui a succédé à l’URSS, il en devient un simple « membre associé », afin de manifester une neutralité officielle. Dès lors, la population, jeune et endoctrinée par l’éducation du régime (autour du livre Ruhnama écrit par Niazov et qui a officiellement autant de valeur que le Coran), se voit interdire toute relation avec l’extérieur. Le système est donc moins dur que celui de Corée du Nord, le pays est plus riche grâce au pétrole, mais il reste enclavé et très distant envers toute communication étrangère.

Les pays murés

Une autre forme de confinement consiste à dresser des murs, des clôtures et des barrières à ses frontières. Certaines sont très anciennes (que l’on pense justement à la DMZ entre les deux Corées, qui date de 1953), d’autres bien plus contemporaines, pour des motifs divers. Constatons qu’en ces temps de mondialisation, donc d’ouverture, les murs et clôtures se multiplient, comme s’ils étaient une externalité de cette mondialisation.

Ils ont différentes formes et ne ressemblent pas tous à l’accumulation de grillages autour des présides de Ceuta et Melilla : ainsi, une marche peut constituer une telle barrière : un espace avec un obstacle naturel (ou pas) mais surtout aucun point de franchissement, manifestant la volonté des deux pays de ne pas échanger : par exemple la marche entre Panama et Colombie, ou celle entre Papouasie et Indonésie. De simples grillages peuvent suffire, comme entre Botswana et Zimbabwe (le Botswana a d’ailleurs invoqué des raisons sanitaires pour justifier, en 2003, l’érection de cette barrière électrifiée). Enfin, de véritables ouvrages avec beaucoup de technologie peuvent s’élever, comme aux frontières du Koweït ou celle d’Arabie Séoudite.

Il est vrai que la plupart de ces murs sont destinés à empêcher l’autre de venir. La barrière est alors tournée vers l’extérieur, créant deux zones : une qui serait « protégée », l’autre qui serait ouverte à tout vent. Le discours sanitaire est sous-jacent car l’autre est censé apporter avec lui bien des inconvénients dont on ne veut pas. L’autre est synonyme de danger. Ce peut être pour des raisons de contrebande (motif invoqué par le sultanat de Brunei face à la Malaisie orientale, ou par l’Inde face au Bengladesh), sécuritaires (Chine, Thaïlande, Ouzbékistan, Iran, Maroc) et bien sûr l’immigration (multiples exemples).

Des pays ouverts utilisent largement ces dispositifs : que l’on pense à l’Union Européenne et son dispositif Schengen (avec des zones très équipées, par exemple en Thrace), aux États-Unis (D. Trump a attiré l’attention sur cette barrière qui restait à terminer d’ériger) et bien sûr à Israël, qui a dressé un véritable mur de plusieurs mètres de haut à l’intérieur de son pays pour se séparer des zones officiellement attribuées à l’autorité palestinienne.

La barrière est un moyen de « réduire le risque », notre société contemporaine manifestant une aversion maximale au risque. De ce point de vue, elle obtient l’assentiment de la population qui y voit l’affirmation d’une souveraineté perçue comme menacée. Mais dans un certain nombre de conflits gelés, la barrière peut aussi constituer un signe d’apaisement permettant l’ouverture de négociation. Aussi bien, la barrière n’est pas aussi rigide que certains la présentent souvent. Elle est d’ailleurs efficace à court terme mais elle perd son usage dans le temps. Car l’étanchéité des murs paraît hypothétique notamment sur de longues distances. Élever une barrière ne suffit pas : il faut la surveiller, l’entretenir, être en mesure d’intervenir en cas de problèmes et de repousser « l’autre » qui voudrait passer en force. Autant de moyens humains qui sont indispensables et qui supposent des ressources constantes, rarement allouées dans la durée.

Confinements intérieurs

Dernier exemple de confinement stratégique, celui du confinement intérieur. Il peut affecter une population entière : la pandémie de 2020 nous a montré comment. Plus habituellement, il concerne certains espaces ou certaines catégories de la population.

On peut bien sûr penser aux zones réservées pour des motifs sécuritaires, telles les zones militaires (aux statuts divers, de la simple zone protégée aux zones sous haute surveillance) mais aussi les centrales nucléaires ou autres emprises Seveso. Nous sommes ici à cheval entre des motifs régaliens et des considérations de sécurité publique, sans même parler des clôtures particulières destinées à protéger la propriété privée. Mais au-delà de ces cas courants, il y a des confinements exceptionnels.

Le cas d’Israël construisant un mur intérieur le long de la ligne verte est symptomatique de ce confinement intérieur des espaces. N’oublions pas non plus les dispositifs d’apartheid comme ceux qu’a connu l’Afrique du sud.

Deux autres phénomènes existent, assez proches et admis socialement. D’une part, les zones d’accueil des gens du voyage, disposées partout sur le territoire. Les gens du voyage ont mauvaise réputation, précisément parce qu’ils n’ont pas de domicile fixe. A défaut d’un passeport individuel retraçant leur itinéraire sur le territoire, les autorités ont mis en place des obligations d’accueil géographique aux alentours des agglomérations. Autre phénomène, celui des « parcos », qui désignent en Italie ces regroupements de maisons entourées et gardées pour des raisons de sécurité. Le phénomène se répand notamment aux États-Unis, sous le nom de gated communities (quartier résidentiel fermé). Ces deux exemples retracent les phénomènes observés aux frontières extérieures. Le premier vise à cantonner les extérieurs dans des enceintes réservées (des sortes de frontières intérieures), quand le second vise à se protéger soi-même de l’extérieur en s’isolant. Dans un cas, le confiné est reflué dans l’espace clos, dans l’autre, l’espace clos sert à protéger le confiné.

Ainsi, le confinement constitue une stratégie générale visant à isoler deux populations, l’une « saine », l’autre « dangereuse ». Finalement, il constitue un outil courant permettant de séparer « le même » de « l’autre ». Il s’applique aussi bien aux frontières extérieures, soit qu’il faille empêcher la population de sortir, soit d’empêcher l’étranger d’entrer. Mais le phénomène existe aussi à l’intérieur, avec des sortes de confinements temporaires ou durables, permettant de confiner relativement telle ou telle population.

De ce point de vue, la situation que nous avons connue avec la pandémie et les confinements nationaux mis en place est extraordinaire, au sens premier du mot : En effet, il ne s’agit pas simplement d’empêcher la population de sortir du pays, mais tout simplement de limiter ses déplacements à l’intérieur du pays, à l’encontre d’une liberté de circulation qui apparaissait traditionnellement comme une liberté publique intangible.

Olivier Kempf

Voici une BD qui vaut le détour par deux thèmes rarement traités en BD : la RDA (République Démocratique d'Allemagne) d'une part, la géopolitique du football d'autre part.

L'histoire est assez simple : deux frères (le plus vieux à peine adolescent) s'échappent de la chute de Berlin en 1945. Un peu plus tard, ils se font recruter par la STasi, l'agence d'espionnage du nouveau régime communiste est-allemand. Ce sont de bons éléments au point que l'un d'eux est envoyé en "immersion" dans le pays d'en face, la RFA. Il devient membre de l'équipe nationale de football. Son petit frère reste lui au pays et encadre l'équipe nationale de RDA. Mais les deux équipes vont se rencontrer en match de poule dans un affrontement fratricide et hautement politique. Quelles attitudes vont-ils tenir, alors qu'ils ne se sont pas vus depuis dix ans ?

J'ai beaucoup apprécié, le déroulé de l'histoire, qui mêle de façon harmonieuse le débat affectif et politique entre les deux frères mais aussi leurs relations avec leur hiérarchie et surtout, tout l'environnement de l'époque, celui des deux équipes et celui de la société ouest-allemande. C'est parfaitement troussé et on s'interroge jusqu'au bout de ce qui va advenir, aussi bine pour le match de foot que pour le destin de chacun.

Comme tout roman graphique, le dessin est bien fait sans être trop léché, mais pas pour autant négligé. On reconnait notamment très bien les portraits. Pour les amateurs de football, voir Beckenbauer en fayot intransigeant et Paul Breitner en militant gauchiste est un moment succulent (que je ne connaissais pas....

Enfin, cette page d'histoire qui intervient au moment de la détente et juste après l'Ost-Politiik est si rarement traitée en BD qu'elle vaut à elle seule le détour. Dernier point : c'est aussi un voyage à l'intérieur des mécanismes de la Stasi (mais sur ce sujet, il y a plusieurs films qui sont sortis, vous les connaissez sans doute).

Bref, bonne idée de cadeau pour Noël si vous avez un proche amateur de politique et de football... Ou seulement amateur de BD, d'ailleurs;

O. Kempf

This past election, once again the perpetual question that inevitably came up was about 'the Jewish vote': which candidate won it -- and why does it even matter? The Democrats consistently brag that they own the Jewish vote, while the Republicans just keep on claiming that they are just on the verge of acquiring it.
This bipartisan fight over the Jewish vote can be traced back to Herbert Hoover.
In their 2012 book "Herbert Hoover and The Jews," Rafael Medoff and Sonja Wentling, propose that the Jewish vote became a thing in the leadup to the 1944 presidential election, when Roosevelt ran for his 4th term, against Thomas Dewey. 
A review of that book notes that in contrast to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, it was Hoover -- 10 years after he was voted out of office -- who stood up for European Jews. Hoover publicly advocated for the US to open its doors to Jewish refugees and repeatedly spoke out for Jews during the Holocaust years.
The book also reveals that although, at the time, Rabbi Stephen Wise and the Jewish leadership were wary of Republican politicians in general and of Hoover in particular, Republicans such as Hoover himself, Senator Robert Taft and Congresswoman Clare Boothe Luce espoused strongly pro-Zionist and pro-rescue planks that were incorporated into the Republican convention’s 1944 platform. Only this threat to their monopoly of the “Jewish vote,” Medoff and Wentling argue, forced FDR and the Democrats to adopt similar planks, which have ever since remained unshakable for both parties. [emphasis added] But why would anyone ever bother with the Jewish vote to begin with? After all, for a voting bloc, there is not a lot to recommend it:

• Jews are about 1.5% of the American population o That percentage is about half of what it was 50 years ago
• And this percentage is continuing to shrink
• As a bloc, it is not even unified -- with religious Jews tending to vote Republican and non-religious voting Democratic
• While the vast majority of Jews support Israel, come election time Israel does not rank as a major issue

So what is the big deal?
In a 2016 video, Jonathan Sarna, a professor of American Jewish history at Brandeis, listed some of the reasons why politicians vie over the Jewish vote, even despite its small size:

• Despite their small numbers, Jews turn out to vote in high numbers -- according to one estimate, 85% of all eligible Jews vote in presidential elections o Jews historically contribute large amounts of money to political parties -- both Democratic and Republican.
• Jews happen to live in key states that presidential candidates want to carry, such as Florida
• There are indications that the Democratic party is moving away from Israel, which may present an opportunity for Republicans to capture more of the Jewish vote

Four years earlier, in a 2012 article, Shmuel Rosner added another reason why politicians consider  is important, and why the attention to the Jewish vote is out of proportion to its numbers:
One would say it's the influence that Jews have in the media and their solid presence in notable positions. Others would point to their presence in celebrity circles and the arts, while still others would look to the over-representation of Jews in American politics, as advisors, consultants, pollsters, analysts and elected officials.

But you can really just call it the bellwether factor. Jews are seen as major political players because they believe that their vote really counts, because they project self-importance. They might not tip elections, but they appear as if they can.  Going further back to 2010, Pew Research found indications that the perpetual prediction of Republican gains among the Jewish vote might actually be happening: The religious landscape is far more favorable to Republicans than was the case as recently as 2008. Half of white non-Hispanic Catholics (50%) currently identify with or lean toward the Republican Party, up nine points since 2008. Among religiously unaffiliated voters, who have been stalwart supporters of Democrats in recent elections, 29% currently identify with or lean toward the Republican Party, up from 25% in 2008 (the proportion identifying as Democrats has fallen seven points since then). And 33% of Jewish voters identify with or lean toward the Republican Party, up from 20% in 2008. [emphasis added] In a different article, Rosner finds indications that Jews are not actually trending Republican -- they are trending libertarian, meaning that losses in the Democratic share of the Jewish vote are not necessarily translating straight into Republican gains.
But either way, Democrats cannot take the Jewish vote for granted anymore -- despite what they may say publicly.
In 2006, a Washington Post featured an article Future of Orthodox Jewish Vote Has Implications for GOP, based not only on the conservative views of Orthodox Jews, but also on their higher birth rate.
To which Jill Jacobs, executive director of T'ruah, responded: I’m not quite ready to buy this prediction. After all, who’s to say whether today’s Orthodox babies will grow up voting Republican, Democratic, Green, or Libertarian. (or whether today’s Orthodox babies will stay Orthodox, become Renewal rabbis, or even succumb the Jews for Jesus subway ads) Still, it’s an interesting assumption that Orthodox communities will always produce kids and adults who vote according to Jewish self-interest, narrowly defined. Yeah, and who's to say whether the Democratic party will someday stand idly by as the radical left progressives of their party openly attacked not only Israel but also accuse Israel's supporters of dual loyalty?
Then there is the argument on how to even define, and measure, the Jewish vote.
Yossie Hollander, chairman of the Israeli Institute for Economic Planning, claims Contrary to popular belief, most US Jews support Trump.
His reasoning? No one is counting the Jewish vote correctly because they are overlooking certain components of the American Jewish population:

• Israelis who emigrate to the US and are citizens with voting rights -- estimates of the size of this group range from 600,000 to one million. Pollsters do not know how to reach and measure this group and manage to measure only a very small percentage of it.
• The ultra-Orthodox -- while people talk about them as a political component of the Jewish vote, Hollander writes that because the percentage of their children is relatively higher compared to the average population, the number of eligible voters is not the same ratio as in other populations, and so they end up not being surveyed.
• Immigrants from the former Soviet Union and their children -- there are about 350,000 of them and for a variety of reasons, they are rarely surveyed. 
• The "Southwest Belt" -- Over the past 30 years, there has been massive immigration in US population centers from the north to areas in Orange County California, San Diego County, Nevada, Arizona, Texas, Atlanta, and Florida. Jews are part of this migration, and as a result, the Jewish communities there are growing rapidly, mostly in conservative areas. According to Hollander, most polling models still use the old population model. 

That is a criticism of the methodology behind the polls.  Compare that with political consultant Jeff Ballabon, who takes a more sociological approach and compares the Jewish vote with the Irish vote.
Ever notice that no one talks about politicians going after "the Irish vote?" To be statistically meaningful or politically relevant, a characteristic must impact voting behavior. For example, there are almost 35 million Americans of Irish descent, but it’s been decades since presidential campaigns engaged in sustained Irish voter outreach. That’s because it’s long been difficult to distinguish anything sufficiently unique – identifiably Irish - about their political behavior. Most vote precisely as their education, profession, income, and zip code alone would predict. The exceptions tend to be active, practicing Catholics who elevate concerns relevant to their faith...

The use of the term “Jewish” interchangeably to mean both ethnicity (like “Irish”) and faith (like “Catholic”) obfuscates it, but the same phenomenon is true for America’s Jews.  [emphasis added] According to Ballabon, a large segment of American Jews, like Irish Americans, are arguably not uniquely Jewish in their own political behavior: The American Left seethes with enmity towards President Trump and is thoroughly wedded to the Democrats. The vast majority of Jews who follow suit proudly confirm that they do so as progressives with universal concerns; not parochially – not as part of a “Jewish Vote.” Even when they profess concern over antisemitism, it’s glaringly limited to those alleged by progressives to be malefactors. [emphasis added] Whether radical groups put the word "Jewish" in their name or name their group after a popular saying in Pirkei Avot, that often appears to be the full extent of their identification with their fellow Jews.
Meanwhile, as for the latest fight for bragging rights to the Jewish vote, the results of this last presidential election seem to validate that the Jewish vote is no longer limited to being a Democratic cheerleading squad.
While Biden easily got the majority of the Jewish vote -- there are indications that Trump improved his numbers for the Jewish vote, which made it possible to win the state of Florida, where an AP exit poll indicated he received 43% of the Jewish vote compared to 56% for Biden. Nationally, exit polls indicated Trump received the highest percent of the Jewish vote for a Republican in decades (30%), while the Jewish vote for Biden was low for a Democrat (68%).
There are hints that the conservative element of the Jewish vote may finally be coming into its own -- and the same Jewish vote that helped Biden in some states was successfully siphoned off by Trump to win others.
But at what cost is the Jewish vote being split?
Jonathan Tobin writes that Jews in America are among Trump’s fiercest opponents – but also his most fervent supporters: For Jewish liberals, Trump is an ally of antisemites and a proto-authoritarian whose character and conduct, statements mark him as a unique threat to democracy. They can’t understand why even one Jew would consider voting for him.

...It’s not for nothing that the Jewish Democratic Council has produced ads that more or less accuse Trump of being a Nazi and, despite the offensive nature of these analogies, have found them resonating with many liberal Jews. Tobin points out that Jews, like the rest of America, are divided into 2 political cultures which feed off of different circles on social media -- circles that usually don't include the other side. The overwhelming majority of non-Orthodox Jews identify with the social justice agenda of the Democratic Party and think it forms the core of Judaism and place it higher as a priority than support for Israel. On the other hand, Orthodox Jews, and non-Orthodox Jews who identify as politically conservative, see support for Israel as a decisive issue.
At home, the Orthodox and conservative groups don't see Trump’s embrace of nationalism as a threat. Instead, they see it as the best way to defend Jews against the antisemitism of the intersectional left which is assuming a more prominent and vocal role in the Democratic Party. 
Even Jews who are members of the same, educated classes who find Trump so offensive, share the distrust that the working-class has for the mainstream media that made it their mission to defeat him, working together with the liberal social media to censor conservative views and unflattering stories about Democrats. The choice boils down to how much value you place on having a president who may be flawed, but is historically pro-Israel and supportive of a conservative political agenda, as opposed to the cherished hope of Trump opponents: that a moderate liberal like Biden can restore a sense of pre-2016 normalcy, while also keeping in check the Democrats’ radical wing. In comparison with everything we hear about the need to address the divide between American Jews and Israelis, this developing rift within the Jewish community itself, as reflected by the split in the Jewish vote, is being overlooked. 
But it is unlikely to go away.

If Blacks are a minority and Jews are a minority, why is there such tension between them?

One element that caused this friction is the way social interaction between Jews and Blacks was structured in the 1960's.

According to the book "Israel in the Black American Perspective" (1985):
In the Black community Jews were frequently associated with wealth and "parasitism." Under the least propitious circumstances, Blacks usually met Jews as storekeepers and landlords--the most visible representatives of an oppressive economic system. Such meetings were not likely to promote good will and mutual respect. [p4] But if Jewish storekeepers and landlords are such a significant reason for how Blacks viewed Jews, why would that hatred seem to be so focused on Jews?

In a footnote to that paragraph, the book's authors -- Robert G. Weisbord and Richard Kazarian, Jr. -- point out that Jews were not the only storekeepers and landlords that Blacks had contact with:
In some cities, New Orleans and Newark to mention just two, Italian-black relations were acrimonious for similar reasons. Of late, "exploitative" Korean merchants in Harlem have aroused the ire of Afro-Americans, some of whom have responded with "buy Black" campaigns and organized boycotts of the Korean businesses.

And in Detroit, Arab grocers, mostly Iraqui [sic] Christians, have experienced picketing by Blacks who denounced profiteering outsiders. Burning and looting occurred in 1983 following the killing of a Black youth by an Arab storekeeper.

Antagonism to the Arabs in Detroit was rooted in the frustrations Blacks feel when confronted by the more rapid economic progress made by first and second generation immigrants. Black hostility to the Iraquis [sic] in the Motor City is strikingly similar to that directed at the Jews in Gotham and elsewhere. [p6. Text divided into paragraphs for easier reading. Emphasis added] Over the decades, Race Riots were not directed only at Jews:
Similar to the 1943 Detroit Race Riots that devastated the Jewish population, and the 1967 Race Riots that left hundreds of Chaldean [Iraqi Arab Christian] businesses destroyed, Koreans too dealt with a destructive riot in 1992 Los Angeles. The context for the 1992 riots is the reaction to the verdict that cleared the police officers who were videotaped beating Rodney King, a year after a Korean store owner shot and killed a 15-year-old Black girl because he thought she was stealing a bottle of orange juice --
The nearly weeklong, widespread rioting killed more than 50 people, injured more than 1,000 people and caused approximately $1 billion in damage, about half of which was sustained by Korean-owned businesses. Long-simmering cultural clashes between immigrant Korean business owners and predominately African-American customers spilled over with the acquittals. [emphasis added] In Chicago, there was friction between Blacks and Arab immigrants too:
Common complaints about stores predominantly owned by Muslims from Palestine, Jordan, and Yemen, are that they only provide low-quality food and don’t take any ownership over their role in the community. “The reality is that Englewood is changing, and if you don’t improve your model, in time you will go out of business,” says Gunn. Yet despite tensions between Blacks and other groups -- tensions that let to riots -- have you ever heard Farrakhan attack minorities other than Jews?

Actually, he did.

In 1995, The Chicago Tribune reported about
comments Farrakhan made Friday during a television interview in which he was quoted as saying Jews, Arabs, Koreans and Vietnamese were "bloodsuckers" who set up businesses in the black community but never gave back to those neighborhoods. Arabs?
Not just any Arabs.

The Buffalo News had the full quote:
In an interview with Reuters Television aped Oct. 4 and made public Friday, Mr. Farrakhan touched on several sensitive subjects that previously outraged Jewish leaders and prompted accusations of anti-Semitism against him.

"When we use the term 'bloodsucker,' it doesn't just apply to some members of the Jewish community. That could apply to any human being who does nothing for another but lays on that human being to suck the value of its life without returning anything," Mr. Farrakhan said in the interview.

"Many of the Jews who owned the homes, the apartments in the black community, we considered them bloodsuckers because they took from our community and built their community but didn't offer anything back to our community.

"And when the Jews left, the Palestinian Arabs came, Koreans came, Vietnamese and other ethnic and racial groups came. And so this is a type and we call them bloodsuckers."[emphasis added] Later, Farrakhan complained about the media for misreporting what he said: "It is unfortunate that the media is taking words that were spoken out of context to create division."

He never did make clear what the proper context for "bloodsuckers" was.

But the next day, Farrakhan did a turnaround, equating the suffering of Black Americans with other minority groups in the US:
In an address at Operation PUSH headquarters, 930 E. 50th St., Farrakhan said African-American men are dehumanized in the United States in the same way Japanese, Germans, Italians and, more recently, Koreans, Vietnamese and people of Middle Eastern descent have been treated in the U.S. during wars involving Americans.
..."We didn't feel their pain because they were considered the enemy," Farrakhan said to the gathering of about 100 people. "Thanks to the media manipulation, we are seen now as the enemy." To understand Farrakhan's turnaround, you need to keep in mind:

• His original comment was on a Friday.
• His "correction" was the next day, on Saturday.
• Two days later, Monday -- was his Million Man March.

Farrakhan's statement standing up for other minorities was a cynical move to avoid bad press for his upcoming Million Man March in Washington.

So why did Farrakhan have it in for Palestinian Arabs?

According to The Encyclopedia of Chicago, Palestinian Arabs started arriving at the end of the 19th century, and many settled in Chicago in particular --
By the early 1970s, they owned nearly 20 percent of all small grocery and liquor stores in Chicago, most located in African American communities, although Chicago's 30,000 Palestinians represented less than 1 percent of the city's population. By the 1990s, Palestinians had maintained this niche, but they also diversified into used-car dealerships, gas stations, auto repair shops, ethnic stores, and fast-food restaurants, remaining, however, primarily a community of small business entrepreneurs serving mostly “minority” communities. According to the 1990 census, more than 45 percent of employed Palestinians in the Chicago area worked in retail trade. The second largest concentration—some 14 percent—were professionals. [emphasis added] As with Jews, Arab Christians, Italians and Asian-Americans, there were Palestinian Arabs, too, who were store owners in Black communities.

This is not to minimize the problem of race relations or deny the validity of alleged discrimination. But the knee-jerk reaction of Farrakhan to accuse such a varied group of immigrants of being 'bloodsuckers' exploiting the Black community reveals more about Farrakhan than it does about the various ethnic groups he attacked.

Maybe that is why Farrakhan ended up focusing his hate on one group alone -- Jews.


 ----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

J'ai oublié de vous le dire : j'ai fondé l'institut de cybersécurité et de résilience des territoires (INCRT) après une réflexion de quelques mois et en association avec plusieurs amis et partenaires. Je salue notamment le Général (2S) Marc Watin-Augouard, qui a accepté de présider ce nouvel institut, dont vous pouvez trouver les détails à l'adresse : www.cyberterritoires.fr. Outre quelques articles ou études publiés ici ou là (notamment une étude publiée à la FRS, voir ici), j'ai répondu aux questions de l'institut, parmi d'autres (ici). Voici l'article ci-dessous

Mon Général, vous êtes une référence de la cyberstratégie en France. Vous avez publié votre premier livre sur le sujet en 2011, vous dirigez la collection cyberstratégie chez Economica, vous êtes chercheur associé à la FRS et membre du Conseil scientifique du FIC, vous êtes régulièrement consulté sur la question : Qu’est-ce qui pousse un homme de votre expérience à créer et vice-présider un Institut consacré à la cybersécurité et la résilience des Territoires ?

Une observation et une expérience.

L’observation que le dispositif français de cybersécurité s’est mis en place au niveau national depuis une dizaine d’années : création de l’ANSSI, renforcement des moyens au travers des diverses LPM, création de l’OG Cyber, mise en place du Pôle d’Excellence cyber, développement du FIC, croissance d’entreprises de toutes tailles qui bénéficient d’un marché lui-même en forte croissance… Tout ceci est parfait mais encore très centralisé, très parisien, très « grands comptes ». De même, l’UE s’est saisie du problème (Directive SRI, RGPD, définition des OSE). Mais là encore, on ne s’adresse qu’aux gros.

Ici vient l’expérience, qui est double. Les aléas de la vie m’ont conduit à plus pratiquer la « province », ce mot qu’on ose à peine prononcer mais auquel je trouve encore beaucoup de charme. Je l’ai fait pour des raisons privées mais aussi professionnelles. Aussi n’ai-je pas trop été surpris quand la pandémie est survenue et que tout le monde a dû passer d’un coup au télétravail. La Covid a plus fait pour la transformation numérique que toutes les initiatives que j’avais pu lancer dans mes précédentes fonctions. Tant mieux, mais ce faisant les territoires ont énormément augmenté leur surface de risque, d’autant plus qu’ils ont le plus souvent une culture très réduite de la cybersécurité.

Aussi m’a-t-il paru nécessaire de m’intéresser à ces territoires, en partant du bas, du terrain : de ce point de vue, le pragmatisme militaire qui fait partie de ma culture m’y aide beaucoup.

Quels sont les objectifs qu’un homme de votre expérience assigne à ce nouvel outil au service des territoires, quelles sont les valeurs que vous voulez y voir appliquées ?

Le premier principe est de partir du terrain, des besoins. Trop souvent, des vendeurs de solution viennent et débitent leur argumentaire, sans vraiment écouter ce que leurs interlocuteurs ont à dire. Or, chaque territoire est particulier. Une ville moyenne qui s’est spécialisée dans le tourisme n’aura pas le même besoin qu’une autre dans une région viticole ou une troisième qui a encore un gros tissu industriel menacé par la crise économique. Si la cybersécurité est une, s’il y a forcément des points communs, les besoins sont différents et il faut donc d’abord écouter et dresser des diagnostics ensemble, au vu des forces et faiblesses du territoire, avant de proposer des actions. Le deuxième principe est celui de la bienveillance : trop souvent, les victimes voient venir des spécialistes qui leur disent « mais vous n’auriez jamais dû faire ceci ou cela, ce n’est pas bien ». De fait, souvent on blâme la victime, comme si c’était sa faute. Je pense au contraire qu’il faut accompagner les victimes et les futures victimes pour les aider à progresser.

Le dernier principe va de soi mais il convient de le rappeler : il s’agit d’œuvrer pour le bien commun et la cohésion nationale et territoriale. Une fois encore, il faut compléter par le bas ce qui se fait bien au niveau central.

Selon vous, qu’est ce qui explique le retard pris par les territoires et leurs composantes dans la prise conscience de la cybercriminalité et la mise en place de mesure et d’outils de Cybersécurité ?

Le sentiment qu’ils sont trop petits pour être visés (sentiment partagé aussi bien par les CT que par les PME PMI). Accessoirement, une question de ressources disponibles : il y a tellement de besoins par rapport à des moyens limités qu’on ne prend pas les mesures minimales de cybersécurité. On « prend le risque » car on estime qu’il y a d’autres urgences. Celles-ci sont bien sûr légitimes mais il faut désormais faire uen petite place à la cybersécurité. On ne peut plus la négliger.

Le problème, c’est que désormais, tout le monde est visé, la cybermenace ne vise plus seulement les gros. On a connu une vague incroyable de fraudes au président ces dernières années, puis de rançonnages contre des collectivités publiques au cours des 15 derniers mois. Elle dure encore et ne cesse d’enfler. Accessoirement, la pandémie a forcé tout le monde à passer au télétravail, ce qui a ouvert de gigantesques portes aux agresseurs…

La cyber menace ne peut plus être ignorée. Y répondre fait partie désormais des facteurs d’attractivité d’un territoire.

Que propose l’INCRT pour accompagner les territoires dans ce défi, désormais presque quotidien ?

Tout d’abord, une veille et un éveil. Il convient de parler aux territoires mais aussi de les écouter. De ce point de vue, l’institut sera une plateforme qui permettra à chacun de suivre et de rencontrer.

Ensuite, nous irons dans les territoires à la demande des CT afin de présenter et sensibiliser, mais aussi de montrer que des solutions simples existent. Nous agirons bien sûr avec nos partenaires comme cybermalveillance ou la Gendarmerie nationale. Enfin, s’il y a des demandes plus précises, nous voulons aussi être un « do tank » et mobiliserons notre réseau d’experts pour répondre aux besoins exprimés.

Olivier Kempf

What is the hardest part of brokering a peace agreement?
-- Sometimes, it's just getting the two sides to sit down in the same room. -- Other times, the problem is getting the two sides just to talk. -- Even then, there is the problem of getting them to negotiate and be willing to make concessions.
And then there is the problem when you just run out of time.
Following the Yom Kippur War, in which Egypt and Syria were nearly victorious, a unique possibility for peace between Israel and Egypt presented itself. Nixon's airlift of crucial arms during the war was critical to Israel's victory -- and created an opportunity.
Richard Nixon. Public domain



Seeking to take advantage of this opportunity, in June 1974, Nixon became the first US president to visit Israel while in office.
As Rabin explained in a press conference after Nixon returned to the US: "Ever since the airlift of the Yom Kippur War, the Arabs have come to understand that America will not allow Israel to be weakened. A defeat of Israel is a victory for the USSR. Paradoxically, this is what has raised America's prestige in the Arab world, and has given Washington leverage. Today in the Middle East, Moscow is a synonym for instability and war, Washington for stability and negotiation." (Yehuda Avner, The Prime Ministers, p. 270)
Yitzhak Rabin. Public domain



This leverage as an honest broker would make it possible for the US to go beyond being a supporter of Israel's interests, and show that it was a strong and reliable ally to address the interests of the Arab world as well.
Meanwhile, Nixon began discussing with Egypt's Sadat the possibility of a final settlement, going step-by-step. On June 25, Nixon wrote to Sadat: Mr. President, I am convinced that we have witnessed in recent months a turning point in the history of the Middle East -- a turning toward an honorable, just, and endurinable peace -- and have ushered in a new era in U.S.-Arab relations. A direction has been set, and it is my firm intention to stay on the course we have chartered. (p. 271) Two months later, Nixon resigned.
The following month, Rabin was meeting with President Ford -- and Kissinger -- to continue what Nixon had started. The following year, in March, Kissinger came to the Middle East to conduct his "shuttle diplomacy," bouncing back and forth between Israel and Egypt. Kissinger pressured Rabin on a withdrawal from the Sinai, especially from the Mitla and Gidi passes, while Rabin wanted Sadat to commit himself to a "termination of the state of belligerency" with Israel.
Kissinger's efforts failed -- and he blamed Israel.
In the end, however, another attempt was made, culminating in an interim agreement known as Sinai II.
Just to get an idea of what Rabin was up against, here is an excerpt from the notes of a conversation between Sadat and Foreign Minister Fahmi with Ford and Kissinger. The context is the early warning stations in the Sinai that Rabin wanted to retain -- and Sadat's idea of a compromise, where they would be manned by US troops. Note the highlighted portions.




The term "honest broker" is overrated.
In any event, Rabin too ended up resigning because of the 'scandal' surrounding his wife, who had retained a bank account from the years when Rabin was Israel's ambassador to the US from 1968 to 1973. After that, the Israeli law forbidding citizens from holding bank accounts abroad came into play. However, another law prevented Rabin from resigning outright once the date for the next elections has been set. Instead, Rabin withdrew from the race as leader of the Labor Party, to be replaced from Shimon Peres to face Menachem Begin.
Begin became prime minister -- and it was during his term that a peace treaty with Egypt was signed. 
Rabin felt his role in making that peace treaty possible was never acknowledged, but at the same time he understood that was the way of things.
In his memoirs, Rabin wrote: When President Sadat made his historic visit to Jerusalem on 19 November 1977 I was no longer prime minister. Yet that visit -- and the subsequent moves toward achieving a peace treaty -- could never have come about were it not for the course my government adopted in signing the 1975 interim agreement. That our policy provoked the anger of Likud has not prevented Mr. Begin's government from reaping the fruits of our labors. Of course, that is how things should be, since the quest for peace is not a contest between political parties...The 1975 agreement with Egypt was never meant to be an end in itself. As its title implies, it was designed to advance the momentum toward peace, and in that sense it achieved its purpose. [emphasis added] (quoted in The Prime Ministers, p.302) Begin benefited from the foundation set by Nixon and the groundwork laid by Rabin, both of whom left their work unfinished. 
But that was not the last we heard from Rabin.
After serving as prime minister from 1974 to 1977, Rabin became prime minister again in 1992. And he was still focused on peace. In 1994, he received the Nobel Peace Prize for his part in the Oslo Accords, along with Shimon Peres and Arafat. Rabin also signed a peace treaty with Jordan that same year.
In late 1995, Rabin described to Yehuda Avner his view of the Middle East, a description that 25 years later sounds familiar: Number one: Israel is surrounded by two concentric circles. The inner circle is comprised of our immediate neighbors—Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon, and, by extension, Saudi Arabia. The outer circle comprises their neighbors—Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Yemen and Libya. Virtually all of them are rogue states, and some are going nuclear.

Number two, Iranian-inspired Islamic fundamentalism constitutes a threat to the inner circle no less than it does to Israel. Islamic fundamentalism is striving to destabilize the Gulf Emirates, has already created havoc in Syria, leaving twenty thousand dead, in Algeria, leaving one hundred thousand dead, in Egypt, leaving twenty-two thousand dead, in Jordan, leaving eight thousand dead, in the Horn of Africa—the Sudan and Somalia—leaving fourteen thousand dead, and in Yemen, leaving twelve thousand dead. And now it is gaining influence in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Iran is the banker, pouring millions into the West Bank and Gaza in the form of social welfare and health and education programs, so that it can win the hearts of the population and feed religious fanaticism.

Thus, a confluence of interest has arisen between Israel and the inner circle, whose long-term strategic interest is the same as ours: to lessen the destabilizing consequences from the outer circle. At the end of the day, the inner circle recognizes they have less to fear from Israel than from their Muslim neighbors, not least from radicalized Islamic powers going nuclear.

Number three: the Arab-Israeli conflict was always considered to be a political one: a conflict between Arabs and Israelis. The fundamentalists are doing their level best to turn it into a religious conflict—Muslim against Jew, Islam against Judaism. And while a political conflict is possible to solve through negotiation and compromise, there are no solutions to a theological conflict. Then it is jihad—religious war: their God against our God. Were they to win, our conflict would go from war to war, and from stalemate to stalemate. [emphasis added] (p. 707) The context for this description of the Middle East is Rabin's response to Avner's question as to why he shook Arafat's hand at the signing of the Oslo Accords: He and his PLO represent the last vestige of secular Palestinian nationalism. We have nobody else to deal with. It is either the PLO or nothing. It is a long shot for a possible settlement, or the certainty of no settlement at all at a time when the radicals are going nuclear. With the growing threat of Islamic fundamentalism, negotiating with secular Palestinian Arabs made sense to Rabin.
Neither he -- nor then-President Clinton -- saw the potential in negotiating and working with other Arab states within those concentric circles. There's no reason they would, when all the contemporary thinking was focused on the Palestinian Arabs as a key to peace, a cold peace in line with the peace treaties signed with Egypt and Jordan with no thought of normalization. According to that thinking, it is either the Palestinian Arabs or nothing.
The Middle East achievements of the Trump administration this year took Rabin's outline and acted on it.
What Rabin might have further accomplished, we will never know. He was stopped again, this time by a bullet, from pursuing peace.
But like Nixon and Rabin, Trump too will not be pursuing his vision for peace to its full extent.

During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, a reporter asked Golda Meir about African leaders that were cutting off diplomatic ties with Israel under Arab pressure. The reporter claimed this proved that Israel's African policy and the aid given was a waste of time. Golda Meir disagreed:
Because what I did for Africa was not just a policy of enlightened self-interest. I did it for the benefit of the African peoples, and deep in their hearts they know this to be true. It was an expression of my deepest historic instincts as a Jew, and a demonstration of my most profound and cherished values as a Labor Zionist. [The Prime Ministers, by Yehuda Avner, p. 236] Golda Meir was not the first Zionist to speak about helping Africa.

Herzl's novel, Altneuland, describes his vision of what Jewish Palestine would look like. At one point, one of the characters declares:
There is still one problem of racial misfortune unsolved. The depths of that problem, in all their horror, only a Jew can fathom. I mean the negro problem. Don't laugh, Mr. Kingscourt. Think of the hair-raising horrors of the slave trade. Human beings, because their skins are black, are stolen, carried off, and sold. Their descendants grow up in alien surroundings despised and hated because their skin is differently pigmented. I am not ashamed to say, though I be thought ridiculous, now that I have lived to see the restoration of the Jews, I should like to pave the way for the restoration of the Negroes. [Translated from the German by Dr. D. S. Blondheim, Federation of American Zionists, 1916, available online] Herzl's desire for Blacks to be restored to their homeland was mutual.

In fact, Black support for the Jewish State predates Herzl.

In their book, Israel in the Black American Perspective, Robert G. Weisbord and Richard Kazarian start with a chapter on early Black support for the Zionist idea.

As early as the post-Civil War era, when Blacks were still too focused on their survival and that of their families to concern themselves with foreign affairs, there were still a few Black intellectuals and leaders who kept abreast of events overseas.

Some saw parallels between their own situation and that of the Jews -- and others saw Zionism and the return to the Jewish homeland as the paradigm for the transplanted Africans in the US.

Here is a summary of what the book describes about some of those leaders --

Edward Wilmot Blyden (1832-1912) Blyden was born in St. Thomas in the Virgin Islands, which had a significant Jewish population, and later immigrated to West Africa in 1851. He was an editor, a prolific writer of books and pamphlets, a linguist, a professor of classics, secretary of state of the newly established republic of Liberia, Liberian ambassador to Great Britain and president of Liberia College.

Edward Wilmot Blyden. Public Domain
As he describes in his book, The Jewish Question, while traveling in the Middle East in 1866, Blyden wanted to travel to "the original home of the Jews--to see Jerusalem and Mt. Zion, the joy of the whole earth." While in Jerusalem he went to the Western Wall.

Keep in mind that Theodor Herzl wasn't even born until 1860. Instead, this was the time of 'proto-Zionists' like Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Kalischer, who wrote Derishat Ziyon (Seeking Zion), and Moses Hess, who wrote Rome and Jerusalem -- both published in 1862.

Weisbrod and Kazarian write:
In point of fact, Blyden in the 1860's and 1870's was much more of a Zionist than most Jews. He advocated Jewish settlement in Palestine, a phenomenon which, in his judgment would not have an adverse effect on the Arabs. Blyden reproved the sons of Abraham for remaining in the Diaspora and for not migrating to their ancient homeland, which the Ottoman Turks were misgoverning. Towards the end of the 19th century, with the resurgence of antisemitism in Russia, France and Germany, that political Zionism came into its own with Herzl and his publication of The Jewish State in 1896. The First Zionist Congress followed in 1897.

Blyden's booklet, The Jewish Question, was published the following year:
Blyden was familiar with Herzl's Jewish State and predicted that it propounded ideas which "have given such an impetus to the real work of the Jews as will tell with enormous effect upon their future history." Blyden also commented on the powerful influence of the "tidal wave from Vienna--that inspiration almost Mosaic in its originality and in its tendency, which drew crowds of Israelites to Basle in August 1897...and again in 1898." However, Blyden also thought that if the timing was not right, the Jewish State could be established elsewhere as well. He felt that because of the shared suffering of Jews and African Americans, they were specially qualified to be spiritual leaders in the world.

So he invited Jews to come to Africa --
Africa appeals to the Jew... to come with his scientific and other culture, gathered by his exile in many lands, and with his special spiritual endowments. As it turned out, when the British offered Herzl land in Africa in 1903 for a state, that invitation was nearly accepted.

Booker T. Washington (1856-1915) Booker T. Washington was such a celebrity during the latter part of his life that he was invited to have dinner with Theodore Roosevelt at the White House and to have tea with Queen Victoria.

He was born into slavery, but despite the hardships, he taught himself the alphabet, got an education and went on to found the Tuskegee Institute, which he headed for 35 years.

Booker T. Washington. public domain
From his childhood, Washington had an interest in Jews, based on his familiarity of Bible stories -- and drew parallels between the histories of Blacks and Jews. In a speech he delivered in 1905, Washington said: In Russia there are one-half as many Jews as there are Negroes in this country and yet I feel sure that within a month more Jews have been persecuted and killed than the whole number of our people who have been lynched during the past forty years. While Washington believed in thrift and hard work as key to Black equality, he also thought that progress could be achieved through racial solidarity -- just as it had helped Jews: There is, perhaps, no race that has suffered so much, not so much in America as in some of the countries in Europe. But these people have clung together. They have had a certain amount of unity, pride and love of race. Washington predicted success for Jews in the US, "a country where they were once despised and looked upon with scorn and derision" -- success that was achieved largely through dedication to education and enabled them to gain positions of power and preeminence.
He did not share the back-to-Africanism of Blyden, and did not see it as a solution to Black problems in the South. Similarly, while he was a friend of the Jews, Washington didn't see a Jewish State as much of a solution for Jews either. When asked if there was anything among Blacks that compared to the Zionist movement, Washington responded: I think it is with the African pretty much as it is with the Jews, there is a good deal of talk about it, but nothing is done, there is certainly no sign of an exodus to Liberia. Based on the lesser interest in Zionism in the US at the time, it is no wonder Washington was skeptical.
W.E.B Du Bois 1868-1963 Du Bois championed the cause of racial justice -- and of Zionism as well. He was born in Massachusetts and was educated at Fisk University in Nashville, at the University of Berlin and received a Ph.D from Harvard. He wrote historical treatises, sociological studies and essays on the important issues of the day. Du Bois was one of the founders of the NAACP.
He saw potential in the Balfour Declaration for a similar solution for Blacks. With the defeat of Germany in WWI,  his dream was an independent free central African state carved out of German East Africa and the Belgian Congo.
It didn't happen.

W.E.B Du Bois Public Domain

He believed that such an African state would have a mutually beneficial relationship with Blacks around the world, similar to the Zionist view of a Jewish state.  In 1919, Du Bois wrote an article in the NAACP magazine Crisis that The African movement means to us what the Zionist movement must mean to the Jews, the centralization of race effort and the recognition of a racial fount. To help bear the burden of Africa does not mean any lessening of effort in our problems at home. Rather it means increased interest. For an ebullition of action and feeling that results in an amelioration of the lot of Africa tends to ameliorate the conditions of colored peoples throughout the world. And no man liveth unto himself. Du Bois started a monthly magazine for Afro-African children around 1919 called The Brownie's Book. In it, he wrote about Zionism.

• In the first issue, he told his readers about the new Jewish state planned "'round about Jerusalem"
• Eight months later, he told them that a "great Zionist congress of the Jews is meeting in London"
• He also noted proposals to "tax the Jews all over the world for the support of the new Jewish government in Palestine"
• In January 1921, he wrote about the finished blueprints for a Hebrew university on the biblical Mount of Olives in Jerusalem o In 1929, he wrote about the "murder of Jews by Arabs in Palestine."

In 1948, Du Bois published "A Case for the Jews." In it, he described Zionism as a question of young and forward thinking Jews, bringing a new civilization into an old land and building up that land out of the ignorance, disease and poverty into which it had fallen, and by democratic methods to build a new and peculiarly fateful modern state. In June 26, 1948 the NAACP adopted a resolution that The valiant struggle of the people of Israel for independence serves as an inspiration to all persecuted people throughout the world. We havil the establishment of the new State of Israel and welcome it into the family of nations.'  Marcus Garvey 1887-1940 Born in Jamaica, Garvey was the founder of the Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA). He wrote that Africa needed to be transformed into a  Negro Empire where every Black man, whether he was born in Africa or in the Western world, will have the opportunity to develop on his own lines under the protection of the most favorable democratic institutions. His wife described his vision in a way similar to the Zionist goal of a Jewish state: Garvey saw Africa as a nation to which the African peoples of the world could look for help and support, moral and physical when ill-treated or abused for being black.
Marcus Garvey. Public Domain


In 1920, Garvey told a UNIA meeting that after WWI,  A new spirit, a new courage, has come to us simultaneously as it came to other peoples of the world. It came to us at the same time it came to the Jew. When the Jew said 'We shall have Palestine!' the same sentiment came to us when we said' We shall have Africa!' At the same time, the Jewish press was aware of what Garvey was doing and also saw the parallels between his pan-Africanism and Zionism. In the book, African Americans and Jews in the Twentieth Century, edited by V. P. Franklin, Hasia Diner notes in "Drawn Together By Self-Interest" that the Yiddish Press used the idioms of Jewish history to describe Marcus Garvey:


But Garvey was a complex -- and even contradictory -- figure when it came to Jews. There were statements he made that were antisemitic and when British Prime Minister Neville suggested in 1939 settling Jewish refugees in British Guiana, Garvey lashed out, claiming that British Guiana was a "Negro country" and criticized Zionism.
Walter White 1893-1955 In 1947, the UN voted on the partition of then-Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. It was an opportunity to finally create a Jewish state -- but a two-thirds majority was necessary to make it happen.
Enter Walter White.

Walter White. Public Domain
Zionists approached White, urging him to persuade two Black nations, Haiti and Liberia, to reverse their announced opposition to partition and to vote for it instead.
He was opposed to the idea of 'segregating' Jews from Arabs and resented the pressure Zionists put on him. Nevertheless, according to his autobiography, he helped "because Palestine seemed the only haven anywhere in the world for nearly one million Jews of Europe."
When the votes were cast, Liberia, Haiti and the Philippines all voted for partition -- and those votes were critical in achieving the 33 to 13 vote for partition.
Black leaders like these make for a sharp contrast to the likes of Sharpton and Farrakhan.



-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

J'ai participé vendredi 1A3 novembre à la table ronde du Medays 2020, organisée sur les réactions à la pandémie, notamment du point de vue numérique.

Vous trouverez un bref compte-rendu de cette table ronde ici.

J'en extrait ceci : Selon Olivier Kempf, directeur de La Vigie, chercheur associé à la Fondation pour la recherche stratégique et directeur de la Collection Cyberstratégie chez Economica, la crise sanitaire a contribué au renforcement des inégalités dans l’utilisation des outils numériques et a augmenté le risque de cyberattaques, appelant ainsi à investir beaucoup plus dans ce domaine en vue de garantir la sécurité des systèmes d’information. Il a dans ce sens mis en exergue l’intérêt de l’Afrique et l’Europe à œuvrer ensemble et mobiliser leurs efforts, à travers un partenariat liant les deux continents et visant à tirer profit de cette révolution numérique. M. Kempf a ajouté que ce partenariat permet aux deux parties d’intégrer un marché potentiel de près de 2 milliards de personnes et de pouvoir ainsi concurrencer la Chine et les États-Unis.

OK

Cela fait des semaines, des mois que je n'ai pas publié : mille excuses. Je dos être mal organisé ou très pris (au choix). Voici donc un texte paru dans un dossier de l'IRIS sur "le virus du faux" (lien ici). J'y publie un texte sur la disparition de l'autorité scientifique, lisible ci-dessous. OK

La crise de la Covid 19 affecte en profondeur l’année 2020. Cependant, si les conséquences géopolitiques sont relatives, si les conséquences économiques sont énormes, la pandémie a accéléré un autre mouvement, plus discret et moins évident : celui de la perte de confiance envers l’autorité scientifique.

Permanences et accélérations

D’une part, les tendances lourdes du monde d’avant ont persisté. Certes, quelques-uns ont saisi des opportunités, comme la Chine qui en a profité pour accélérer sa maîtrise de Hong-Kong ou l’Arabie Séoudite qui a tenté de s’exfiltrer du Yémen. Le bilan médical de la pandémie sera lourd mais sans constituer par lui-même un choc démographique déstabilisant, à l’image de la Grande peste ou des ravages microbiens lors de l’invasion des Conquistadors. En revanche, les conséquences économiques de l’arrêt de la production mondiale pendant deux mois seront très sensibles et nous mettrons deux ou trois ans à les surmonter.

D’autre part et hormis la question économique, la crise a accéléré des phénomènes qui prévalaient. Mentionnons ici la prégnance accélérée des outils numériques, la radicalisation de la crise intérieure américaine ou encore une radicalisation politique de la gauche mondiale au profit d’une lecture systématique de communautés séparées sur la base de la couleur de peau (ne plus dire race), du genre (ne plus dire sexe) ou de la position victimaire.

Débat scientifique

Au chapitre des accélérations, le débat scientifique est arrivé sur la place publique. Il a pris des détours surprenants pour se concentrer sur les questions de médecine. Il est vrai que le confinement nous y forçait, puisque nous avons tous essayé de comprendre ce virus qui suscitait une réaction aussi radicale que la mise à l’abri de populations entières.

Ainsi, les virus ne sont pas des microbes, la transmission de virus d’animaux à l’homme est chose courante, notre patrimoine génétique s’améliore au fur et à mesure des résistances acquises par la rencontre préalable d’autres virus et maladies, etc. Accessoirement, ces virus se répandent plus facilement grâce à la mondialisation puisque celle-ci passe par des échanges beaucoup plus nombreux que par le passé.

Mais ces explications n’ont pas suffi. Il nous a fallu comprendre comment nous en étions arrivés là : passons sur l’impréparation et la faiblesse des moyens (de lits, de respirateurs, de masques, de tests, ces derniers n’étant toujours pas opérés en assez grand nombre) qui ont suscité leur lot de polémiques ; rapidement, la question a tourné autour des moyens de traiter ce virus, aujourd’hui et demain. Les autorités nous ont promu des tests cliniques de traitement qui étaient faits au niveau européen et dont nous devions avoir les premiers résultats en avril. Constatons que les résultats sont décevants, non seulement parce que les solutions n’ont pas été trouvées mais aussi parce que l’ampleur des tests à déçu.

L’affaire de la chloroquine

Alors est intervenu un personnage haut en couleur, le professeur Raoult, initialement présenté comme un des grands spécialistes mondiaux d’infectiologie. Il prônait un traitement précoce à base de chloroquine et expliquait qu’il obtenait de bons résultats. La planète médiatique prit alors feu. Avec son air de Panoramix, on avait l’impression du druide du village gaulois résistant à l’envahisseur, tandis que les élites poussaient des cris d’orfraie face à cet hérétique qui suivait sa propre voie. Dans cette nouvelle bataille d’Hernani, chacun pouvait avoir son avis d’autant plus que le « Conseil scientifique » mis en place par le gouvernement avait des avis qui semblaient évoluer au gré des circonstances.

Un peu plus tard, une étude tout aussi fracassante était publiée par une revue médicale de renom, the Lancet. Elle s’appuyait sur du Big data et concluait à l’ineptie des traitements par chloroquine. Le Conseil sanitaire décidait aussitôt qu’il fallait interdire la chloroquine (médicament utilisé depuis trois quarts de siècle contre le paludisme en Afrique et dont on ne savait pas qu’il présentait jusqu’alors de si grands dangers). Comme dans tout bon vaudeville, une semaine plus tard on apprenait que l’étude avait été « bidonnée », que les statistiques avaient été inventées par une société plus mercantile que médicale : the Lancet retirait la publication et l’OMS son avis contre la chloroquine.

Précisons ici que nous n’avons aucune idée du bien ou du mal-fondé de ce médicament mais qu’il est révélateur de bien des choses.

Autorité scientifique

Allons au fait : ces affaires, aussi bien celle de la pandémie que de la chloroquine, révèlent la fin de l’autorité scientifique. Voilà une nouveauté dont on discernait pourtant les signes mais qui est désormais établie.

Elle n’est pas surprenante tant les « autorités » traditionnelles se sont affaiblies : ce fut le cas des religions (relisez M. Gauchet sur le désenchantement du monde), des idéologies, des syndicats, des partis politiques ; il y eut le déclin de la presse, celui de l’école, celui de l’hôpital. Toutes ces institutions, toutes ces autorités morales se sont peu à peu affaissées. Voici d’ailleurs une des causes de la fin de l’universalisme.

La dernière autorité restait l’autorité scientifique. Les savants, du fait de leurs longues années d’étude, de leur rare prise de parole publique, de leur rigueur, mais aussi du reliquat d’un certain positivisme, hérité d’Auguste Comte, gardaient leur crédit. Nous croyions tous encore un peu au progrès, avec une part de raison.

Le progrès, toujours le progrès

En effet, nous avons évolué à propos du progrès. Nous avons compris que le progrès scientifique n’entraînait pas, contrairement aux illusions des siècles passés, un progrès social. Pour autant, nous savons bien que le progrès scientifique continue (même s’il est de moins en moins compréhensible) et surtout, nous observons dans notre vie quotidienne l’irruption du progrès technologique. Cela passe bien sûr par les technologies numériques (nous ne parlons pas bien sûr de l’ultime version de votre ordiphone qui appartient plus au domaine du marketing que de la technologie) mais pas uniquement : nos avions, nos voitures, nos outils, nos soins se sont améliorés. Nous attribuons ce progrès technologique au progrès scientifique. Et il est vrai que la science continue son œuvre et que la réponse scientifique à la pandémie a été remarquable, puisqu’on a isolé l’ADN du virus en quelques semaines et que les prototypes de vaccin sont testés partout. Jamais dans l’histoire de l’humanité une maladie nouvelle n’aura été traitée aussi rapidement. Et pourtant…

Impatience et défiance

Par impatience, nous comprenons mal que nous n’y soyons pas arrivés plus vite. Rappelons qu’on n’a toujours pas de vaccin contre le Sida, apparu il y a quarante ans, et qu’on traite difficilement cancer et Alzheimer…

Surtout, nous avons une certaine défiance envers l’aristocratie scientifique. Les premiers signes sont anciens : sans même évoquer les platistes (persuadés que la terre est plate), pensez à la controverse sur le changement climatique ou celle des antivax (anti-vaccins). Des parts toujours plus importantes de la population tiennent des discours (et adaptent parfois leurs comportements) sur la base de conceptions scientifiques manifestement erronées. Encore ne s’agit-il là que d’opinions, considérées comme marginales même si elles ont pris de l’ampleur grâce aux réseaux sociaux.

Avec la chloroquine (dans un contexte de confinement) c’est la population entière qui a pris parti, sachant que les démonstrations des uns et des autres ne convainquaient pas. De plus, la parole des « experts », qu’il s’agisse des membres des différents Conseils scientifiques ou académies, laboratoires ou universités, a semblé être altérée par des intérêts externes, politiques ou pécuniers ou tout simplement d’egos. Les déclarations flamboyantes de l’un, condescendantes des autres, ont toutes contribué au malaise.

Au fond, la science bénéficiait encore d’une image de neutralité qui lui donnait son autorité. Personne ne lui reproche son incertitude : car son objet consiste justement à dissiper, lentement et à tâtons mais avec méthode, cette incertitude. Mais on reproche à ceux qui s’en prévalent de ne pas toujours respecter cette neutralité qui fonde le bien commun ; de verser dans l’émotion, d’en faire l’objet de parti, donc de partition, donc de division. Ils ont abimé l’autorité, une des dernières qui nous restait. C’est dommage car le mal fait ne pourra être réparé.

Pour conclure

Ce propos n’est-il pas u peu sévère ? la science ne continue-t-elle pas, vaille que vaille, obtenant des résultats sans cesse plus étonnants ? Si, bien sûr, et l’attribution récente du prix Nobel de chimie à une chercheuse française nous le rappelle, elle qui mit au point la technique du CRISPR/Cas9 qui permet de réaliser du génie génétique. Observons que ce travail scientifique se fait dans l’ombre, entre experts qui ne sont pas contestés. Au fond, l’autorité scientifique pâtit d’être propulsée au-devant de la scène publique, que ce soit par le politique, par les médias, par l’émotion. La science poursuit son chemin, elle ne tolère plus en revanche d’être confrontée au débat public qui tourne souvent à la polémique (car voici au fond un des grands défauts de l’époque : celui de ne plus avoir de débat, mais seulement des polémistes qui ne s’écoutent pas réciproquement).

Pour autant, peut-elle s’en abstraire ? Car des débats récents se font jour qui manquent visiblement de culture scientifique : par exemple celui sur l’alternative des énergies renouvelables par rapport à l’énergie nucléaire, ou la curieuse polémique entourant le déploiement de la 5G qui serait anti-écologique et mauvaise pour la santé -on connut un peu la même chose avec les éoliennes ou les compteurs Linky). La science est donc placée au milieu d’une contradiction : celle de ne pouvoir trop interférer dans le débat public mais de ne pas non plus le négliger complètement…

A suspect has been arrested in connection with the stabbing of 5 Orthodox Jews in Monsey.

But even though this attack happened in Monsey, it is part of a growing and increasingly alarming pattern inside New York City.

And no one expects these attacks to stop soon.

One reason for the pessimism is the failure by the media, elected officials and social media 'celebrities' to address the fact that, contrary to the accepted media narrative, these attacks on Orthodox Jews are being carried out by Blacks -- not by "White Supremacists."

Elder of Ziyon has posted about the reluctance among leftists to mention this common link among the majority of the attacks on Jews, either out of fear of being labeled racist or accused of inciting violence against the Black community:
Most blacks are not antisemitic, although the percentage is roughly double that of whites (in 2016, 23% compared to 10%.) No one is saying that all blacks should be blamed. But the fear of being labeled a racist is the major reason there has not been any effective outreach to the black community to help solve this problem. But this is not the first time that the fear of addressing Black antisemitism has manifested itself and prevented the media and community leaders from speaking out.

Remember the Crown Heights Riots?



In 2016, Seth Lipsky wrote for The New York Post, 25 years later, we still haven’t learned the lessons of the Crown Heights riot -- and in the 3 years since then, matters have only gotten worse:
Crown Heights erupted after a driver in the Lubavitcher Rebbe’s motorcade lost control and killed a black child, Gavin Cato. For three days, historian Edward Shapiro would write, “bands of young blacks” had “roamed” the neighborhood, assaulting Jews. [Emphasis added] At the time, Yankel Rosenbaum, a Jewish student visiting from the University of Melbourne, was stabbed to death -- and his killer, Lemrick Nelson, was acquitted of murder by a New York jury. Two federal civil rights prosecutions were required before Nelson would be sent to prison, and in the end, he did 10 years on civil rights charges.

What stands out most for Lipsky is that during the Crown Heights Riots, neither the political nor the private leaders in the city could bring themselves to admit that the attacks on Jews were antisemitic.

Ari Goldman, who reported on those riots for The New York Times at the time, later wrote about the experience, noting the insistence by journalists at the time to frame the attacks as a result of a "racial conflict."

In Telling It Like It Wasn't, Goldman quotes AM Rosenthal, a former executive editor at The New York Times who said what others would not:
“The press,” Rosenthal wrote, “treats it all as some kind of cultural clash between a poverty-ridden people fed up with life and a powerful, prosperous and unfortunately peculiar bunch of stuck-up neighbors — very sad of course, but certainly understandable. No — it is an anti-Semitic pogrom and the words should not be left unsaid.” [emphasis added] Indeed, one journalist tweeted about the Monsey attack something similar - and later deleted their tweet:
The situation in NY (and let's be clear we don't know who perpetrated the Monsey attack yet) is *massively complicated* and a growing division among two communities. What we need right now is a way to find solidarity with each other against our shared enemy of white supremacy. Other tweets, in response to steps proposed by Mayor de Blasio last week to increase police protection of the Jewish community, were worse:
This sends a pretty stark message to non-Jews living in these neighborhoods that their safety matters less to @NYCMayor than the safety of their Jewish neighbors. That's really really bad for literally everyone except our common enemies, who benefit when we're divided. and
Worst move. One that many of us have been warning against for many months now. de Blasio has caved to the pressure of racist demagogues like Dov Hikind and now many young black men will be at risk.

This isn't about ending hate, it's transferring the violence to acceptable targets. We are seeing the same blind eye and lack of decisive action now that we saw 28 years ago.

Two years after the riots, in 1993, an exhaustive state investigation into the handly of what happened sharply criticized Mayor Dinkins for his failure to understand and act upon the severity of the crisis.

The Jewish community now is growing increasingly concerned that the current mayor does not understand what is happening any better.
Lipsky concludes his 2016 article pointing to attempts at reconciliation within Crown Heights, yet notes: Liberal elites have made no such progress. They have never lifted a finger for the Orthodox Jews. The animus that erupted as “Heil Hitler” in Crown Heights has broken out on some of our city’s finest campuses, which echo with “Zionists out” and “Long live the Intifada.”

And liberals are unalarmed that Black Lives Matter has begun to make common cause with the BDS movement against Israel. So 25 years after Crown Heights, it’s anyone’s guess where the next attacks will break out against the Jews. [emphasis added] These days, there is no longer any need to guess.


-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Last week, Peter Beinart described Bernie Sanders as "the most successful Jewish presidential candidate in American history"


After all, it is a 'thing' now to talk up how 'Jewish' Bernie Sanders is.

I responded to Beinart's tweet:



There were a few responses to what I wrote, but they avoided the question of whether Bernie Sanders actually embraces his being Jewish. Instead, they attacked Lieberman -- totally missing the point.

Or avoiding it.

The fact is that Bernie Sanders, despite the best efforts of Beinart and others, has not registered as a Jew in the minds of voters.

Back in 2016, a Los Angeles Times article reported that Bernie Sanders fares poorly against Hillary Clinton with fellow Jews, polls indicate
Sen. Bernie Sanders has gone further than any other Jewish candidate in a presidential campaign, but he’s not garnering much support from Jewish voters, polls indicate...

Now that the campaign has moved to New York, however, which has the nation’s largest Jewish population, the numbers are in, and they’re not favorable.

That shouldn’t be terribly surprising. Both Hillary Clinton and former president Bill Clinton have long been popular among Jewish voters, and while American Jews tend to be liberal, they’re more often regular Democrats than the sorts of independents most drawn to Sanders.

On the other side, Sanders is not actively engaged in Jewish life. He has also been critical of Israel, although he lived briefly as a young man on a secular, socialist kibbutz. When asked about his faith, his responses have reflected a generalized commitment to liberal concepts of social justice as opposed to any specific link to Jewish ideals of equality. [emphasis added]The article is based on 2 polls: the Sienna College Poll, which found Clinton leading Sanders among Jewish voters by a 60%-38% margin and the NBC/Wall St. Journal/Marist poll,which found Clinton leading among Jews 65%-32%.

Putting aside where he stands on Israel, the fact remains that Sanders is not Jewishly involved and his inspiration is from socialism, not Judaism.

That is not a judgment on Sanders, just a recognition of where he stands.

In a presidential election pitting Sanders and Trump, Sanders would clearly get the majority of the Jewish vote, but that is because most Jews vote Democrat anyway and not because they think of him as a Jew.

Not only does he not embody Jewish pride, Sanders does not have a typical reaction to antisemitism either. At an event at the Apollo Theater in New York in April 2016, Sanders faced an antisemitic question:
“As you know,” opened the questioner, “the Zionist Jews–and I don’t mean to offend anybody–they run the Federal Reserve, they run Wall Street, they run every campaign.” As this unfolded, Sanders began wagging his finger in dissent, and interjected to deem “Zionist Jews” a “bad phrase.” His interlocutor, pressed to articulate a question, concluded by saying, “What is your affiliation to your Jewish community? That’s all I’m asking.”

“No, no, no, that’s not what you’re asking,” Sanders quickly replied, in a nod to the question’s underlying prejudice. “I am proud to be Jewish,” he declared, to cheers from the audience. But then Sanders did something odd. Rather than using the question as a teaching moment to address and rebuke its anti-Semitic underpinnings, Sanders instead immediately pivoted to his stump speech on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “Talking about Zionism and Israel,” he said, “I am a strong defender of Israel, but I also believe that we have got to pay attention to the needs of the Palestinian people.” He never challenged the actual contents of the question, let alone labeled it anti-Semitic. [emphasis added]

It is tempting to compare Sanders' failure to address the clear antisemitism of the questioner with his making Linda Sarsour his surrogate. This is the same Linda Sarsour who in 2015 spoke at a Farrakhan rally. Then again, Sanders has met publicly with antisemite Al Sharpton.

Associations with Farrakhan and Sharpton don't seem to bother Bernie Sanders.


But that Sanders-Sarsour connection really is especially jarring.

And, as Ron Kampeas points out, that alliance of Sanders and Sarsour is self-contradictory as well.

Kampeas notes Sarsour's statement that:
Ask them this, how can you be against white supremacy in America and the idea of being in a state based on race and class, but then you support a state like Israel that is based on supremacy, that is built on the idea that Jews are supreme to everyone else?” [emphasis added]Kampeas then points out that:
[Sanders] notes the time he spent in Israel as a young man and says “It is true that some criticism of Israel can cross the line into antisemitism, especially when it denies the right of self-determination to Jews, or when it plays into conspiracy theories about outsized Jewish power. I will always call out antisemitism when I see it.” [emphasis added]This leads Kampeas to the point:
Is there wiggle room to reconcile Sarsour’s rejection of a “state like Israel that is based on [Jewish] supremacy” and Sanders’ label for those who deny “the right of self-determination to Jews” as antisemites?This is an issue that does not seem to bother Sanders.

So if he does not embrace his being a Jew and not does publicly react to defend his being a Jew -- why is there this attempt to emphasize that Bernie Sanders is a Jew?

It seems there is an attempt to not only redefine what is and is not antisemitism, but even to redefine what it means to be a Jew -- something that no other minority has to put up with.

Maybe it is an attempt to redefine the connection between Jews and Israel, in the way that small radical fringe groups like If Not Now try to do.

But whatever the reason, this attempt to sell Sanders as a symbol of Jewish pride is a symptom of the weakening of Jewish identity in general and the problematic connection of Jews in the US with Israel.

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Two Black Hebrew Israelites deliberately attacked a kosher grocery in Jersey City this past Tuesday.

We can leave it to the media to report who the Black Hebrew Israelites are.
There will be articles about just how Jewish they are, about their history and about their community in Israel.

But while they are not considered Jewish by the Israeli government, Black Hebrew Israelites are Jewish enough for Palestinian terrorists.


According to an article in the Chicago Tribune in 2002, Death bridges gap for Black Hebrews:
Under a cool, clear sky and with a large crowd of mourners on hand, 32-year-old Aharon Ben-Yisrael Elis was buried Sunday in a new section of this town's cemetery.

He was the first of the Black Hebrews--a small group of African-Americans, most of whom came to Israel from Chicago more than three decades ago--to be born in Israel. He also was the first of the group to die from the terrorism that has haunted the Jews of Israel for years. Aharon Ben-Yisrael Elis. Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Because the group had their own religion, combining Judaism with other beliefs, the Black Hebrews were not fully accepted into Israeli society and were not granted citizenship.

But those differences were set aside in the face of the terrorist attack:
Yet Elis' passing at the hands of a terrorist provoked an outpouring of Israeli mourners, including Dimona's mayor, a member of the Knesset and the two top rabbis from this town in the northern tip of the Negev desert. Elis was killed Thursday, one of six people slain by a Palestinian gunman who had stormed a banquet hall in a northern town where a bat mitzvah, or a coming-of-age ceremony, for a 12-year-old Israeli girl was under way.

...Dimona officials talked about how the Black Hebrews had found a home in their community and were welcomed. Av Shalom Vilan, a member of the Knesset from the left-of-center Meretz Party, said he hoped that the death of a Black Hebrew as a result of Arab violence would open the hearts and doors of Israel's society for citizenship for the group, which the Black Hebrews have long sought.

Rabbi Shalom Dayan, the chief Sephardic rabbi of Dimona, summed up in a few words what the others said Elis' death meant for the Black Hebrews' long-term quest to win full acceptance into Israeli society.

"You have just sealed one of the most difficult pacts with our Israeli society," Dayan said. More than that, the Israeli government took action too.

Israel destroyed the Palestinian broadcasting center and Israeli tanks came up to Yasser Arafat's headquarters in Ramallah. Israeli troops entered Tulkarem, where they searched houses, detained a number of Palestinian Arabs and put the city under curfew.

But that was then.

And it makes this week's tragedy even more bitter.



-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

An interview with Alex Ryvchin, author of "Zionism: The Concise History"
(Originally posted on The Jewish Press)

Q: What do you see as the purpose of your new book, Zionism: The Concise History, and who is it for?

A: The whole concept of Zionism has been politically and strategically trashed by her enemies. The danger is that future generations will only know Zionism as an evil to be fought and the young people, whom we count on as the next advocates to tell the story of Zionism and defend it, today are generally apathetic or ignorant of this story. We hear people saying Zionism has nothing to do with Judaism or being Jewish, but I think Zionism is inextricably linked to Jewish history.

The story of Zionism is the story of the Jewish people. And if Jews don’t know that story and don’t take part in it, we will see greater rates of intermarriage and loss of identity.




For this reason, I’d like to see my book taught in schools and universities.



Q: One of the patterns in Jewish history is making questionable alliances with apparent enemies. You mention Herzl in this regard. Can you give an example, and do you think this is an unavoidable element of Zionism?

Herzl dealt with a lot of ardent antisemites like the Kaiser and the Russian Foreign Minister. He felt a cold synergy between the interests of Zionism and these rabid antisemites. Herzl thought that for the Jews to achieve the return to their ancestral land, these antisemites who are so keen to purge their countries of Jews would be accommodating. And indeed, many of them saw a benefit in a movement that could absorb a large number of Jews.

In any political campaign such as Zionism, there has to be a dose of realpolitik--to think not only about the idealism, but also how to practically achieve your goal. That means creating alliances with those you find unsavory. The danger is when you look at an alignment of interests as temporary and mistake that for good faith or long term alliances. To Herzl’s credit, he quickly realized he was not going to achieve the goals of Zionism through alliances with those who were fundamentally hostile to Jewish rights. That is why he shifted the Zionist movement from the European continent to Great Britain, where he found men who more driven by Christian ideals and a general passion for the idea of the Jews returning to their ancestral land.

Today, Israel has formed alliances with some nations that might really see a short term alignment of interests, but don’t harbor any great feeling of warmth towards the Jewish people. That is dangerous, but it is also the world that we live in. And as long as the Netanyahu government and the successive governments go into this with their eyes open, I think it is something that can and needs to be done. But at the same time, I think that Israel should act morally in this regard and call out antisemitism of far-right leaders around the world with whom they may have diplomatic relations. If those relations are genuine, they will withstand those criticisms.

Q: We know the Balfour Declaration favors the establishment of “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine and that “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” -- but it also says nothing should be done to prejudice “the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.” What was that issue?

A: The concern was that Zionism was not the universal position of the Jewish World. There was still discussion in the Jewish World what was best way to alleviate the suffering of the Jews was through assimilation. Not everyone was on the side of Zionism, particularly those who lived in liberal Democratic countries like the UK, Australia and the US. They did not see the need for a national movement to return to Palestine. They favored assimilation.

In order to assuage those concerns, that wording was put in, to say that basically, those Jews who preferred to live outside of the Jewish State would continue to live in the Diaspora with nothing to impede their rights. There was a concern that once the Jewish State was formed, Jews living outside that state would be viewed as alien, foreigners. That language in the Balfour Declaration was to protect them.

I am keen that people should read this book and apply its lessons to contemporary times. I think that is very important.

Bernie Sanders is different from those Jews in the early 20th century who were driven mainly by self-preservation. They were men who, despite being Jewish, soared to the heights of public life in the UK and Australia. They looked at Zionism, dedicated to liberating the Jewish people and alleviating their antisemitism and thought: what do I need this for; it will only have a detrimental effect on my standing!
Sanders is not motivated by that sort of calculus. He is an American Jew, deeply committed to perfecting American society, making it as just and equitable as possible the way he sees it. I think he views Zionism as a foreign project and doesn’t identify with it. Also, he is associated with the hard left who are rabidly anti-Zionist and has to placate them.

Alex Ryvchin, author of Zionism: The Concise History. Source: Screen-cap

Q: Originally, Arab leaders like Hussein ibn Ali and his son Amir Faisal allied with Chaim Weizmann and favored the re-establishment of a Jewish state. Then along came Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti, who incited riots and tried to prevent it. Today, are we seeing a shift back in the other direction?

A: Today the Arab states see the peace treaties between Israel and Egypt and Jordan. They see if you don’t threaten Israel, it won’t harm you back, will be good friends and share technology. Israel can become a dependable strategic ally in the face of much bigger threats like Iran.

But at the same time, one thing that Zionism teaches us is that alliances come and go, they rise and fall, and cannot really be depended on. They need to be used at that point in time. As long as Israel is economically, militarily, and diplomatically strong, that is the most important thing. Let Israel choose alliances at that point in time, but it cannot depend on anyone.

Q: In the last chapter of your book, you discuss anti-Zionism, which started off as Jewish opposition to Zionism. How is that different from today’s anti-Zionism on college campuses and expressed by politicians?

A: Early anti-Zionism is virtually unrecognizable from anti-Zionism today. The anti-Zionist Jews at the time were overwhelming loyal, proud Jews who cared deeply for the future of the Jewish people, but they had a different view on how to solve the problem of antisemitism in the streets. Their solution was the full immersion into the societies in which they lived. It was a legitimate point of view, but ultimately disproven.

The anti-Zionist Jews of today do not care about Jewish rights. Instead, they use their Jewishness to attack their own people. Rather than stand up against their oppressors, they side with them.

But once the state of Israel exists, anti-Zionism becomes not merely a different political position or philosophy, it now becomes the opposition to the existence of the state of Israel--a state that has now existed for over 70 years. Anti-Zionism is no longer a morally tenable position. That is why you will not find in the ranks of anti-Zionist Jews someone who cares about the future of the Jewish people. Instead, overwhelmingly you find selfish people of low character.

Q: You trace Great Britain’s change into an enemy of Zionism to its being a declining imperial power, stretched thin and wearied by Palestine. Some might see that as a description of the US. Do you think there is a danger of Zionist history repeating itself here too?

A: I think so. That description of Great Britain in the 1940s could apply to the US today. There is a growing trend, particularly under the current president, of isolationism and rethinking US foreign policy solely in terms of US interests. It is no longer fashionable to think the US should bring the values of democracy to the darkest places in the world and be a force for good.

There especially a risk with the progressive Democrats who don't have that instinctive warmth for the state of Israel as establishment Democrats have in the past.

Governments and allies come and go. Israel needs to remain strong and independent to preserve its interests. We have seen this already in the course of its existence.



-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Le premier tour des élection présidentielles sénégalaises s’est tenu dans un climat d’une grande qualité républicaine. Si on peut déplorer ici ou là des incidents de vote – en particulier les situations de mauvais adressage des électeurs à leur bureau … Lire la suite →

© nicanor-ngouan.net État de guerre, horreur absolue, urgence absolue, hyper ceci, hyper cela … Face aux terribles attentats ayant ensanglantés la France, la parole institutionnelle, dès Charlie Hebdo, a choisi de n’adresser que l’émotion, dans une sorte de surenchère performative. … Lire la suite →

Après avoir battu campagne pour la sortie du Royaume-Uni de l’Union européenne, l’ancien maire de Londres – qui n’a jamais hésité pour sa cause à faire usage de mensonges grotesques et à se rouler dans la plus vile des xénophobies … Lire la suite →

En « Europe », les électeurs anglais, si l’on peut d’abord saluer chez eux le respect du précieux principe démocratique, n’ont aucune idée de ce qui les attend (une récession et la réalisation brutale leur place exacte sur l’échiquier mondial) : l’une … Lire la suite →