My new article on Linkedin “The Political Olympic Games”

The International Olympic Committee writes on its website that the Olympic Truce was established in ancient Greece through the signing of a treaty between three Greek city-states—Elis, Pisa, and Sparta—to allow safe participation in the Olympic Games for all athletes and spectators, who were otherwise in constant conflict with each other. Today’s three superpowers—the US, China, and Russia—are doing just the opposite, using the Olympics as a stage for political warfare that only increases animosity. Worse yet, despite the UN General Assembly resolution of October 25, 1993, to observe the Olympic Truce, the rest of the world takes sides in the feud.

The whole concept of sports has become so self-centered and distorted that it has lost its merit. For this reason, I would cancel these competitions altogether. If we bring the wars into the games instead of using them to end the wars and promote peace and unity, then there is no point in holding them at all.

Even without an official boycott, as in this year’s Winter Olympics, the war still rages and the athletes pay the price. They are doped, suffer frequent injuries, and are often verbally, physically, and even sexually abused by their coaches. Spectators, too, are pitched against each other in the name of national pride, the exact opposite of the spirit of unity that should prevail in the Olympic games.

Ideally, the games aspire to build “a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport practiced without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understanding with a spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play.” Today’s Olympic “Games” could not be further from this spirit.

Competition is great when it motivates us to improve ourselves. But there is no self-improvement in being ready to kill one another because one person jumped with a stick one centimeter higher than his or her competitor. And what about the whole issue of defining gender in women’s sports? The whole concept of sports has become so self-centered and distorted that it has lost its merit.

For this reason, I would cancel these competitions altogether. If we bring the wars into the games instead of using them to end the wars and promote peace and unity, then there is no point in holding them at all.

We should compete over who helps the world the most, not over who exploits and abuses others the most. Are these the values we want to pass on to our children? Is this the kind of people we want them to grow up to be? If we want them to live in a world where they can trust others and have friends to associate with, we must at least try to set an example of unity and mutual consideration. Afterwards, we should encourage them to follow in our footsteps. But if the Olympics do not promote the spirit of unity, then we should not hold them.
[293624]

Filed under: Crisis, Egoism, New Publications, Unity - No Comments →

Medium published my new article “Rethinking Evolution”

For many decades, we have been taught that evolution is random, that mutations just happen and the ones that contribute most to the survival of the species remain while the others disappear. But science is gradually accepting that evolution is not random but directional.

Researches in one study, for example, which focused on a small, flowering weed called thale cress, stated that “It turns out that mutation is very non-random and it’s non-random in a way that benefits the plant. It’s a totally new way of thinking about mutation,” they concluded.

Another study, which examined hemoglobin mutation that protects against malaria, found that it appears more frequently in people from Africa, where malaria is common, than in people from Europe, where it is rare. “Mutations defy traditional thinking,” said the lead researcher. “The results suggest that complex information that is accumulated in the genome … impacts mutation, and therefore mutation-specific origination rates can respond … to specific environmental pressures.”

If we look even deeper than the apparent phenomena, we will find that the environment, too, is evolving in a specific direction: toward increasing integration. We are evolving toward a state that already exists, though we have not perceived it. It is a state where species separate from one another, but in harmony with all of creation.

Earth is a balanced system. Its parts are in perfect harmony among them, which guarantees the survival of Earth’s plants and animals. On the face of it, there should not have been evolution. If everything is perfect and harmonious, there should not have been any changes in the species.

The reason that evolution still occurs, despite the balance among all creations, is that underneath all of creation lies a desire for constant improvement of one’s personal state. The more evolved a creation is, the more intense is its desire. In humankind, this desire manifests as egoism and narcissism, as a craving for control, to be superior, even Godlike. In the animal kingdom and in plants, it is expressed in a constant effort to strengthen oneself against one’s natural enemies, but not in a desire to dominate and control. Therefore, on every level besides the human level, the balance remains, though it is dynamic and evolving.

In humanity, the main “evolution” is in our perception, not in our bodies, although physical changes happen in us, too. As our understanding of the world evolves, our perception of reality changes and becomes more aligned with the interconnected world around us.

Because nature is utterly integrated and all its parts are inextricably intertwined, human society is also growing more interconnected and interdependent. Accordingly, settlements have grown over the centuries from nomadic clans to sedentary towns, to cities, countries, and empires.

Along with the growth in the size of settlements, we have grown increasingly interdependent economically, in provision of our food supplies, education, and in every aspect of our lives. Now, the whole world has become connected to the point that even entire countries, including superpowers such as China or Russia cannot sustain themselves alone. Globalization has made the whole world one village, but one whose residents are reluctant to accept their neighbors and constantly clash with one another.

The development of human society toward increased integration is no coincidence. Because we are living in an integrated universe, where everything is interconnected and interdependent, we, too, are being developed in that same direction. This is why for all our efforts to supersede others, in the end, we are still dependent on everyone else, and no country can maintain its preeminence indefinitely. Against our will, we are being dragged into cooperation.

But our evolution toward an interdependent society aims higher than society itself. It is intended to reveal to us the interdependence of all of creation, that everything is harmonious and all the pieces of creation complement one another. The final outcome of our evolution is complete awareness of the universe where we exist on all its levels: physical, mental, and spiritual.

If we voluntarily direct ourselves toward cohesion and cooperation, we will advance toward the final goal more quickly and less painfully. It is like swimming downstream as opposed to trying to swim upstream, which is what we are doing now. It is hopeless and painful.

The shore that awaits us down the stream is serene and peaceful. If we swim toward it, by voluntarily increasing our cooperation and mutual consideration, we will reach that pleasant riverbank quickly, pleasantly, and easily. If we resist, we will still get there, since we cannot go upriver, but we will get there only after we are exhausted, defeated, and tormented.
[293573]

Filed under: New Publications - No Comments →

My new article on Linkedin “Killing ISIS’ Leader Will Solve Nothing”

On Thursday, February 3, a US counterterrorism raid in northwestern Syria killed ISIS leader Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi. Al-Quraishi had led the group since the death of its founder, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who was killed in another US raid in 2019. I have to admit that I only found out about this today. Normally, I know what is happening in the world, but in this case, the killing makes so little difference that the story completely escaped me. Also, we have no idea who will follow him and what he might do, so I am not at all sure that eliminating al-Qurayshi at this point in time was wise.

In general, terror groups do not just pop up; behind every terrorist organization are powerful countries that use them for proxy wars. In the past, countries fought each other and killed tens of thousands of people. Economies were ruined and the devastation was disastrous. Today, countries use proxy paramilitary armies, which we call “terrorist organizations,” to fight for them.

On the one hand, it is better to fight proxy wars than to start an all-out war. On the other hand, we cannot consider terror a positive development. We should aspire to live without both.

In the past, it was hard to imagine a world without wars. But since the end of World War II, the Western world has in fact been living without war on Western European or North American soil for nearly eighty years now. Likewise, while today it is very hard to imagine a world without terrorism, it is not impossible to achieve. Just as the West resolved never to fight again because it realized what war can do, the world will eventually come to a point where it resolves not to allow terrorism, and for the same reason that the West abolished war.

We will get there when all of humanity resolves to correct the heart of the evil in this world: human nature.

There are two ways we can get there: The first is that nature will force us to recognize each other, to take each other into consideration and eventually even develop concern for one another. The second way is to develop this sensitivity toward each other voluntarily. In either case, we will have to develop care and concern for one another.

Realistically, the road to this ideal state will probably consist of a mixture of the two possibilities. Nature will probably force us to approach each other a little, to become a little more considerate through natural blows or violence, and as we approach each other we will realize that this form of relationship is preferable to hatred and distrust.

Subsequently, we will fall back into our mean ways, and nature will again painfully remind us of our interdependence. Eventually, the pain will have etched itself deep enough into our collective memory that we will not return to violence and self-centered views.

We can also make the journey shorter and less painful by reminding each other before we suffer further blows from nature or from people, but that depends on our willingness to listen. The choice is ours. Human society will have a happy end, but the question is whether our way there will be happy or whether we will let suffering lead us to the happy end.
[293529]

Filed under: Crisis, New Publications - No Comments →

My new article on Linkedin “Another Perspective on Whoopi Goldberg’s ‘The View’ Comment”

Earlier this week, actress and comedian Whoopi Goldberg, who co-hosts the show “The View” said on the show, “The Holocaust isn’t about race,” but about “man’s inhumanity to man.” The backlash soon followed and ABC, which produces the show, suspended Goldberg for two weeks. The Holocaust is definitely about race; the only problem is that the Jews are not a race. If they, and the world, knew what being Jewish means, the fate of the Jews and the fate of the world would have been very different from the current dismal state of both the Jews and the world.

Jews are not White, as Goldberg pointed out. They have no distinct color because they have no distinct origin from which they came. The first Jews were followers of Abraham, who was born in Haran—a major city in Mesopotamia, which is today within the boundaries of Turkey. Abraham was not a Jew; he was an idol-worshipper, the son of a successful idol-worshipping priest who had an idol shop.

According to Maimonides (Mishneh Torah), the Midrash (Beresheet Rabbah), and other sources, Abraham was worried about the growing enmity among his people. His concern made him ask poignant questions about life and how it is governed, or as Maimonides put it, “Who is the owner of the Capital?” and how he could help his quarreling townsfolk. Eventually, he discovered that only one force governs everything, and that what his people needed to do in order to overcome their division was to unite until they became as united as that one force.

Abraham began to talk about his thoughts and circulate his ideas. The idea of unity and oneness resonated with some people, but most people shunned it, including his King, Nimrod. As a result, Abraham and his followers were driven out of their city and their country and began to wander toward Canaan.

Along the way, Abraham continued to speak of his ideas and more people joined his entourage. These people later became the people of Israel, and their motto was unity to the point of oneness, or as they later described that level of unity: “as one man with one heart.”

After Abraham’s passing, Isaac continued in his father’s footsteps, Jacob followed Isaac, and so did Joseph. Eventually, when Moses managed to unite the divided nation that had splintered after Joseph’s death, they had become a full-fledged nation.

Their feat—building a nation out of complete strangers by sticking to the notion of unity—has remained unparalleled and unmatched to this day. No other nation had been built this way.

Precisely because of their unique background—their eclectic makeup—they were the perfect example of what the world could be like if all the people became as brothers. The Jews became a model nation for better or worse. When they were united, they were proof that people from different tribes, backgrounds, ethnicities, and faiths could unite above their differences. When they were divided, they displayed all the hatred that the nations feel for one another since the Jews are the descendants of those rivaling and quarrelsome nations.

Because of our unique background, we have been given a unique role in the world: to be a model of unity above hatred and differences. Because of our unique role, we were, are, and always will be at the center of the world’s attention. Because we are expected to show unity and be a model nation, we were, are, and always will be judged by a stricter standard than the rest of the world. Until we complete our task successfully and set a permanent model of unity, the world will keep reproving us and claim that we are bullies, warmongers, and thieves, and will accuse us of every wrongdoing that the world can think of.

Therefore, although the Jews are not a race, the Holocaust was certainly against the Jews, very specifically, and not some conflict between groups of Whites. At the same time, if we want to end antisemitism, we should focus not on silencing antisemites, but on silencing the criticism, spite, and hatred that we feel for one another.

The world will not embrace us until we embrace each other. If we remember this, our future is bright. If we forget it once again, then more troubles are ahead for all of us.

Filed under: Anti-Semitism, New Publications - No Comments →

My new article on Linkedin “No Amnesty for Israel Until There’s Amnesty Among Us”

Just recently, Amnesty International fired a quiver of poisonous arrows at Israel. One may ask, what is new? A new report by the international NGO accuses Israel of being an apartheid state not only in terms of its policies in the West Bank and Gaza, but also within its borders. This time, it bluntly questions the very nature of the Jewish State, and even Israel’s right to exist. There is only one antidote to this hateful polemic: Jewish unity.

“In the course of establishing Israel as a Jewish state in 1948, Israel expelled hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and destroyed hundreds of Palestinian villages in what amounted to ethnic cleansing,” reads the 278 page report titled Israel’s Apartheid Against Palestinians: Cruel System of Domination and Crime Against Humanity. No more no less.

Where are the voices against other totalitarian and dictatorial regimes around the world while Israel is systematically singled out and accused of hideous crimes? Whether we like it or not, it is a fact that the Jewish state is judged by a completely different standard than the rest of the world, and this is called antisemitism. We must question where this antisemitism has its roots in order to tackle it.

In the complicated global reality we live in today, the more frequent and intense the problems are, the more humanity blames this tiny nation of Jews for its problems. Amnesty International and other haters seem to be telling us that If Israel were wiped out, the world’s problems would end.

They cannot even explain to themselves why they persistently and determinedly persecute us, but by this “special treatment” antisemites unconsciously elevate our status as a people with a special role in this world. Summarized in simple terms, their message is that the State of Israel, founded on the Land of Israel, is obligated to exist according to the laws of the nation of Israel – to be “like one man with one heart” and to act according to the rule of “love your neighbor as yourself.” If the nation does not exist in this way, in accordance with these laws, they believe that the Jews have no right to exist on their land, so they must be sent back to the Diaspora until perhaps in a few hundred years they will return and succeed to unite.

The principle of unity should be implemented first and foremost within the Jewish people in order to set an example to other peoples. Such high expectations on Israel have been expressed by some of our most vociferous critics throughout history. For example, American antisemite Henry Ford admitted in his book The International Jew: “The whole prophetic purpose in regard to the people of Israel seems to be to enlighten the world morally through their agency.”

At the other end of the spectrum are the lovers of Israel, the sages of the nation who knew how to define the meaning and purpose of the Jewish people, such as Rav Abraham Isaac HaCohen Kook, who explained the role of the Jewish nation in his writings: “Within Israel is a hidden sanctity of elevating the value of life itself through the Divinity that is present in Israel… With utter completeness will it be completed within the house of Israel, and from it, it will radiate to the earth and to the whole world, ‘for a covenant of the people, for a light of the nations.'” (Rav Abraham Isaac HaCohen Kook, Ein Ayah [A Hawk’s Eye])

In other words: If we fail to maintain solidarity and cohesion among ourselves, we will continue experiencing big trouble. But if we base our relationships on love and mutual understanding, we will be a source of goodness that spreads to the whole world, and hostility towards us will vanish.
[293576]

Filed under: Anti-Semitism, New Publications - No Comments →

My new article on Linkedin “Respect the Venom ”

Many toxic events have been happening in the world recently: Extreme weather events, intensifying political tensions, soaring inflation, revolutions and coups, not to mention new strains every other day. As countries fall apart and nations implode, relationships that were the foundation of society no longer hold, as well, as even the structure of the family is being erased. It seems as though people are treating each other with spite and venom.

However, venom does not have to be harmful. There is a good reason that the symbol of medicine features two snakes coiled around a staff. When used wisely, the venom itself becomes the remedy, the antidote for the poison.

We can turn venom into medicine by processing it correctly. We need to adjust the amount and administer only what the body can tolerate, and as a result, we grow stronger.

Therefore, when venom appears between people, we should not be alarmed. We should process it correctly and turn it into a remedy. Were it not for the venom between people, we would not know that our society is ill and needs our attention. Now that we are aware of it, we can begin to take the venom one drop at a time and use it to heal ourselves and our society.

Each drop of venom is a drop of hatred that we feel for one another. When we acknowledge it and acknowledge its toxicity to society, we can rise above it and by strengthening the bonds of mutual concern between us. In this way, the venom makes us stronger rather than sicker.

The human ego is the snake within us. It is ever growing, becoming increasingly cunning and insidious. The bad thoughts about others it instills in us are the venom we must turn into a medicine. We take tiny doses of it and build closeness with others on top of our aversion.

We therefore see that the purpose of the venom is to build love between us. Without the hostility, we would not need to strengthen our relationships, to deepen them and tighten them until they become love.

A mother’s love for her child is natural, but we do not feel this way toward people who are not family. Therefore, the way to develop this feeling is to feel the need for it, to create an impetus that will make us work on building closeness and affection. The only incentive that will make us work on developing love is the revelation of our mutual dislike. This is why the venom is essential for building love, why it is the remedy.

Indeed, we must respect the venom of our egoism and hatred toward others. But while we respect it, we must use it to build a layer of love over each and every drop of ego that appears between us.

Filed under: New Publications - No Comments →

Michael Laitman, On The Times of Israel: “World’s Misconception about Jews, and the Jews’ Misconception about Antisemitism”

Not long ago, The Jerusalem Post published an op-ed by Conrad Myrland, CEO of a pro-Israel group in Norway. In the column, Myrland referenced a survey by the Norwegian Center for Holocaust and Minority, which stated that “32% of Norwegians think it is correct or somewhat correct that Israel treats the Palestinians as badly as the Jews were treated during World War II.” To Israelis, this sounds horrific. We, who live here, know how far this view is from the truth. But to many people around the world, not only to Norwegians, it seems perfectly reasonable. I cannot blame them for thinking this. Antisemitism will not pass until we make it pass by carrying out our obligation to bring unity and brotherhood to the world.

Norwegians, like many others around the world, cannot sense, much less sympathize with what the Nazis did to the Jews. Being antisemitic, they exploit every opportunity to slander Israel.

We need to understand that antisemitism is far from over. The misconceptions instilled in Norway’s youth today will create tomorrow’s Nazis, at least in terms of how they will treat Jews.

The struggle against antisemitism does not end. It needs to be tackled every single generation.

However, it is important to realize that tackling antisemitism means far more than forbidding antisemitic displays. Censorship is like aspirin to cancer; it may relieve the pain for a while but it will not cure it. Focusing the struggle only on curbing antisemitic displays is a strategic mistake and a lost cause regardless of the budgets we will pour into it.

The only way that we can mitigate, and even dissolve antisemitism is if we begin to take our obligation to the world seriously. We need to realize that the only reason we exist is to be a model society.

We were created as a nation that is held by unity, and whose nationhood depends on the level of its unity. All other nations have natural affiliation among their members, but the builders of our nation came from different tribes at different times, and the only thing that held them together was the idea that unity and love of others should transcend all divisions and hatred, even among rival nations. This is why we were tasked with being a model nation, to show humanity how to create unity even in the absence of natural, biological affinity.

Accordingly, when we mistreat each other, the world blames us of mistreating others not because we treat others the way the Nazis treated us, but because we are denying it the example we owe it. It may be counterintuitive but when we are kind to one another, the world is kind to us; and when we are cruel to one another, the world is cruel to us.

The numbers speak for themselves: If you look at condemnations that the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has issued, it is apparent that the world’s most tyrannical regimes get away with very little criticism, while Israel is constantly reproved. Between 2015-2021, for example, the UNGA issued 121 critical resolutions against Israel compared to 45 such resolutions against all other countries combined. Clearly, Norwegians are not alone in their critical stance on Israel. The world agrees with them.

If we are serious about “combatting” antisemitism, we have to combat the division within us. Unless we begin to strive to unite above the hatred and contempt we feel for one another, no efforts to lessen the world’s hatred toward us will succeed. Israel’s future depends not on its policy toward other nations or its efforts to explain its position to the world. It depends only on how Israelis treat each other, because when we deride each other, the world disdains us. When we support each other, the world approves of us.
[293411]

Filed under: Anti-Semitism, Israel Today, New Publications - No Comments →

My new article on Linkedin “The Dilemma of Non-Jews Playing Jewish Characters”

It is highly doubtful that Golda Meir could have imagined that forty years after her death Jews would create a storm in Hollywood regarding the actress who would play her character in the upcoming biopic “Golda.”

Filling Golda’s shoes in the production is the non-Jewish British actress Helen Mirren. This casting sparked a protest by Jewish actors in the United States and the UK against non-Jews playing Jewish characters in movies and series. Just as African or Asian actors insist on portraying African or Asian roles on screen, Jewish actors assert that only a Jewish actor is capable of embodying Jewish characters and representing their people.

I strongly and unequivocally agree with this opinion. Not only because Golda Meir is a Jewish Zionist figure, the Prime Minister who led Israel in the tense days of the Yom Kippur War, but because the Jewish spirit cannot be conveyed at all by non-Jews. Even if it were Albert Einstein, who lived far from Zionist ideals in America and was totally immersed in the world of science, a non-Jewish actor could not express the same spirit.

In the world of cinema there are many examples of non-Jews who have played the roles of Jews, but much more than the complex facial expressions, body language, and distinctive speech, it is the inner spirit that is indescribable.

If we were to conduct a comparative test, I think both Jews and non-Jews would agree that it is impossible to play a Jew if you are not a Jew. Why is that? It is because of the collective experiences endured by this people throughout the ages that pulses in the fiber of their being. Jews are a people who took the role on humanity’s stage at the foot of Mount Sinai to be a “light unto the nations,” a symbol and model of social unity. This is a spiritual message and mission that has not disappeared; it is engraved within them and is passed on from generation to generation. Whether we like it or not, the Jewish spirit is present and alive in every Jew, regardless of the country in which Jews live.

I have seen Jews from China to South America, from Europe to the Far East, and although the different local culture has influenced their lifestyle, they still remain Jews. They have an essential inner quality that does not allow them to escape their Jewishness, so much so that they can be perceived as Jews. This living heritage cannot be replicated or simulated with authenticity by someone who lacks the innate quality. Therefore, a non-Jewish actor or actress cannot play a Jew.

In short, non-Jewish actors can be great and win praise by playing Jews on stage, but in practice, the deep and substantial spiritual root instilled in the Jewish psyche, which is connected to the root of creation, will not touch the heart of the viewer.
[293360]

Filed under: New Publications - No Comments →

My new article on Linkedin “To Live, or Not to Live, That Is the Question”

“To be, or not to be, that is the question,” mused Prince Hamlet in the so-called “nunnery scene” of William Shakespeare’s play Hamlet. Every year, around the world, some 800,000 people answer this question negatively and take their own lives. Even worse, suicide is one of the leading causes of death among young people. Why do people, especially young ones, take their own lives? Is it possible to strengthen their desire to live?

The authors of the Talmud wrote, “For two and a half years, the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel disputed. One side said, ‘It is better for man not to be born than to be born,’ and the other side said, ‘It is better for man to be born than not to be born.’ They concluded, ‘It is better for man not to be born than to be born, but now that he is born, let him look into his actions’” (Eruvin 13b). Indeed, if an alien were to land on Earth and look at us, it would probably say, “The pathetic humans bump into each other, ridicule and humiliate one another, and do everything they can to ruin each other’s lives. No wonder they are so depressed. Why did nature create such miserable beings?”

Suicide is the extreme consequence of a series of problems that afflict people to the point where they decide to end it all. But even before these problems become too much to handle, they make us ask about the meaning of life. After all, if life is only about survival through ordeals, then it is indeed better not to be born than to be born.

The thing is that when we begin to ask questions about life, or as the sages wrote, “look into our actions,” we begin to grow. Pain leads to spiritual development that lifts us to realms we would not have dreamed existed, and we would not have searched for them were we not forced by pain.

The key to these new realms lies in fostering positive connections among people, in emerging from the mindset of alienation and narcissism we have so devoutly nurtured until now, to find that when we sympathize with others, we gain rather than lose. We win new perspectives and new ideas, new wisdom and knowledge, and new friends. By changing our attitude to others, we change our world.

Moreover, by choosing who we bond with, we shape and reshape our world with every new acquaintance. In this way, no world is too harsh to live in, since we can always change the people we connect to, and in so doing, change our world. Also, there is no end to the insights and knowledge we can gain since there are always more connections to make than we can establish in our lifetime.

And best of all, when we connect with other people, we attune ourselves to our surrounding reality, which is already connected and would have worked in perfect harmony if we, humans, did not disrupt it. The more we develop positive connections, which aim to support and nurture rather than depress and oppress one another, the more we expand our perception of reality. We find that the reality we have known until now was only a “corridor” to a deeper and more expansive perception.

If we want people not to take their own lives, we must give them a reason to live. When people understand what life is for, they will have a purpose to go through life’s trials and tribulations. As Nietzsche wrote, “He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.”

Therefore, our task today is to reshape our connections in order to reshape our world. The world reflects our attitude toward others. If we jointly transform our attitude toward others from abusive and aggressive to considerate and caring, the lives of all of us will change, as well, from a losing battle to a smooth and pleasant ride. It is really up to us.
[293312]

Filed under: New Publications - No Comments →

Michael Laitman, on The Times of Israel: “On the Difference between Unity and a Show of Unity”

On January 26, Jewish leaders met under the auspices of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, to discuss unity in the face of antisemitism. The meeting took place one day before the International Holocaust Remembrance Day. The speakers stressed “that the community should unite and go on offense against anti-Semites across the political spectrum.” Former Obama-administration Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Ira Forman, for example, said, “If we only criticize anti-Semitism from our political opponents and not people in our own party, our own ideology, we really aren’t caring about anti-Semitism. …We’re just using the platform of anti-Semitism to wage war against our political opponents, and those are those of us on the left, like myself, those on the right, have done too much of this and we have to end it.”

Unity has great power. Accordingly, this meeting could have been a powerful show of force. It could have shown that Jews can unite in the face of Jew-hatred, which would have gone a long way toward mitigating antisemitism.

Regrettably, there is a big difference between wanting unity and wanting to show unity. The latter is powerless and evokes ridicule and contempt. The former is what we really need but do not have, and Jewish leaders around the world do not seem to aspire to it. Their goal, it seems, is clout and wherewithal. This is why nothing will come out of that meeting.

Unity is the key to mitigating antisemitism. It is also the key to the success or failure of our nation. As I have shown multiple times in essays, op-eds, and in several books, unity is the foundation of our nation. When we are united, the world welcomes us; when we are apart, the world scorns and despises us.

Uniting in order to fight against antisemitism would have worked had we used it as a first step toward true unity, unity of the heart. If we had moved from unity because of fear to unity because we care about each other and feel responsible for one another, I would have rooted for it. But the “unity” of Jewish leaders is merely a front. Behind it hides the same division, the same hatred between the parties, and no real effort to form a bridge above it. I am convinced that the only goal of the conference is to raise money for the organizations running the event and increase their influence in the community and in politics.

If this is the goal, the result will be the opposite of unity; it will lead to more division among us and more derision from the world. Time will tell, but I have little doubt about my conclusion and little hope that I am wrong.

For more on the significance of Jewish unity, see my books Like a Bundle of Reeds: Why unity and mutual guarantee are today’s call of the hour, and The Jewish Choice: Unity or Anti-Semitism, Historical facts on anti-Semitism as a reflection of Jewish social discord.
[293273]

Filed under: Anti-Semitism, Israel Today, New Publications - No Comments →