Bari is back: Weiss on the Texas hostage situation and what the reaction means

January 17, 2022 • 12:15 pm

UPDATE: Go here for an amusing but also distressing analysis of how the BBC reported the situation. Below is a BBC tweet which stayed up for five hours after the scare quotes around “hostage” became superfluous.


I’ve recently pondered de-subscribing from Bari Weiss’s Substack site, Common Sense, as the overwhelming majority article weren’t by Ms. Weiss herself, and I didn’t subscribe to read 90% of the pieces written by others, although many were good.

But today’s column is evidence that Weiss still has it, “it” being the ability to write a passionate and absorbing column when something gets her juices flowing. In this case it’s the hostage situation in Texas, where a devout Pakistani/British Muslim named Malik Faisal Akdram took four worshipers (including a rabbi) hostage in a synagogue.  Most escaped through a fire door, and a SWAT team then rushed in and killed Akdram. Based on his desire to be a martyr (saying he wished he was on one of the 9-11 planes), his religion, the fact that he attacked a synagogue, that he demanded the release of Aafia Siddiqui, a rabid anti-Semite in an American prison for attempted murder, be set free, how can you deny that hatred of Jews was part of this? Akdram even asked the rabbi in Texas to call a rabbi in New York, asking the NY rebbe to get Sidiqui set free. (I suppose Akdram thought that Jews are so all-powerful in America that a New York Rabbi can get a murderer freed!

And, like Weiss (click to read below; I think it’s free), I’m angrier than I am about previous attacks on Jews, though less sorrowful since nobody was murdered. Why? Because I watched the media in real time (except for the right-wing media) do its best to whitewash the story, arguing that it was not an attack targeting Jews (sure—the guy was walking down the street in a small Texas town with guns and saw a synagogue and thought, “Hey, that’s a good place to take hostages!”), and it was not motivated by anti-Semitism.  Even some on this site have tried to exculpate the left-wing media for its timorous coverage of the situation, even though papers like the New York Times have a long history of distorting the news to favor Palestinians and to demonize Jews.

And even Joe Biden, at the time when his own National Security advisor said that the attack was one of terrorism and anti-Semitism, was arguing, despite all the known facts, that there was no evidence for anti-Semitism. Does the murderer have to scream “Kill the Jews” to make his motivations plausible? If you read this site, you’ll know that I often withhold judgement on hate crimes, but this case was an exception given the “facts on the ground.”

But mainly, I am angry because attacks on Jews seem to get objective news coverage (and public sympathy) in America only if two things hold:

a.) The murderer has to be of the right sort: preferably a white supremacist or right-winger.  If an African-American attacks Jews, as they did so often in the last few years in NYC, that fact is to be covered up.

b.) The victims have to be of the right sort. Nice clean-shaven white people, like those at the Tree of Life Synagogue, can be mourned. Hasids with beards and furry hats—forget about it!

In other words, the situation has to meet the Approved Narrative to be newsworthy.

And this is the conclusion that Weiss has also arrived at. Her piece is well worth reading. I’ll quote bits of it.

Weiss recounts three attacks on Jews. The first was largely ignored because the murders were of the wrong sort: African-Americans.

I first felt that sinking realization three years ago on a freezing day in Jersey City. If you don’t think “Jews” when you hear that place name, it’s because the murder of Jews that happened there in 2019 did not inspire the same national solidarity that enveloped Pittsburgh.

On December 10 that year, David Anderson and Francine Graham shot up a kosher supermarket on a street named for the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, killing three people in the process. We were very lucky the toll wasn’t higher. Just to the left of the supermarket is a cheder, a school for Jewish children. Federal officials discovered a bomb in the killers’ van powerful enough to kill and maim people five football fields away.

The pair hated cops and they hated Jews, a sentiment apparently driven by the twisted ideology of the Black Hebrew Israelites, who believe that they are the real Jews and that the real Jews are pretenders. Jews are “imposters who inhabit synagogues of Satan,” Anderson wrote on social media. “They stole our heritage, they stole our birthright” Anderson said, before he murdered a young mother named Mindy Ferencz, a young man named Moshe Deutsch, and a 49-year-old Ecuadorian clerk who worked at the deli, Douglas Miguel Rodriguez. (They murdered a police officer and father of five named Joseph Seals earlier in the day.)

The day after the shooting, I went to the supermarket to do some reporting for a column I expected to publish. Unlike in Pittsburgh, there was not a single flower or condolence card. Just broken glass, and Hasidic Jews working with construction workers to board up the ransacked building, which was riddled with bullet holes. There were no television cameras.

No one in my social media feeds, to say nothing of mainstream reporters, wanted to look very hard at the killers’ motives or at the responses among some members of the community. In one video I came across, a local woman said that her “children are stuck at school because of Jew shenanigans. They are the problem . . .  I blame the Jews. We never had a shooting like this until they came.”

Then the Tree of Life shooting, which killed eleven and injured six. Murderer: the right sort: a white nationalist anti-Semite. The murdered: also the right sort, upper-middle-class Jews. The media lapped up the story like a cat drinking cream. The narrative was correct.

When eleven Jews who look like me were shot by a white supremacist in Pittsburgh, it was a clean story. Here was unadulterated evil mowing down the innocent. But Jews dressed in black hats and strange clothes with obscure accents? The ones in Jersey City or in Monsey or Crown Heights or Williamsburg or Borough Park?

These are imperfect victims. They are forgotten and overlooked because they are not the right kind of Jews. And because they weren’t beaten or killed by the right kind of antisemites.

And then the latest incident, where, thank goodness, no innocent people were murdered. Weiss floats the idea that “heavenly miracles” might have been involved (I’m pretty sure she’s a religious, God-worshiping Jew), and adds that “all the Jews I know—even the atheists—are thanking God.” Nope, I’m not one of them. And if God intervened to save four Texas Jews, why did he let eleven Pittsburgh Jews be murdered?

As with Andrew Sullivan, Weiss’s Achilles heel is her unevidenced (and I’d say irrational) belief in a deity. She doesn’t seem to realize that you can be a Jew and an atheist, too—it’s the only religion that has a secular, cultural version.

But that’s a trivial beef with her pieces. She’s telling the truth here while the rest of the Left-wing media tied itself in knots to avoid admitting the obvious. Why? Because Akdram was the wrong kind of criminal. He was of Pakistani descent, ergo a person of color, ergo incapable of racism. See here for more background on Akdram and how some British Muslims are calling him a martyr.

One more quote (and a Tweet) and I’ll close. Biden, who’s edging ever closer to Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the whole BDS-loving, Zionism-hating band of “progressive Democrats”, didn’t behave particularly well, either:

Perhaps it’s unfair to single out the AP when the special agent in charge of the FBI Dallas Field Office had this to say: “We do believe from our engagement with this subject that he was singularly focused on one issue, and it was not specifically related to the Jewish community, but we are continuing to work to find the motive.”

Imagine the FBI suggesting, in the wake of the murder of nine black parishioners at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church by Dylann Roof, that it wasn’t specifically related to the black community.

National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan did call the event an “act of terrorism” and an “act of antisemitism” on television this Sunday. But his notable exception proves the rule. His boss, President Joe Biden, could not manage to describe what any normal person could see:

As I said, it’s pretty clear what happened. If Biden said anything, though, he should have kept his gob shut. But now is the time should speak up; perhaps he already has. I hope so.

I’ll finish with two good quotes from Weiss, one at the beginning of her piece and the other at the end:

What I now see is this: In America captured by tribalism and dehumanization, in an America swept up by ideologies that pit us against one another in a zero-sum game, in an America enthralled with the poisonous idea that some groups matter more than others, not all Jews—and not all Jewish victims—are treated equally. What seems to matter most to media pundits and politicians is not the Jews themselves, but the identities of their attackers.

. . .Today is Martin Luther King Day and I’m thinking of his understanding that the demand for equal treatment comes at no one’s expense because justice is not a zero-sum game. “We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity in this Nation,” he said. “When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men—black men as well as white men—would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Jews thrived in an America that had confidence in its goodness. Jews are not safe—no one is—in one which does not.

This woman can write. I wish she’d write more often. And though I’m not religious like she, I can at least thank Ceiling Cat that someone can say the truth about this without getting fired from the New York Times. 

The NYT almost completely ignores the synagogue hostage-taking in Texas

January 16, 2022 • 1:45 pm

When the hostage situation broke yesterday afternoon in Texas, I kept looking for news about it. Eventually all the media came on board—except the New York Times. By morning they’d been forced to post about it (and I don’t say “forced” lightly), but if you look at the online Times, it’s way, way down beyond the e-fold.

And here’s the paper copy of today’s NYT, sent to me by Anna Krylov.  Do you see a mention of the hostage situation there? I don’t.  But you can read about a woman killed after being shoved onto the subway tracks. Note as well that on all the evening news stations I watched last night, every one led with the Texas story. Every one! The NYT doesn’t put it on the front page. There’s nothing they love to ignore more than hate crimes against Jews.

Oh, and to the reader who assured me that this was not a terrorist or anti-Jewish act because the perp was a British citizen, read what the NYT has to say now:

Malik Faisal Akram, 44, was identified by the F.B.I. on Sunday as the man who took four people, including a rabbi, hostage on Saturday morning at a service at Congregation Beth Israel. The Reform synagogue is in Colleyville, a city of about 26,000 residents that is about 15 miles northeast of Fort Worth, Texas.

Yes, he may well be British citizen, but who says that that group can’t include Islamist terrorists?

Bupkes here:

The Times isn’t fond of the Jews, of course, but we all know that. Still, the lacuna above is appalling.  But the NYT is not the only paper that strenuously tried to downplay the Jewish/terrorist angle (though you bet that if the terrorist had been a white supremacist instead of a Pakistani/British Muslim, it would have gotten a lot more coverage).  Have a look at this tweet from the BBC:

This is laughable. Not related to the Jewish community? Why a synagogue, then? Why didn’t the perp take hostages in a McDonald’s? Believe me, there are a lot more McDs than there are synagogues in Texas. And why did he ask for the release of a Islamic terrorist prisoner nicknamed “Lady Al Qaeda”?  Doesn’t the BBC have any curiosity about these issues?

Want more about how the media put “hostage situation” in scare quotes and other deliberate distortions? Read here.

I’m not going to dwell further on the anti-Semitism of much of the mainstream media, but I’ll tell a relevant joke:

A guy walks into a bar and notices a man talking to the bartender down at the other end. The guy does a double-take because the man talking to the bartender really resembles Hitler.

So the guy goes up to the man and says “Excuse me, but did anybody ever tell you that you look like Hitler?”

The man responds, “Oh, but I am Hitler. I have been reincarnated and I am back on Earth to kill 10 million Jews and 33 geese!”

“Oh, my God! That’s terrible! But why 33 geese?”

Hitler then turns to the bartender and says “See? I told you nobody cares about the Jews.”

Anti-semitism in mainstream Western media: The AP and the BBC

January 10, 2022 • 11:15 am

When an institution or media outlet goes after Israel itself every chance it gets rather than criticizing specific Israeli policies, or drags in policies (“occupation” is the main one) every chance it gets, whether or not they’re relevant, then you know that that organization is verging on anti-Semitism or is indeed anti-Semitic. Just the frequency of resolutions passed by the UN, overwhelmingly against Israel rather than countries far more invidious, shows you the degree of Israel hatred of that body.

When I saw the Associated Press article about the lorry/car crash in the West Bank that killed eight (below), I was taken back at the gratuitous criticism at the end, and then I remembered that the AP had been criticized for anti-Israel bias before (see below), and I had posted about it several years ago.

I reproduced the text of this article in this morning’s Hili news, but there was only one comment about it, and it deserves a bit more scrutiny:

Here’s the whole AP article and headline; click either to go to the site, though I’ve reproduced the whole thing.


Now half of this article is devoted to criticism of Israel and the disparity between the wages of Palestinians and Israel in the West Bank. Do be aware that this disparity is not between the two groups when working for individual Israeli companies, for wage discrimination against “guest workers” is illegal under Israeli law.

I am not arguing about the settlements here, but about a). the nature of wage disparities, b). the cause of wage disparities, and c). why on Earth the AP would devote half its article to a completely irrelevant indictment of Israel when simply reporting on a vehicular accident involving Palestinians.

The anti-Israel sentiment is not only misguided but totally gratuitous, and that’s all I’ll say about that. As for the relative poverty of Palestinians, it’s not due to wage discrimination by Israelis, but by the nature of Palestine itself. First, if the PA and Hamas didn’t spend so much money on rockets and terrorist attacks, often enlisting young children to help dig tunnels under the Israeli border, they’d have a LOT more money to improve their country. This is a choice made by the government and many Palestinians. Second, when nearly every Palestinian child (and yes, I mean almost every one) is taught from the beginning of school that the most laudable ambition they could have is to die a martyr fighting against Jews, how do you expect kids to grow up with ambition to better themselves or the Palestinian territories?

Why the AP threw in a superfluous and erroneous slur like this is best left to them, but I don’t think that even the New York Times would tolerate this kind of biased and shoddy journalism (its biases are more subtle). Note too the mention of Israelis trying to save Palestinian lives, something that is done regularly by Israel—even trying to save the lives of Hamas leaders—but completely ignored by the West. Is this the action of an apartheid state? Even South Africa under apartheid wouldn’t go to such lengths to help the oppressed.

Israeli hospitals also train Palestinian doctors who go back to their territory and save the lives of potential terrorists who could kill Israelis (in the case of Hamas leaders, that’s their precise aim). When I asked Malgorzata why Israeli hospitals help the enemy this way, she responded, “That’s just what Israelis do.”

To see more about the AP’s bias, read this longish piece from The Atlantic by Matti Friedman, who worked for the AP (click on screenshot; another Friedman article from Tablet is here). Both pieces are from 2014, but, as far as I can see, things vis-à-vis the biases of Western “liberal” media have only gotten worse:

On to the annual awards of the Simon Wiesenthal Center for the top ten countries or institutions that are anti-Semitic. Most of them (Iran, Hamas, CAIR, JVP, and so on) are familiar to me, but one of them struck me. It’s #3 on the list below; click the screenshot to see the pdf:

And. weighing in at #3, right after Iran and Hamas, is this (remember, this is just a list for last year, not the all-time top ten):


I’ll let the Brits or the journalism mavens argue this out, but if you’re defending the BBC, you must defend the facts adduced above.

UN launches unprecedented open-ended investigation of Israel

December 28, 2021 • 11:30 am

The General Assembly of the United Nations has just passed, by an overwhelming majority, a resolution to investigate Israeli war crimes, including those during the last battle with Hamas and Gaza. There will be no investigation of the Palestinian Territories, which is a nonvoting member of the UN, but it too could have been investigated as well for war crimes since they started the last skirmish by firing 4,260 rockets at civilians in Israel, not to mention the ongoing terrorism of and war crimes of Hamas (using human shields, firing rockets from civilian areas to prompt Israeli retaliation that would kill some civilians, etc.)

The most invidious aspect of this investigation is that it not only singles out Israel (which the UN does repeatedly), but is an open-ended investigationthe first such investigation in the history of the United Nations. You probably haven’t heard about it except in Israeli media, because most of the big media in the U.S. are anti-Israel. There was an article in the NYT in May (third screenshot, click on third link):

But of course time after time the UN issues resolutions against Israel while ignoring countries that have much worse human rights and war-crimes records: North Korea, Syria, Yemen, Iran, Belarus, China, and Saudi Arabia, to name a few.  The obsessive single-minded assault by most of the UN on Israel bespeaks to me widespread anti-Semitism. (Dissent if you want, but keep in mind the countries I’ve just named).

You can read about the resolution in the Jerusalem Post (JP: click on first screenshot), or, for a more critical and acerbic take, the website Abu Yehuda (AY; click on second screenshot)

The first step was that in May, the UN Human Rights Council voted 24-9 (with 14 abstentions) to form a committee to investigate any human rights violations by Israel, also including violations in the West Bank and Gaza. As the NYT reported in May (my emphasis):

It was the third time in seven years that the Human Rights Council in Geneva had decided to name such a panel, but this one differed in two important respects:

It is “ongoing,” meaning the panel can pursue the inquiry indefinitely. That gives it a degree of permanence akin to investigative bodies documenting atrocities in Syria and Myanmar.

And the commission is not limited to looking just at hostilities in Gaza and the West Bank, but instead has been charged with examining “all underlying root causes of recurrent tensions, instability and protraction of conflict, including systematic discrimination and repression based on national, ethnic, racial or religious identity.”

Although the commission could theoretically investigate human rights violations by all parties, the resolution creating it does not mention Hamas or other Palestinian militant groups. Critics who opposed the resolution said it lacked balance.

The 47 members of the council voted to approve by 24 to nine, with 14 abstentions.

Pakistan’s U.N. ambassador, Khalil Hashmi, who proposed the panel on behalf of the Organization of Islamic States, said it was needed to hold Israel accountable for what he called decades of human rights violations in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories.

Note that Hamas has been declared a terrorist organization by many nations, but it goes uninvestigated. And Hamas runs Gaza.

Here’s the breakdown of the initial vote from the UN Human Rights Council, given by the UN itself. You can find the resolution here, but it’s too long to add on this site; have a read for yourself. Bolding is mine:

In favour (24): Argentina, Armenia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, China, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Eritrea, Gabon, Indonesia, Libya, Mauritania, Mexico, Namibia, Pakistan, Philippines, Russian Federation, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Uzbekistan and Venezuela.

Against (9): Austria, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Czech Republic, Germany, Malawi, Marshall Islands, United Kingdom and Uruguay.

Abstentions (14): Bahamas, Brazil, Denmark, Fiji, France, India, Italy, Japan, Nepal, Netherlands, Poland, Republic of Korea, Togo and Ukraine.

The U.S. was not part of the Human Rights Council then, but is now a member, having been elected in October.

The next step was to get this open-ended committee funded, and since it’s open-ended it would cost a lot of dosh. AY says this—as reported by UN watchdog Anne Bayefsky, whose words I’ve put in italics:

 It is permanent in duration. It will have 18 permanent UN staff funded by the regular budget – which means 22% of it will come from American taxpayers, create an in-house legal bureau to seek criminal charges against members of the IDF and the highest echelons of the Israeli government (“command responsibility”). The three members of the “Inquiry” have been appointed – and all have public records of extreme anti-Israel animus. Notorious supporter of Durban and the Goldstone report – former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay – is the Chair. The first report of the “Inquiry” is due in June 2022.

. . .Bayefsky described the Commission and its objectives here and here. She notes that it is “unprecedented in its funding, staffing, and permanence.” It will cost almost $12 million in its first three years, and almost $5.5 million in each succeeding year. It will have three times as many staff members than were charged with investigating North Korea in 2013 (and those were temporary – this commission has no end date). She adds,

The Israel inquisition is the largest boondoggle in the history of the UN human rights system: it will fund 790 days of travel for experts and staff every year from 2022 on – forever. Those are two UN employees provided food and accommodation and airfare to roam around demonizing the Jewish state every day of every year. That is also more travel days than any of the Council’s current human rights investigations about anything, anywhere.

Finally, the Human Rights Council proposal went to the whole General Assembly which would approve the open-ended Israel investigation as part of its budget, i.e., determine if it should be funded, which means determining if the ongoing investigations should move forward.

If you know the UN and its hatred of Israel, you’ll know how that vote went.  As Abba Eban said a while back:

If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.
– Abba Eban

And that’s about it.  What happened is that Israel proposed an amendment to remove the Israel-investigating committee’s money from the overall budget, so this vote took place on Christmas Eve.  And it went as Eban would have predicted (from the JP; bolding is mine):

The amendment to defund the probe was rejected 125-8, with 34 abstentions.
China and the G77 – a UN coalition now including 134 developing countries – called for a recorded vote and urged all countries to reject Israel’s amendment. Nations besides Israel that supported the amendment put forward by the Jewish state were Hungary, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea and the United States.

Well, at least the U.S. voted against the probe—along with Hungary and Polynesian countries (the latter consistently vote in favor of Israel, but  I have no idea why).

Here are the countries that abstained from the General Assembly vote (from the JP; I’ve bolded the Anglophone countries, traditionally U.S. allies):

The 34 countries that abstained were Albania, Australia, Austria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Canada, Central African Republic, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Fiji, Germany, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Italy, Lithuania, Madagascar, Montenegro, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Republic of Korea, Rwanda, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uruguay and Zambia.

Anglophone countries, including the U.S., explained their votes:

The United States took the floor to explain its vote.
The probe “perpetuates a practice of unfairly singling out Israel in the UN and, like prior US administrations, we strongly oppose such treatment of Israel,” the US representative said.
“The US will continue to oppose this [probe] and to look for opportunities in Geneva to revisit its mandate, which unfortunately was passed when the US did not have a seat on the UNHRC,” he said.
“Moving forward, the US will work in Geneva, where the debate over the [probe’s] mandate belongs to persuade more member states that it is inherently biased,” the US representative said.
“Israel can continue to count on the US to do everything possible to shield it from discriminatory and unbalanced criticism – whether at the UNHRC or elsewhere in the UN system.”

. . .Australia said that it was not a member of the UNHRC and could not vote against the resolution when it was approved in May.

“We oppose anti-Israel bias,” its representative said.
“Australia supports human rights resourcing even for mandates we do not support,” he said. But he explained that the mandate for this particular probe “is excessively broad” and “over-resourced,” adding that Australia affirms “Israel’s right to self-defense in accordance with international law.”

Canada said that at this point in the process, the UNGA should be looking at funding and not revisiting the UNHRC decisions with regard to investigations.

But he said this probe was a particularly “unacceptable outlier” and that the resources needed were “significantly larger than” those allocated for “all of the investigations we approved resources for today.”

No words from the UK.

Well, the commission is a real thing, and will spend the next gazillion years trying to find war crimes committed by Israel while ignoring the war crimes of Palestine and all the other warring or bellicose countries in the world. Why this singling out of Israel, the one democratic state in the Middle East, with many Arab citizens (other Arab countries harbor virtually no Jews)? I find no explanation other than anti-Semitism. I won’t go as far as Abu Yehuda, but what the site says may be true:

The so-called “United Nations” has reached a new low in its descent from an idealistic organization dedicated to humanizing the behavior of nations, into a massive scam operation whose only consistent objective, aside from the enrichment of its employees, is the destruction of the Jewish state.

Was the D. C. librarian anti-Semitic?

December 22, 2021 • 12:45 pm

A few days ago I wrote about Kimberlynn Jurkowsky, a librarian in a Washington, D.C. elementary school who was fired for making third-graders re-enact the Holocaust in the school library. These performances included one Jewish kid ordered to play Hitler and then pretend to shoot himself, children pretending to ride trains to the concentration camps, children pretending to dig graves for other children and then  pretend to shoot them, and children pretending to be gassed. The children reported to parents that Jurkowsky, an African-American women, made anti-Semitic remarks during the grotesque theater, told one child that the Nazis killed the Jews because “the Jews ruined Christmas,” and then told the children not to tell anyone what happened.

To me the most likely explanation for this is anti-Semitism. Why else would Jurkowsky tell the children to keep their mouths shut, and make that remark about the “Jews ruining Christmas”? Could it be that I grossly misinterpreted her gesture, and she really was trying to evoke sympathy for the Jews through this charade?  I doubt it, yet some readers thought that.  Here’s part of one comment from a regular reader:

Ok, reading this I got a different impression. I’m going to make a guess that the librarian wasn’t trying to use this role-playing exercise to make a point against the Jews, but against brutal fascist regimes in general, and/or the Nazis in particular. The “anti-Semitic” comment here might have been a ham-fisted way of saying the Germans did it “for a stupid reason.” She didn’t think the school was doing a good enough job at depicting the horrors and wanted to test out her better idea by “tutoring” them. For real.

I’m not saying there’s not been a rise in antisemitism. There obviously has. But this story doesn’t strike me like that. It would have been different if she’d had the “Jews” rounding up the “Palestinians” for the Death Camps, of course.

Of course I had to examine my conclusions, especially because I know some of these commenters as thoughtful people who shouldn’t be dismissed.  But upon re-examination, and some new information, I stand by my first conclusion: Jurkowski was an unstable woman trying to traumatize children and denigrate Jews out of anti-Semitism.

Some of the reasons are given above, but some readers said the children might have misreported the anti-Semitic comments, or the statement about Jews and Christmas might be misinterpreted. I think the most probable hypothesis is that the children reported correctly. I have no idea about how a statement that “the Jews ruined Christmas” as the librarian’s explanation of why the Nazis killed Jews cannot be plausibly interpreted in any way as sympathetic to Jews.

The woman also has a record for fraud, and was fired from her previous job:

Apparently Jurkowski was suspended from teaching in New Jersey after she was convicted of theft and falsifying documents in a tutoring scam. She also lost her teaching license for three years; and there’s one report that she faced a cruelty to animals charge in 2009. How she managed to get the job in Washington with a record like that baffles me.

Remarkably, her Twitter feed is still up, but appears to have been cleansed of her own tweets and contains mostly retweets.  But the only retweets about Palestine and Israel she made that I could find were these. They surely don’t bolster the idea that Ms. Jurkowski is sympathetic to Jews or Israel:

There are, as Angy Ngo says below, pro-Antifa tweets, and Ngo finds pro-BLM tweets, and pro-Nation of Islam tweets. The Nation of Islam is explicitly anti-Semitic, while BLM is pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel.

Now I know all the criticisms that have been leveled at Ngo for not being an objective reporter and for being anti-Antifa.  But I don’t think he’d forge tweets.

I’m just wondering whether, in light of this, and in the complete absence of evidence that Jurkowski had any sympathy for Jews (indeed, she evinces the opposite), people still maintain that her actions were sympathetic to Jews, and that the bizarre Holocaust Exercise she promulgated was designed to make her students (probably mostly black, since she teaches in SW Washington, D.C) more fully feel the horrors of the Holocaust.  To maintain that “She didn’t think the school was doing a good enough job at depicting the horrors and wanted to test out her better idea by ‘tutoring” them. For real.” seems to me a misguided attempt to gild Jurkowski’s acts in the face of all the evidence.

Given all of the above, I’d say that the priors make the best Bayesian inference one of anti-Semitism on Jurkowski’s part. If you have other evidence that she is sympathetic to Jews and wanted to impress on all her students the horrors of the Holocaust, by all means tell me.

More degeneration of a once-noble organization: the ACLU’s Human Rights Director defends organizations that support terrorism

December 21, 2021 • 10:15 am

The American Civil Liberties Union, once a great organization for defending free speech and civil rights in America, is circling the drain. They now have more than one foot in the extreme Social Justice arena, defending the right of surgically and chemically untreated biological men who identify as transwomen to compete in women’s sports.

Now the ACLU has a Human Rights Program headed by one Jamil Dakwar,  whose bio is here and whose duties and background is described by the ACLU:

Jamil Dakwar (@jdakwar) is the director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Human Rights Program (HRP) which is dedicated to holding the U.S. government accountable to its international human rights obligations and commitments. He leads a team of lawyers and advocates who use a human rights framework to complement existing ACLU legal and legislative advocacy, primarily focusing on promoting racial and economic justice and ending mass incarceration, police violence, and extreme sentencing. HRP conducts human rights research, documentation, and public education, as well as engages in litigation and advocacy before U.S. courts and international human rights bodies.

. . . Before coming to the United States, he was a senior attorney with Adalah, a leading human rights group in Israel, where he filed and argued human rights cases before Israeli courts and advocated before international forums.

He’s also an “adjunct professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice (CUNY), Bard College, and Hunter College”, and previously worked at Human Rights Watch.

The tweet below appeared on a Jewish website, but I can’t find it on Dakwar’s Twitter feed. He may have taken it down, perhaps because the notion of “Zionist supremacy” has a long history of connection to anti-Semitism. If you go through Dakwar’s tweets, though, you’ll find many of them excoriating Israel and valorizing Palestine (there is NO denigration of Palestine, which of course is a notorious human rights violator). This singling out of one country as a human rights violator and valorizing countries whose human rights violations are numerous is a sign of anti-Semitism.

I’ve put another of his tweets and one retweet below, but you’ll find much more on his Twitter feed.

The Summit for Democracy on December 9-10 (there will be another) was organized by Biden with the goal of “[bringing] together leaders from government, civil society, and the private sector in our shared effort to set forth an affirmative agenda for democratic renewal and to tackle the greatest threats faced by democracies today through collective action.” You can see their schedule here, the list of participating delegations (many countries) is here (they all seem to be democracies); and I find no mention of Palestine. Why should there be, since Palestine, like many Middle Eastern countries, isn’t a democracy?

Dakwar’s response to Biden’s summit touts Palestinian organizations that “expose human rights violations” (e.g., by Israel). Read more about these six organization below:

As NPR and Reuters report, Israel has investigated these six organizations and designated them as fronts for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), an organization that, as Wikipedia notes,  “has been designated a terrorist organisation by the United States, Japan, Canada, Australia and the European Union”. NPR reports Israel’s allegations that the PFLP is “an armed faction that has carried out deadly attacks against Israelis,” All of the six organizations touted by Dakwar are thus extremely likely to have supported terrorism, and Israel has labeled them terrorist organizations. I won’t label them that, but I do believe that they’ve supported the PFLP.

So we have the director of the ACLU’s human rights wing defending organizations that transfer money to terrorists (the evidence for this is substantial). 

It thus looks as if the ACLU has gone even woker, as now its Human Rights director is attacking Israel and defending Palestine constantly. But that’s what the Woke do, and what the extreme “Progressive Left” does.

D.C. school librarian fired after making students reenact the Holocaust—including dying in a gas chamber and shooting their classmates—to show how the “Jews ruined Christmas” for Germans

December 20, 2021 • 12:45 pm

For a long time some of my Jewish friends, including observant ones, have told me that there’s a resurgence of anti-Semitism in American, sometimes implying that it would get so bad that they were considering moving to Israel. I’ve always poo-pooed this apocalyptic idea, thinking that Jews are now part of mainstream America and, although a minority (about 1-2%, many of them nonbelievers), we weren’t a denigrated minority.

Well, things have changed since the ultra-progressive Left has taken over, and since there’s been a resurgence of white nationalism on the Right. The Left’s activities are ongoing, as with the “progressive” members of Congress voting for BDS initiatives, issuing anti-Semitic or anti-“Zionist” tweets, and showing increasing valorization of Palestine—an apartheid country if ever there was one. Right-wing anti-Semitism seems to be on the ultra-extreme right, and erupts as sporadic demonstrations, like the one in Charlottesville.

Whoever is responsible for this trend, the result is that we hear more about anti-Semitic incidents all the time. This isn’t just a news bias, since the mainstream media itself, like the NYT, aren’t especially pro-Jewish (they’re pro-Palestine); and the number of Jewish “hate crimes” is increasing. Jews are, in fact, on a per capita basis the religious group most targeted by such crimes:

According to the FBI data, 8,263 hate crimes took place in America in 2020, an increase of nearly 9% compared to the 7,287 reported in 2019. Of all reported hate crimes, 1,174 targeted victims due to their religion and 676 of them—54.9% of all religious bias crimes—targeted Jews. 53% of hate incidents targeting Jews involved the destruction, damage, or vandalism of property; 33% were instances of intimidation; 6% were simple assaults; 4% were aggravated assaults; 1% were instances of burglary or breaking and entering; and 1% were instances of larceny or theft.

This article below from the Washington Post (click on screenshot) might be an isolated incident, as it’s unique to my knowledge, but it might also display how far the rot has spread. (The article is reproduced almost verbatim in the Times of Israel as well.)

I’ll summarize what happened, and will put quotation marks around quotes from the pieces.

At Watkins Elementary school in southeast Washington, D.C. a group of third graders (~9-10 years old) were in the library doing a self-guided project. But the students were coopted by a school librarian who forced the students to reenact scenes from the Holocaust.  Here’s what the students were forced to do:

  • One student, who happened to be Jewish, was told to play Hitler. At the end of the mock Holocaust, the student was told to pretend to commit suicide.
  • Other students were asked to pretend to be on a train to a concentration camp
  • At least one student was told to act as if he were dying in a gas chamber
  • Some students were told to pretend they were digging their classmates’ mass graves, and then had to pretend to shoot their classmates.

This is the most offensive part:

The instructor allegedly made antisemitic comments during the reenactment. The parent said that when the children asked why the Germans did this, the staff member said it was “because the Jews ruined Christmas.”

Can you believe that?

Although the instructor told the students not to say anything about this little exercise, the kids told their parents. The good news is that all hell broke loose, because some of the students were Jewish.  The principal of the school, one M. Scott Berkowitz (probably a Jewish name as well) apologized in an email to the parents without naming the staff member (I now have her name; see below).

“I want to acknowledge the gravity of this poor instructional decision, as students should never be asked to act out or portray any atrocity, especially genocide, war, or murder,” Berkowitz said in the email.

The incident was reported to D.C. Public Schools’ Comprehensive Alternative Resolution and Equity Team. The staff member is now on leave, pending a school investigation.

“This was not an approved lesson plan, and we sincerely apologize to our students and families who were subjected to this incident,” a spokesperson for DCPS said.

The entire class met with the school’s mental health response team after the Friday incident, according to Berkowitz’s email.

The good news is that the school didn’t blow it off. But they shouldn’t have anyway; it’s only “good news” because Americans are becoming increasingly anti-Semitic.

Anti-Semitism is especially distressing when it’s among the black community (Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam are the worst offenders). Historically Jews and blacks have been friends, with Jews forming a large proportion of white civil rights activists in the Sixties.

This article (and several other sources) give the librarian’s name as Kimberlynn Jurkowski, and at first I thought she was of Polish descent. But her LinkedIn page, showing undoubtedly the right person (a “library media specialist” in Washington, D.C.), reveals that she’s black. (How did she get the surname Jurkowski?)

And she’s got a history that could charitably be described as “checkered”:

The librarian — identified as Kimberlynn Jurkowski — was accused in a tutoring scam in New Jersey that defrauded the Atlantic City school district of thousands of dollars and had her teaching licenses suspended for three years by the state Department of Education in 2017.

. . . A former Hamilton, Atlantic County resident, Jurkowski faced charges of theft by deception and fraud for allegedly billing the Hamilton school district for tutoring services for her two children that was never performed, according to the state’s order of suspension.

The Hamilton Township school district paid the cost of the tutoring to Bridges Education and Counseling Services, and its owner, Mildred Spencer — a friend of Jurkowski, according to the ruling.

After the tutoring services had ended, Jurkowski and Spencer allegedly conspired to continue to bill the district for six additional months — from October 2011 through March 2012, officials said.

In December 2013, Jurkowski and Spencer were accepted into a pretrial intervention program for first-time offenders for six months, and Jurkowski was forced to forfeit her employment in the school district, according to the Department of Education ruling.
So how did Jurkowski get hired as a school librarian at Watkins Elementary School? Did they not do a background check? Somebody at Watkins Elementary has some ‘splaining to do!
An addendum about local bigotry, from both papers. First, from the Post:

Other local schools have reported incidents of bigotry in recent months. At Woodrow Wilson High School in Northwest Washington, several swastikas, the n-word and the phrase “white power” were scrawled on the wall of a men’s bathroom early this month, according to reporting by student journalists at the Beacon, the school’s independent newspaper.

And from the Times of Israel:

Last month vandals broke into a fraternity house at George Washington University in Washington, DC, and desecrated a Torah scroll, tearing it apart and covering it with detergent.

I just noticed that the New York Times has a short piece on the incident, and names the perpetrator, as well as mentioning Jurkowski’s LinkedIn page, but doesn’t mention that she’s black. Is race relevant in a case like this? If a white librarian had asked black children to reenact scenes from slavery, wouldn’t the paper mention that the librarian was white? Had the librarian been an anti-Semitic white supremacist, you could have bet that every report would have mentioned that.

My guess is that it was just terribly inconvenient to mention the race of the perpetrator, which goes against The Narrative. The NYT has a history of omitting the race of the people who attacked ultra-Orthodox Jews in New York City over the last several years, though nearly all the attackers were black. When there’s a pattern like this, race does become relevant.

h/t: Malgorzata

What should a university do when a rabid anti-Semitic student calls for the killing of Jews?

December 8, 2021 • 1:15 pm

This article about anti-Semitism on a U.S. campus is taken from the Jerusalem Post. Sent to me by a Jewish colleague, it raises a conundrum for hard-line free speech advocates like me. It’s not because I’m Jewish, but because the proper action of a University in a case like this is not completely clear. This is a fuzzy area. I’ll offer tentative opinions, but want to hear readers’ thoughts.

Click on the screenshot to read:

Yasmeen Mashayekh, the USC student under consideration, is a pro-Palestinian activist who made repeated anti-Semitic tweets, and when called out, she doubled down. Those tweets including calls to murder Jews, and her own desire to murder Jews.

Over the course of the last few weeks, a Palestinian student at the University of Southern California, Yasmeen Mashayekh, has come under intense scrutiny for her antisemitic and violent tweets, which include sentiments such as “Curse the Jews” (in Arabic), “Death to Israel and its b**ch the US,” and repeatedly expressing her “love” for US-designated terrorist organization Hamas and its members, even instructing others on how to assist the terror group online in the fight against Israel. She also celebrated violent attacks on Jews by Arabs, joking about how Jews were set on fire, and in May, Mashayekh tweeted, “I want to kill every mother****ing Zionist.”
When multiple groups drew attention to Mashayekh’s violent tweets, she doubled down, replying to the criticism with “Oh no how horrifying that I want to kill my colonizer.” She also attempted to argue that the phrase she used in Arabic meaning “curse the Jews” was simply a “Zionist” mistranslation, and in fact, she just meant “occupiers” – an explanation that left Arabic speakers of all backgrounds laughing.

Yasmeen also had a position of authority among students involving DEI:

Ironically, Mashayekh was a student senator for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion at the USC Viterbi School of Engineering, was allegedly employed by the university, and held multiple positions of leadership. Naturally, USC is now facing tremendous pressure to act, including from dozens of faculty who signed an open letter condemning Mashayekh’s comments. But instead of taking action, they issued a statement claiming they won’t share what they are doing because of “privacy concerns,” and that while they don’t support her comments, her statements are “protected speech.”

My colleague and the Jerusalem Post (the piece was an op-ed) thinks that the University may have violated the First Amendment by allowing a student to issue unprotected speech, didn’t punish her by firing her (she was removed as a DEI student senator and given a different job at the same salary), and at the very least assert that USC should have issued a statement condemning Mashayekh’s statements and affirming their support of Jews as well as denouncing anti-Semitism.

Several questions arise.

Did Mashayekh violate the First Amendment?  My answer is “no.” The First Amendment allows one to call for extirpation of groups, including statements like “Gas the Jews,” and “Kill the Jews.” The only circumstances in which such calls for violence are prohibited (as construed by the courts) are when those statements are liable to cause predictable, imminent, and foreseeable harm to others. That was not the case here. Mashayekh made her statements on social media.

As a private university, USC isn’t required to abide by the First Amendment. But because it espouses free speech in its own principles, see below, it should adhere to the First Amendment and not punish Mashayekh. In fact, USC says that it does adhere to the First Amendment:

From the USC speech policy: (my emphasis):

USC has long had established policies protecting the free speech rights and academic freedom of faculty and students.

In both policy and practice, when USC faculty speak or write as citizens, they are free of institutional censorship or discipline.  And academic freedom at USC protects all faculty. We vigorously defend these principles for faculty of every status and type of appointment.

. . . Our longstanding policies also declare that the University of Southern California is committed to fostering a learning environment where free inquiry and expression are encouraged and celebrated and for which all its members share responsibility. Dissent — disagreement, a difference of opinion, or thinking differently from others — is an integral aspect of expression in higher education, whether it manifests itself in a new and differing theory in quantum mechanics, a personal disagreement with a current foreign policy, opposition to a position taken by the university itself, or by some other means.  The university is a diverse community based on free exchange of ideas and devoted to the use of reason and thought in the resolution of differences.  The university recognizes the crucial importance of preserving First Amendment rights and maintaining open communication and dialogue in the process of identifying and resolving problems which arise in the dynamics of life in a university community.

Now the Jerusalem Post quotes Alan Dershowitz saying there was a violation here:

Even under the US Constitution, Mashayekh’s comments are not protected speech. Harvard Law Prof. Alan Dershowitz stated unequivocally that the comment about killing Zionists “is not protected speech for a university student,” and argued that should USC do nothing, they could be subject to losing federal funding.

I think he’s wrong, even though he’s a real lawyer and I just play one on television.

Should Mashayekh be banned from social media? According to their own principles, they can indeed ban her.  Whether they should do so is a complex question, for I also think that social media should adhere to the First Amendment as far as possible. But since they have the right to ban her, they can and should because her words violate their policies. What the real policies should be is above my pay grade. But the Jerusalem Post goes further, saying that Mashayekh’s statements violate other aspects of USC policy:

First, according to social media hate speech standards, Mashayekh’s comments are absolutely a violation of Twitter’s hate speech policies. Second, at USC, codes of conduct for university students prohibit expressing an intent to “kill” a minority group. For example, Mashayekh’s comments clearly violate the policy on prohibited discrimination, harassment and retaliation, which states, “the University prohibits discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, religion (including religious dress and grooming practices), creed… political belief or affiliation… and any other class of individuals protected from discrimination under federal, state, or local law, regulation, or ordinance (Protected Characteristics).”

The link to the quote is wrong in the paragraph above; the words are correct but the USC policy is here.  However, spewing hatred on social media does not constitute “discrimination,” “harassment” (which is meant to apply to individuals, not to groups), or “retaliation” (hateful words are not a form of retaliation, as they are not directed towards individuals who harmed Mashayekh). The miscreant was giving her opinion not on campus or at work, but on social media.

Should Mashayekh be fired from her student job?  I think USC did the right thing in transferring her to a different job at the same pay. In that way there was no retaliation, but her hateful behavior was not upholding the tenets of her position and therefore she did not deserve to continue on as a DEI counselor.

Should USC have condemned Mashayekh by naming her? Once again my answer is “no.” She did not violate USC’s speech codes, which are the First Amendment, and therefore condemnation by name or implication is a form of retaliation.

Should USC have called for tolerance and amity towards Jews?  Here I had to stop and think.  But since a divided campus with warring factions of students is not conducive to the function of a University, then yes, I think USC should have reaffirmed its principles of civility, respect, and comity. Everybody would know what this is about. The only other question is whether they should have mentioned the Jews.  This is a two edged sword, for if you just issue a general call for peace, it will offend the group who is seeking redress—the Jewish students, who would ignored or given lower status. On the other hand, if you mention that there is anti-Jewish rancor that impedes the University’s well-being, then all other groups, including Palestinans, will say “Well, why don’t you mention us when there’s anti-Palestinian sentiment?” And they have a point.

However, given the degree of anti-Semitism at USC and how it was inflamed by Mashayekh’s statements, I do think that mentioning the Jewish students as a particular target in a  University statement is warranted, and the right thing to do. That doesn’t mean that everyone should always get such call-outs, as it really depends on the degree of division at the time. A stingle student who complains, for example, does not warrant a University statement calling for people to be nice to him/her.

Whether you agree or not, weigh in below.

Anti-Semitic materials distributed to Toronto school students; school board agrees that they’re anti-Semitic but censures the person who called them out

December 7, 2021 • 10:15 am

Reader Jeff sent me a notice from the National Post‘s “First reading” section whose headline at first didn’t make sense (click on screenshot):

Why would someone who called out “antisemitism” in a school (and whose claims, as you’ll see below, were verified) face any censure! Well, that’s the way it goes in these crazy, woke times. You can correctly point out anti-semitism but still be labeled “Islamophobic” for doing so! That’s what happened to Toronto School Board Trustee Alexandra Lulka Rotman (called “Lulka” below).

Below is the entire short piece from the Post, and there are links so you can check for yourself. I urge you to scan the report itself, though it’s 122 pages long. Emphases is from the paper.

The Toronto District School Board [TDSB] is calling for the censure of a Jewish trustee who pointed out that one of their official manuals appeared to be endorsing Palestinian terrorism . According to a lengthy internal investigation conducted by the board, the manual (circulated to teachers in May ) did indeed contain links which, among other things, referenced suicide bombing as “a legitimate means of resistance” against Israel. Investigators ultimately concluded that the materials called out by trustee Alexandra Lulka “could be reasonably considered to contain antisemitic materials and seen to be contributing to antisemitism.” Nevertheless, they recommended that Lulka be censured anyway because her opposition to the materials could be construed as “discrimination” against Muslims.

Here’s Lulka Rotman’s Twitter statement about the anti-Semitic materials in the “official manual”:

And here are some of the findings in the report:

On or around June 4, 2021, the HRO completed a review of the May Mailouts to determine if the content contravened the TDSB Human Rights Policy. The HRO concluded that the main articles in the May Mailouts did not express hatred or criticism towards Jews as an ethnic group or as a creed or religion. The HRO concluded that stating one’s support of Palestinians does not indicate support for terrorist groups or hate of Jewish peoples nor Agenda Page 23 24 are criticisms of Israeli state policies, government and army de facto antisemitic, though the HRO noted that criticisms can be done in an antisemitic way.

HRO did conclude that certain links were problematic and could be reasonably considered to contain antisemitic materials and seen to be contributing to antisemitism. “In particular, some of these materials dismiss the historical connection of Jewish people to the land; lump all Israelis together; notes that “martyrdom operations (called “suicide bombing” )” are a legitimate means of resistance; and refer to “the “Iron Fist” policy of crushing the bones of Palestinian children’s hands” which feeds into the ‘blood libel’ trope. [Note: according to an article in the Chicago Tribune an “iron fist” policy was enacted by Rabin and “resulted in hundreds of fractured limbs”.

Finally, the HRO confirmed that some of the materials contained in the links support the use of violence and terrorism against Israeli Jews; specifically, including a link to the website of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (a group that is currently on Canada’s Listed Terrorist Entities), documentary and resources about Leila Khaled who was involved in plane hijackings, and an interview with Ghassan Kanafani, who was involved in violent actions against civilians.

Yes, but despite this, Lulka was still censured; click on this article from the Jewish News Syndicate below to see how. Jewish organizations in Canada are appalled at the TDSB’s double standard:

A short excerpt from the article above:

A Toronto District School Board (TDSB) trustee who raised concerns on Twitter last spring about a “manual” sent to teachers that included anti-Semitic messages was recommended for “censure.”

The recommendation was issued on Thursday against trustee Alexandra Lulka by Integrity Commissioner Suzanne Craig, who in her report also found that the materials Lulka complained about did, in fact, contain some anti-Semitic writings and promoted terrorism.

“Censure,” according to trustees, “is the harshest penalty that can be meted out to a trustee.”

According to Craig, Lulka’s online posts “fell within the TDSB definition of being discriminatory and did breach” the district’s code of conduct.

And get this: Lulka was censured because she didn’t “balance” her criticism of the anti-Semitic stuff in the pamphlet with saying positive things about the booklet!:

Craig’s 50-page report was met with incredulity by the local Jewish community.

“It is astonishingly unreasonable to compel a Jewish trustee calling out Jew-hatred to also highlight positive elements in the resources. The recommendation to censure her for not doing so is misguided and must be rejected,” said Noah Shack, vice president at the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. “Punishing trustee Lulka is contrary to the values of an educational institution purporting to engender learning and mutual respect.”

O Canada! Not you, too? No, Canadians cannot BE anti-Semitic!

Photo of Lulka from Facebook:

A reader’s comment: The Jews are behind diversity and multiculturalism initiatives

October 12, 2021 • 9:00 am

Here’s an example of the kind of comment I put in the trash. It was from a potential commenter named “Thunderstruck,” responding to another reader’s query about the diversity of the Art Institute of Chicago’s board, administrators, and curators:

In reply to Richard Lemanczykafka.

Diversity and multiculturalism are mostly Jewish-led efforts, I’m afraid.
I recently watched a new documentary about Swedish multiculturalism and many things finally clicked into place:

The mainstream media never shows us the ugly side of “diversity” (assuming there’s an upside somewhere that I’m not yet aware of).

Get that:  “I’m afraid.” How sad that the Jews are in charge of DEI—even though I know of little evidence that they are. And how ugly this fact is!

If you essay the 104-minute movie (I’ve watched only snippets), you’ll see that the movie is rabidly anti-Semitic, arguing that the incursion of “multiculturalism” in Sweden was a very bad thing, eroding a monolithic society of those with Swedish ancestry.

It then blames the Jews for making Sweden multicultural, ergo creating ethnic conflicts. I was too disgusted to watch enough to learn why the Jews want to make Sweden—and, according to Thunderstruck, everywhere—more diverse, but you can watch for yourself. (I suspect it’ll be a nefarious Jewish plot to get the Jews accepted in Sweden!)

This odious film surely documents some of the increasing anti-Semitism of Europe. And the filmmakers were clever: the movie starts out describing the advent of multiculturalism in Sweden in the Sixties, why it was bad; and the Jews are mentioned first only at 7:12. But then the anti-Semitism comes thick and fast.