Selective Freedom Of Speech

One of the great hypocrisies of the Left is its selective approach to freedom of speech.  When a subject arises that they're in favour of, they are the first to scream if disputed or argued with.  They demand their right to speak, nay, shout their opinions and Heaven help the person who disagrees.
When it's a subject that they're against, however, they quickly change their tune.  From "I can say what I want!" and "You can't oppress my speaking out!" they move to "Your attitude is creating a toxic atmosphere" and "I feel oppressed!"  Ask any pro-life university students about freedom of speech when it comes to presenting an anti-abortion perspective on Western campuses.  Ask any proponents of traditional marriage about their experiences when they try to express their opinion.  The Left is quite clear - free speech for me, not thee.
That's what makes York University such an odious place these days.  For those not following the news, a large mural (shown above) currently hangs in one of the public spaces on campus.  This mural, created by an Arab student, shows the usual anti-Israel tripe we've come to expect from the Jew-hating lobby.  There's a noble so-called Palestinian armed with nothing but rocks, wearing his keffiyah and a backwards necktie adorned with a map of "Palestine" which naturally does not include Israel. (Syrians will be happy to note it doesn't unclude Golan either, but I digress).  He's watching a bulldozer, presumably driven by those nassssssty Israelis, about to uproot a beloved olive tree, the goal being to put a Jewish settlement in its place.
The reaction from Jewish students at York has been reportedly negative.  They mostly don't like it, some even feel intimidated by it but nothing has been done.  The biggest Jewish group on campus won't do anything to formally protest it either.  Keep in mind that York has a large Jewish community, one of the largest university Jewish communities in Canada, so large that York used to cancel the first two days of school in September if they coincide with Rosh HaShanah.  It also has a distinction of having had a few pogroms occur on its grounds.
But while the student leadership has remained docile, outside Jewish donors haven't, principle amongst them Paul Bronfman, a major donor to the university.  In the wake of discovering that this mural exists and that the university doesn't care about the offence it causes a significant proportion of its student population he has pulled his funding and donated equipment after contacting York President Mamdouh Shoukri (hmmmm......) and getting a milquetoast response.
The justification for leaving the mural in place is, naturally, freedom of speech and expression.  There is promise of a committee to study "inclusiveness" and "respect" and a statement from another flunky denying that the mural is a form of Jew-hatred at all! (Much like Der Strumer was a pretty ordinary broadsheet that just happened to report on legitimate criticism of International Jewry, nothing to see here folks)
Stop and consider for a moment.  Let's say a group of students approach the university with a different picture, one of a heterosexual couple standing happily in sunlight while an anonymous, obviously gay couple stare malevolently at them from the shadows behind.  Or perhaps it's a pro-life group with an obviously anti-abortion painting.  What about the trump card?  What if a Jewish artist produces a picture of the Temple Mount with the Temple standing on the ruins of the Dome of the Rock, the flag of Israel fluttering proudly above it and claims that it's not anti-Islam but merely critical of Muslim occupation of Judaism's holiest site?  Do you think for a moment that any of these paintings would be hung?  And even if, by some miracle they were, how long before they were either taken down or destroyed by "activists" in the name of inclusiveness and respect?
At York, like elsewhere, Jew hatred is freedom of speech.  Protecting Israel is not.  Rich Jewish donors should remember that before cutting their next alumnus cheque.

The Friendly Face of Anti-Semitism

One of the things I like to do in my family practice is take in students.  One of the fun things about having new students is hearing about what's going on at the local medical school, any changes in the curriculum and the initiatives the school is launching.
Sometimes I also get to hear about class politics. A few years ago I had a couple of Jewish students who told me about one of their classmates, a very politically active fellow who was constantly bombarding their student message board with announcements about protests and demonstrations he thought his fellow students should get involved in.  He was also using it to share his political opinions freely even though the board was for school-related information.  As you can probably guess his opinions were on the left side of the political spectrum.  As you can also guess his comments on Israel were not, to say the least, friendly. 
It was bad enough that the Jewish students in my office expressed discomfort with having him around.  It's one thing to have strong views but in medicine one of the unspoken but very important rules is "Leave your politics at the door".  I've had Muslim students galore in my office and ER.  We stayed away from political discussions and got on fabulously.  I don't bring my beliefs into the department and I expect others not to as well.
Over time the name of his guy faded from memory.  My students graduated and moved on through residency and onto independent practice.  Then, last Saturday night I arrived at the ER I always work at on Motzei Shabbos and met the new guy who had just joined the staff.  He was friendly and the nurses said they liked how he worked (always important).  Then I heard his name.  At first I thought "Wait, I know that name" and after a few minutes it came to me.  It was that guy my students had told me about.
Now here's the predicament.  There is no doubt this guy is a Jew hater.  (I try to avoid the term anti-Semite because of all of those ignoramuses out there who say "Well an Arab can't be an anti-Semite because they're Semites too)  A quick Bing search of his name  along with the word "Israel" brings up a plethora of links including his Twitter feed where he discusses an elective he did in 'Aza during residency.  His comments are, as expected, about the great resilience of the so-called Palestinian people who are suffering from the "illegal" seige and "indiscriminate shelling" that Israel is throwing at them.  It's the usual Jew hating crap when it comes to Israel and its enemies.
So how do I know he's a Jew hater?  He could be just another leftist useful idiot.  I put it to the test.  I reentered his name into Bing along with "Tibet" (occupied by China), "Darfur" (occupied by Sudan), "East Timor" (occupied by Indonesia) and "Rwanda" (site of a large massacre a few years ago, you might have heard about it).  No hits.
Like all other Jew haters he is the kind of guy who cloaks his venom in a respectful facade of caring about social justice and oppressed people but there's only one people he cares about and only one side of a story he wants to hear before rendering his verdict.  I doubt he's toured S'derot or Be'er Sheva and seen the damage rockets from 'Aza have produced.  Frankly I don't think such a tour would make a difference.  He'd just see them as acts of resistant and blame Israel anyway.
But what's bugging me is how nice he is.  He did handover without an issue (naturally there was no mention of my kippah), told the staff a few jokes and went on his way.  He followed the rule: leave your politics at the door. 
I will happily admit I was fortunate to grow up in a sort of bubble.  I experiences no Jew hatred as a child or young adult.  The only time Jew hating slogans were shouted at me were by high school acquaintances who were not Jew haters but simply wanted to insult me and chose the least imaginative way possible. 
In university I was aware that there were Jew haters on campus and of the occasional anti-Israel protests but I graduated long before Israel Apartheid Week came into being and besides, I never had time to look into these things.  Unlike leftists who don't seem to have any academic responsibilities I actually had exams to study for which meant long hours in the library.
The only real trouble being Jewish caused me duing my medical training came from other Jews who were quite happy to insist that I should be scheduled to work on Shabbos because they didn't keep Shabbos and didn't see why I should.  In contrast, my gentile colleagues were always very accomodating.
So I've never really encountered a true Jew hater.  What bothers me is that this guy isn't the typical stereotype.  He isn't the elistist WASPish snob, nor is he the uneducated white trash guy in the wife-beater getup.  He's a nice guy, educated but not aloof and very friendly, yet he hates what I hold most dear and has common cause with the dedicated enemies of my people.
It probably won't be much of an issue.  I generally work overnight shifts which means I work alone ("plays nicely with others" isn't a comment I got too much on my report cards growing up) and I will not bring up politics at work, like I wrote about.  But he is a stark reminder that the friendly face a Jew runs into throughout society might be hiding some of the most ancient hatred plaguing mankind.

Maybe Extend Their Vacation A Little More?

For those not following the news in Canada, Tarek Loubani and John (not Dick) Greyson are two Canadian citizens recently arrested in Egypt.  Loubani is an emergency room physician and Greyson is a filmmaker. A few weeks ago both arrived in Egypt with the intention of going on to 'Aza.  Their intention was for Greyson to film a documentary featuring Loubani working in an 'Aza hospital helping out the locals.  After arriving in Egypt they encountered one of the regular anti-government riots and were arrested by the military when they swept through to end that particular protest.  Since that time they were held in an Egyptian jail under conditions that could generously described as unsavoury.  From the government to celebrities, the hopes for their well-being and the demands for their release were unrelenting.  Today the news is announcing that they've been released.  And all I can say is...
Gosh, couldn't the Egyptians keep them a little longer?
In case you think that sounds cold, well it's meant to.  Let me give you a little background on Loubani and Greyson.  Loubani is a so-called Palestinian who had made frequent trips to 'Aza and been involved in anti-Israel protests.  Greyson, on the other hand, can't seem to find enough anti-Israel causes to get involved in.  One report I read stated that the point of the documentary they were going to 'Aza to film was to "expose" how the Israeli "occupation" was negatively impacting the health of ordinary folks in the Strip.
The arrest in Egypt must have come as quite a surprise to them.  For one thing, they're "activists" and think that they are immune to the vicious whims of international demagogues.  For another they were on their way to 'Aza to film a documentary that would demonize Israel.  Egypt, recall, is a major international source for Jew hating literature.  Whether the government is Islamist or martial, bashing Israel is a common feature to keep the mobs there happy.  Sure they thought that having a common enemy would accord them red carpet treatment?
One can indeed imagine them screaming "But we also hate the Zionists!" as they were being dragged off to incarceration.
So unlikely my fellow citizens I didn't look at the them and think that two of my fellow Canadians were in a dangerous situation.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  I was quite happy that two Jew haters who masquerade as human rights activists (human rights for all except Jews) were getting their comeuppance.  I just wonder why it couldn't be for a little longer.

With Their Nation Or With Their Enemies?

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland exists in a way that makes it seem graced by Heaven.  Just off the northern Atlantic it should be a frozen wasteland devoid of any meaningful population.  Nature, however, supplies it with ocean-based winds that keep its climate not too hot in the summer and not too cold in the winter.  Yes there's the rain but that makes up for the lousy water pressure.
In addition the culture seems so modern and liberal.  The British have presented us with some of the finest literature, cinema and television in the world, not to mention comedy.  Add to that their magnificent history of bringing culture and civilization to the four corners of the globe and their role, as the first truly global empire, of creating safe international commerce through the power of their navy.  Yes, Britain is an important country in world history.
It's almost enough to make you forget that they're generally a bunch of damned Jew haters.  Well, almost.
What we, in our rush to quote Monty Python at all the right occasions, like to forget is that while it is a Western democracy, fought against the Nazis and all that, Britain has been a hotbed of Jew hatred for centuries.  Whether it was expulsions, libels or outright massacre the soil of green England is stained red with the guilt the British should be feeling for their treatment of our nation.
One does not even have to look into perfidious Albion's dim past to make this case.  The 20th century will do quite nicely.  After liberating Israel from the Ottoman Turks recall that Britain solemnly took upon itself a mandate to create a Jewish national home in Israel composed of what today is Israel and Jordan.  Then, without any real authority to do so, it sliced off Transjordan to pay a war debt to some of its Arab allies.  Then, realizing the importance of oil and maintaining a powerful presence on international affairs meant sucking up to the emerging Arab states, the British decided to do away with the rest of their commitment to us.  Piece by piece, first by restricting land purchases, then attempting to deprive the chalutzim of the ability to defend themselves from Arab attacks, then a blockade of Israel's coast to prevent Jews from arriving (ethnic based immigration restrictions, how cricket is that?) and finally an attempt to partition Israel into mostly Arab Palestine and a tiny Jewish bantustan the British did what they could to ensure that the Jewish Nation Home project would be an abject failure.
And then there were British attempts to ensure that Jews fleeing the fires of Nazi-occupied Europe would be unable to escape that Hell.  In summary, as my father once said, maybe it was that Nazis, y"sh, that slit our throats but it was the British holding us down so they could do it more effectively.
It should therefore not come as any shock that Britain is slowly starting to show its true colours once again.  What must infuriate them now is their inability to bully the Jewish nation like they once could.  Their idiot MP's and ministers can stand up and hector Israel all they want and we don't have to apologize and ask for more.
Consider this article from The Spectator:

Glick recently came to London to take part in an Intelligence Squared debate. The debate was about Israeli settlements. Glick and Danny Dayan attempted to explain to the London audience that Palestinian rejection rather than Jewish settlement in the West Bank is the primary reason there is still no solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. The debate is now available on Youtube and there you can see the deeply rancorous tone of the discussion. At one point Lord Levy’s son, Daniel Levy, (arguing against Glick and Dayan) has to be almost physically restrained by his own co-debater (William Sieghart). Levy’s frustration appears to come from being pulled up on an allegation he casually makes against Israel for which he turns out to have absolutely no evidence.

But the audience go with him, and go against Glick and Dayan in the final vote by a factor of 5 to 1. As Glick notes in her bitter farewell to London, the audience was so hostile towards her argument that when she even mentioned the matter of Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini and his involvement with the Nazis during World War II she was booed down by the audience. They – having been presented to her as open-minded – turned out to be so close-minded and partial that they would not even hear a historical fact about a Palestinian figure who was an actual Nazi.

There are also William Hague's endless one-sided anti-Israel pronouncements coupled with his empty statements about his friendship for Israel.  Some friend.  I'd rather have an honest enemy than a false friend like him.
There is a certain pride the British feel about their country, their history and their culture and there are many reasons they should.  But British Jews will soon have to make a choice.  In order to share in that pride as a member of that society, in order to maintain their good standing as "British" they will have to throw their status as "Jews" into the mud and stomp on it well and good.  If the "Jew" part of their being is of any value then they will have to face the fact that Jews who are proud of Israel and Judaism are not a welcome segment of British society.  Haven't been and aren't now.  Sorry old chap, you weren't expecting that?
Ah, but no one expects the Spanish inquisition!

Even Thought I Want To Cheer For Them

Organized Jewish athleticism has always been a bit controversial for me.  From a nationalist perspective I can appreciate and take pride in the sporting accomplishments of my fellow Jews.  There's an instinctive feeling of joy in seeing one of "ours" standing on the podium and knowing that "we" can compete with "them" and win.

From a religious perspective, however, there is a rejection of that feeling of one of insecurity.  If the purpose of the Jewish nation is to be a moral light unto the world then why does winning a gold at the Olympics or an international basketball tournament matter?  In fact, isn't the desire to fit in, to compete with the gentile world and beat them at their own games a negative turn away from that divinely appointed mission?

That why, when Israeli basketball teams come to North America to play NBA teams I don't necessarily jump for joy or seek out tickets.  Jews running around in tank tops and shorts isn't my idea of a Jewish social activity.  I don't identify with young girls dressed in little more than beach apparel skating or jumping around to the beat of some horrid new-wave music or classical piece I've never heard before.  And a soccer team playing in a European tournament and insisting on playing its game on Rosh HaShanah even after the Gentile organizers offered to change the date out of religious sensitivity is a surefire way to make me feel a disconnect.

Now I accept that I am imposing my standards on these athletes.  For many Jewish athletes the idea that they're in the game as identifiable Jews is a testament to their religion and nationality.  I just don't see it that way, especially at this year's Olympics.

As we all well know this year is the 40th anniversary of the Munich massacre during which a dozen Israeli athletes were killed by Arab terrorists for the crime of being Jewish.  Since that time the International Olympic Committee has done everything it can to minimize the event in history.  And I mean literally from the moment it happened consider the Games didn't miss a bit but kept on going.  Since then every attempt to make the IOC recognize the event in some way other than a cursory acknowledgement that it happened has been rebuffed.  Because it's the fortieth anniversary efforts to encourage a moment of silence at the opening ceremonies in London (the one in England) were especially strong but to no avail.  Other than a meaningless moment of silence held in the athletes' village well before the Games began and attended by almost no one, the IOC has been unwilling to budge on its insistence that it will not "politicize" the games despite ample precedents to show that they have done similar things for far lesser tragedies before.

In a way I can understand the IOC's decision.  Murphy's Law teaches us that he who shouts louder has the floor.  The Arab world has a lot louder voice than the Jewish one in the international forum.  If we are denied a moment of silence there will be some awkward squawking about it.  If the moment was granted, one could only imagine the screaming that would have ensued about validating the "racist Zionist regime".  Perhaps the IOC had the nightmare vision that during the moment of silence many of the Arab teams would start shouting "Free Palestine!" or "God is a mouse!" (Hamevin yavin) much to the embarrassment of the international community.

It is also fitting that London should be the site of this reject.  Britain has a long and deep history of Jew-hatred.  After all, this is the Allied country that did the most to help ensure no Jews would escape from the Holocaust and still has accepted no responsibility for its vile behaviour until this day.  No, the combination of England and the IOC assured that no moment of silence would happen.

But this is where my discomfort with the current Israeli Olympic team comes in.  That they participated in the Opening Ceremonies on Shabbos, well I'm pretty sure none of them is shomer mitzvos and to expect them to decline the opportunity to march because of religious requirements would be unreasonable.  That they participated in sports on Tisha B'Av is also understandable.  Most of them probably have no idea about the special nature of the day.  It's not like it's Yom HaZikaron or anything like that.

No, my discomfort comes from the Israeli team marching on Friday night for a different reason.  By refusing to acknowledge the tragedy that occured in 1972, by refusing to admit that they were completely dismissive and insensitive by not cancelling the Games at the time or at least delaying them for a few days and by their continued refusal to grant a moment of silence for the victims when they have done so for others, the IOC is sending a clear message to the Jewish world: we don't care about you.  We can't outright ban you for participating but we can tell you straight out we don't think your lives or your honour matter.

That's why I think the Israeli team should have announced that they would not participate in the Opening Ceremonies.  By marching in on schedule, by smiling and waving to the crowds and the IOC executive that think their blood is not as red as Gentile blood, by acting like they are a member of the family of nations that is convinced that we are the adopted bastard child, they implied that their desire to be accepted by "the Goyim" is stronger than their desire to stand by the memory of the slaughtered Munich athletes, is stronger than their sense of honour at being repeated insulted by the assembled crowd.  

By participating, the Israeli team sent out a message about its opinion of its Jewishness while groveling for acceptance before its enemies.  There is nothing to take pride in that.

Where The Threat Comes From

It's no secret that most non-religious Jews in the Western world are either overt leftists or lean in their political and social beliefs to that side of the spectrum.  One can suggest many reasons for this.  Perhaps it's because for many centuries the political and religious right were the great enemies of our nation, culminating in the rightist fascism of Europe in the last century that brought us the Holocaust.  Perhaps it's because leftists, in their drive to build a more tolerant and inclusive society provided more opportunities for Jews to integrate into their surroundings.  Or it could be that the left's traditional emphasis on helping the poor and disadvantaged struck a cord with the pintele Yid present in even the most assimilated Jew's heart and created a sense of connection.  For whatever reason this bond between Jews and the left has been long and enduring.
It has endured even as the world has changed and the left has become the dedicated enemy of the Jewish nation and its values while the right has metamorphisized into our allies.  Look around you today and you see one thing clearly: the vast majority of the left, save some remnants from more intelligent days, hates Judaism and Israel.  The right, save some remnants from fascist times, sees Judaism and Israel as a valuable ally of Western civilization.
However political beliefs are hard to change.  A Jewish community that has seen the Democrats in the US and the Liberals in Canada as their natural representatives seems very slow the change in the face of leftist hostility dating back over the last forty years.  Look at the hostility displayed by the Obama administration towards Israel (except in the months preceding an election) and compare that with polls that show that the majority of non-religious Jews will still vote for him and one can only be amazed at the naivete on display.  Nowhere is this dichotomy more obvious than in San Francisco today, as Dennis Prager notes:

If the most left-wing major city in America starts arresting Jews who have their children circumcised there, some American Jews might awaken to the threat to Jews posed by the left. Obviously, San Francisco's already existing bans on toys in Happy Meals, on soda in city-owned places and on plastic bags, and the city's proposed ban on the sale of pets, even goldfish, have not moved many Jews (or non-Jews) to begin wondering whether left-wing governance is dangerous. But perhaps a ban on circumcision will.

Of course, not everyone who is on the left — and certainly not the traditional liberal — is an enemy of the Jews. But, aside from Islamists, virtually all the enemies of the Jews are on the left.

The worldwide campaign to delegitimize Israel (i.e., to pave the way for moral acceptance of Israel's destruction) is virtually all on the left. Universities in America and elsewhere in the Western world, as well as the mainstream news media outlets around the globe, are all dominated by the left. They drum into their students', readers', listeners' and viewers' minds that Israel is one of the worst societies on earth.

The anti-Israel propaganda on the left is so great and so effective that according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, "Many of the youths who survived the (Norway) massacre said they thought the killer, dressed as a police officer, was simulating Israeli crimes against Palestinians in the occupied territories."

Yet, most American Jews still walk around thinking that Christians and conservatives are their enemies when, in fact, they are the best friends Jews have in the world today. From the present conservative Canadian government, which is probably the most vocal pro-Israel country in the world today, to every major conservative talk-show host in America (including the fiercely pro-Jewish and pro-Israel Glenn Beck, who has been libeled as an anti-Semite), to the leader of Holland's Party for Freedom and member of the Dutch parliament, Geert Wilders (one of the most eloquent pro-Israel voices in Europe today), to The Wall Street Journal's editorial page — the right is where the Jews' friends are.

What will it take for this generation of Jews on the left to realize what Arthur Koestler, perhaps the most prominent Jewish leftist of a previous generation, came to realize: namely, that leftism is "the god that failed"? Will it take a San Francisco ban on the oldest practice of the Jewish people? The City of Berkeley declaring Marines "unwelcome intruders"? PETA arguing that there is no moral difference between barbecuing chickens and cremating Jews? The ostracizing of the Jewish state from the world community by institutions dominated by the left?

One of the greatest features with the Jewish national psyche is that we are an am k'shei oref, a stiff-neck people.  At times it has been detrimental.  Read the narrative portion of Navi and you quickly see the stubborn tendencies our ancestors had in disobeying God and the laws of the Torah despite repeatedly being shown in no uncertain terms that there was no benefit to such rebellion.  This inflexibility is still present today.  Who is unfamiliar with the saying "Jews always leave a country the day after they should have?"
On the other hand being stiff-necked is exactly why God chose us. Throughout repeated exiles, challenges and attacks we have maintained our connection to God and Torah despite all the obstacles placed against us. No movement, religion, nation or philosophy down to modern times has displaced that position held by the faithful remnant of our nation.  Oppressors have come and gone but we, the people of God and Torah remain.
As Prager asks, what will it take for the less enlightened but equally stubborn portion of our nation to figure this out?

Calculating the Tip

It's a simple procedure, it causes minimal blood loss and has potential health benefits.  Despite all these features, male infant circumcision continues to be a controversial practice amongst many and the efforts to stamp it out in all but medically necessary cases have a strength that bely the relative insignificance of the issue.
As Jeff Jacoby notes, the latest battleground between pro and anti-circumcision forces is taking place in San Francisco:
The circumcising of newborn boys is perhaps the most familiar type of surgery in the United States. According to the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, US hospitals perform the procedure more than 1.2 million times each year. While there are wide variations by ethnicity and region, and while circumcision rates have declined in recent years, the great majority of American men are circumcised. And in nearly every case, the decision was made for them in their infancy by their parents -- just like the decision to breastfeed or bottle-feed, or to use cloth or disposable diapers. Even in the most childless major city in America, it's hard to see voters approving what would be an egregious infringement on parental rights.

The health benefits of circumcision are clear, if modest. The Mayo Clinic website reflects the medical consensus, noting that circumcised men and boys generally have a lower risk of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and sexually transmitted diseases; and that circumcision makes genital hygiene easier. At the same time, Mayo endorses the view of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which doesn't consider the advantages of circumcision compelling enough to recommend that infant boys be circumcised as a matter of routine. The academy's bottom line is commonsensical: "Because circumcision is not essential to a child's health, parents should choose what is best for their child by looking at the benefits and risks."
In short, circumcision is something about which reasonable people can and do disagree. But there is nothing reasonable about the fanatics trying to make it a crime.
Jacoby then points out that the current tactic by the anti-circumcision crowd is to lable the procedure Male Genital Mutilation, as if circumcision and genuine female genital mutilation had anything in common.  One has a mostly neutral outcome, the other leads to a life of pain and sexual dysfunction.  Trying to compare the two is laughable except for those whose mental faculties are so twisted by hate.
"Twisted by hate" is the only way to explain the proponents of this campaign.  As one example, several years ago a Montreal pediatrician published a study in which he claimed that circumcised boys were more timid and risk-averse than uncircumcised boys.  His methods?  Casual observation of boys in his waiting room.  He noticed that, on average, circumcised boys were less active and chance-taknig when playing.  He used no objective measures, no standardized scales and no actual protocol, yet his paper was published and since then has been quoted as authoritative.  How bizarre is that?
It is interesting to note that when the outside world wants to attack the Jewish nation, it doesn't waste time banning bagels and lox.  It goes right to the guy and attacks circumcision.  Perhaps this is because, consciously or not, it knows that circumcision sits at the centre of a man's identity as a Jew.  Time and time again this central feature of our nation's religious life has been attacked, so often that even when positive attempts are made to improve the process, like doing indirect metzitzah b'peh to reduce the transmission of herpes virus, are suggested there is a vociferous pushback.
As Jacoby notes, this measure will probably fail but it does serve as a reminder that there is movement out there that has, as its target, our identity as Jews and our ability to practice the central tenets of our faith.  We are best to remain wary of such attempts to pervert our oldest covenant.

Hatred And the Natural Order

Chazal tell us that both love and hatred disturb the natural order of things.  As examples, we are shown both Avraham Avinu and Bilaam HaRasha.  Both were wealthy men who, when they went to perform a mission , saddled their own donkeys despite having plenty of servants to do it for them.  In both cases the normal protocol was disregarded because of enthusiasm.  The difference is that while Avraham Avinu was motivated by love of the Ribono shel Olam, Bilaam HaRasha was motivated by hatred of Bnei Yisrael, us.
Since then there have been plenty of examples demonstrated this principle but for some reason many in recent decades.  The most recent and blatant is covered in this article from The Jerusalem Post:
A graphic comic book distributed by the US group Male Genital Mutilation Bill, in an effort to drum up support for San Francisco's anti-circumcision measure, has been called "grotesque" and "anti-Semitic" by the ADL.
Monster Mohel, which is one of two titles in the group's Foreskin Man series, has taken the classic good versus evil storyline and substituted an identifiably Orthodox Jewish rabbi as the bad guy and a blond, buff superhero -- dubbed" Foreskin Man" -- as the force of good.
"Foreskin Man, with its grotesque anti-Semitic imagery and themes, reaches a new low and is disrespectful and deeply offensive," said Nancy J. Appel, ADL Associate Regional Director, in a statement. "This is an advocacy campaign taken to a new low ... It is one thing to debate [the issue], is another thing to degrade it."
For a long time, Jew-hating groups have taken great care to disguise the true nature of their vitriolic emotions.  The vigilantes who keep talking about breaking the Israeli blockade of 'Aza don't admit it's because they hate Jew but pontificate about the rights of the people of 'Aza and how those rights are supposedly being violated.  Academics in Britain who have recently voted to boycott Israel don't admit that they are merely carrying on a centuries old tradition of British Jew-hatred but talk in elevated terms about respect for the oppressed.  Queers Against Israeli Apartheid in Toronto also try to conceal their Jew hatred by talking about morality and showing brotherhood with the so-called Palestinians.
At least this latest effort is honest and finally lays bare what all these groups are trying to hide: they hate Jews.
Look at the imagery: the blond, well-muscled hero facing off against a kaftan and large-brimmed hat wearing villian complete with hook nose and long beard.  The evil Moyel is taking pleasure in harming a defenceless infant and looking forward to sucking the blood from his penis.  Blood libel anyone?
If Foreskin Man isn't pulled directly out of old nazi propaganda, I don't know what else it could be. 
It should be noted that the author of this evil stuff has, as is the custom of Jew haters, protested that his work isn't about Jew hatred but rather about protection innocent infants.  Right.  So why is that that he's chosen a Jew as the villian and decked him out in ways that would give Hitler, y"sh, and his fellows a wet dream?  After all, Muslims also circumcize their children.  Many Chrisian groups also do.  Why don't we see Evil Akbar, browned skinned and wearing a keffiyah, or something similar working in league with the Moyel?  Is the author really concerned about political correctness at the same time as he is busy villifying us?
Is it for the same reason that the Mavi Maramara  crowd has no interest in protesting the Chinese occupation of Tibet or the ongoing slaughter of innocent civilians in Darfur?
Consider the proponents of the San Francisco attempt to ban circumcision.  Here's a city that is the antithesis of what Nazi Germany was aiming for.  It's multicultural, heavily homosexual and extremely liberal in its politics.  And yet whose imagery do these morons pick when they decide to go on a holy crusade of their own?  Those very same Nazis!
Yes it does make perfect sense.  As Chazal said, hatred disturbs the natural order. 

And Party Every Day!

Sometimes it's hard to be a music fan.  I was always a big fan of Genesis until I, like lots of others it seems, heard the stories about Phil Collins being a rapid Jew hater and anti-Zionist.  For a while I stopped listening to my Genesis records but fortunately cooler heads have detailed how this story was always just an urban myth.
Unfortunately the same can't be said of the former bassist and songwriter of my favourite band, Pink Floyd.  Unlike Collins, Roger Waters is more than happy to go on record as anti-Zionist in a very virulent way.  Whether it's attacking Israel's right to defend itself from terrorists or portraying Israel in vile war-mongering ways during concerts, Waters has made no secret of his hatred of Israel.  I don't doubt that if he were confronted he'd insist that he's not a Jew hater.  In fact, some of his best friends are probably Jews (who also hate Israel, 'natch).
Fortunately there is one band whose leader I can still appreciate, even if I've never owned any of their albums or heard more than a few of their songs.  Gene Simmons, the demon guitarist of Kiss and Israeli by birth, has stood up to the recent spate of idiot celebrities who have, in their deluded piety, announced that they will boycott Israel on upcoming tours.  Unlike them, Simmons has taken a recent opportunity to come home and show his love for the country he left as a child:
Simmons, wearing dark sunglasses and black pants, shirt and blazer, laced the interview with Hebrew phrases. "Where were you born?" he asked in somewhat halting but serviceable Hebrew.
He made local headlines during Israel's 2006 war against Hebzollah by sending a televised message to a wounded Israeli soldier, calling him a "hero."
Simmons co-founded Kiss in the 1970s and became famous for wearing white and black face makeup, spitting fire and coughing up fake blood at sold-out performances. The group has sold some 100 million records, and four decades later, it remains one of the best-selling concert draws.
Simmons also presides over a business empire that includes his reality show, TV, game show and movie appearances, video games, books, comics and a Kiss credit card. His net worth is estimated to be in the tens, perhaps hundreds, of millions of dollars. 
Simmons insisted that his busy schedule has been the only reason he never made it back to Israel before.
"America allowed me to climb the highest levels of success, and I never wanted to stop. When you reach the top, you can rest," he said.
"I've reached the top."
I'm not a big fan but it must be recognized that Kiss, through its music but even more importantly its marketing has cemented itself as one of the top rock music acts of all time.  Almost every music artist that is considering boycotting Israel is second rate when compared to Simmons and his friends.  His support is a welcome breath of air in the poisonous gas that the Western gliterati is tryin to spew on Israel these days.

Another Nutjob Hates Us

Not being a maven in the fast-moving ultra-chic world of international fashion, I'd never heard of John Galliano until today.  My personal tastes in fashion involve shopping at a relatively cheap men's clothing store and searching until I can find a suit that (sort of) fits for under $150.  I'm generally happy if my socks match.  Feathered boas, sheeer clothing that looks like it was made of firm toilet paper and anorexic cat walking waifs aren't really part of my social circle.
And then the world of fashion showed up in the headlines.  John Galliano, a gentleman whom, from the pictures I've seen, would be more at home in a freakshow than anywhere else, has announced his Jew-hatred to the world.  So shocking were his statements that Natalie Portman, Queen Amidala herself, was forced to speak out against him, helping seal his fate (he was fired by his company).
It's been a rough week for this, though.  Charlie Sheen, best known for his role of playing a drug-addled, whore-addicted loser in his real life, was also recently canned by his employers for making Jew-hating comments.  His hit show which earned him $1.8 million an episode also got cancelled as a result.
In a way, I feel sorry for these guys.  Both Sheen and Galliano seemed to have missed the essential rule that Jew-haters operate with.  Nowadays it is simply unacceptable for non-Jewish celebrities to openly express their hatred of Jews.  The reason isn't because religious Jews get upset about such statements.  For a Torah-observant Jew, the revelation that a Hollywood actor or metrosexual designer hates us should elicit a shrugging of the shoulders and a "So nu?  Eisav hates Yaakov.  What do you expect?"  No, the reason seems to be that liberal, nearly-completed assimilated Jews get greatly offended by such statements.  Having spent their lifetimes trying to fit into the dominant culture and leave the shtetl behind, they resent any reminders that no matter how much bacon they eat for breakfast they are still "dirty Jews" in the eyes of many around us.  Therefore any open expressions of how "they" really feel about "us" are forbidden.
After all, every good Jew hater knows that if you want to express yourself, you don't cry "Death to the Jews".  You cry "Death to Israel".  You don't shout "I hate Heeb's!"  You shout "I hate Zionists!"  The latter expressions, far from being forbidden, are considered acceptable social discourse by many of the same people, liberal assimilated Jews included, who  would otherwise bristle at the former ones.  It's just a shame for Galliano and Sheen that they weren't made aware of this.  Otherwise, instead of being fired, they'd be the bon enfants of the anti-Israel Jew hating circuit and would get good money to appear and say pretty much the same things they did.  Funny how that works.

Justified Paranoia

Murphy's Law teaches us that just because you're paranoid doesn't mean everyone isn't out to get out.
Sometimes I get paranoid.  It's relatively easy in today's world as Jew hatred seems to increase and appear on every corner.  The danger is to let the fear that the world's most irrational hatred is growing turn into a fear of Jew hatred even when it isn't present.  Hence the kneejerk reaction to Bnai Brith announcing yet another act of anti-Semitism since most of the time it's a trumped up charge.
Such  was my feeling regarding Medecins san Fronteires (Doctors Without Borders).  For years I've known about what they do but not about their politics.  I knew they didn't have much direct involvement with Israel because, B"H, the Israelis can look after their own and don't need their help.  But whenever I'd see a table of theirs at a conference I'd shy away from going to close.  Something told me that there was a problem even though I had no evidence of it.  Maybe it was the UNICEF experience but something in my head equated "internaional do-gooders" with Jew hatred.
And it turns out I was right:
When it comes to Israel, MSF seems to have fallen on its head.
For despite its virtuous profile, and its professed impartiality free of a political agenda, the group has a decidedly dubious track-record vis-à-vis the Jewish state.
The latest example of this was on display in recent weeks in a remote part of Africa, when a team of five Israeli specialists flew to the Congolese city of Uvira to treat 50 villagers who had been severely burned in a devastating fire that claimed more than 230 lives. Working around the clock, they treated the wounded, trained Congolese doctors in performing skin grafts and donated a ton of medical equipment to local medical facilities.
And yet, incredibly enough, these angels of compassion received a distinctly cold reception from MSF volunteers working in the area, who seemed to go out of their way to demonstrate their displeasure at having to work in the vicinity of Israelis.
As Haaretz reported (July 18), the Israeli medical staff “got the distinct impression that the volunteers did not wish to be around them.”
The treatment meted out to the Israelis was such that it left Dr. Eyal Winkler, deputy director of plastic and reconstructive surgery at the Sheba Medical Center, in a state of disbelief. “This is the reality today,” he said. “Doctors from international aid organizations treat a delegation of volunteer Israeli doctors to Congo as though we were occupiers.”
I work in a multicultural medical setting.  I routinely interact with people from all over the world including hijab-wearing women and people from Israel who don't consider themselves Israelis.  I have never, to my knowledge or recollection, had a difficulty with any of them.  After all, we share a common goal - the optimal treatment of our patients.  Our politics might differ but that doesn't matter when we're working. 
I think it's a betrayal of one's medical training and ethics to allow personal feelings to interfere with cooperation in a professional setting.  It's a selfish act that could compromise a patient's life which is clearly unacceptable.  What a shame that an organization as noble as MSF cannot rise above such pettiness.

An Anti-Semite By Any Other Name

For Canadian Jews, Canada has been a malchus shel chesed for the last fifty years or so. Jews have been treated as full and equal citizens since the early 1960's and have served in prominent private and public positions throughout the country and otherwise fully participated in Canadian life. Unlike our European and South American brethren, our synagogues and community centres are not fortified buildings with high tech security. We are able to educate our children as we see fit and worship as we want. Holocaust denial is a de facto crime. Best of all, the current prime minister is vocally pro-Israel, a welcome change from generations of leaders who were concerned about moral equivalence when it came to matters in the Middle East.

But beneath the glossy veneer, there is still the ugly phenomenon of anti-Semitism. Many times it lurks quietly and out of sight. Other times it forces itself into full public view. This has happened once again with the imminent Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF).

Despite being a cultural backwater (beer, hockey, moose 'n' beavers, eh?) there are some amazing cultural events in Canada, prime amongst them the TIFF. Rivalled the Cannes festival for size and importance, it's a great chance each year to wander through downtown Toronto in the hopes of catching a glimpse of someone famous or seeing an artsy film that probably will never be released commercially.

This year the TIFF went further and decided to try a new concept, that of featuring a particular international city. Their choice was Tel Aviv due to that city celebrating its 100th anniversary. Tel Aviv and Toronto have a lot in common. Both are home to people from all over the world, both are cosmopolitan and liberal cities that act as the commercial and financial centres of their countries. It would seem a natural fit.

Unfortunately in the eyes of the so-called progressive and enlightened glitterati, this honour is the equivalent of a war crime:

The signatories of a new letter accusing the Toronto International Film Festival of becoming "complicit in the Israeli propaganda machine" run the gamut from an Oscar-winning actress to a rabble-rousing author to a Talking Head.
More than 50 people have added their name to what's being called The Toronto Declaration, including musician David Byrne, actors Danny Glover and Jane Fonda, and author Alice Walker.
The letter, drafted by a committee that includes Canadian writer Naomi Klein and Israeli filmmaker Udi Aloni, is the latest move in a controversy that began when Canadian director John Greyson withdrew his short documentary, Covered, from the festival last week. The veteran filmmaker is protesting the festival's inaugural City to City Spotlight on Tel Aviv, a 10-movie program that TIFF's website promises will "explore the evolving urban experience while presenting the best documentary and fiction films from and about a selected city." This year is Tel Aviv's 100th anniversary.
Greyson penned an open letter to festival co-directors Piers Handling and Cameron Bailey, as well as to Noah Cowan, artistic director of the under-construction Bell Lightbox, blasting the initiative.
The declaration states that while the signatories are not protesting the individual filmmakers participating in the program and do not seek to exclude Israeli films from the festival, "in the wake of this year's brutal assault on Gaza, we object to the use of such an important international festival in staging a propaganda campaign on behalf of what South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu, former U.S. president Jimmy Carter and UN General Assembly President Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann have all characterized as an apartheid regime."

One of the blessings I, along with my contemporaries, have received from God is to live without fear of being a Jew. Being made to feel like "the other", being in fear of getting attacked on the street without recourse to protection from the law, being discriminated and told I cannot do something because I am a Jew, all these are things I have no experience with. Unlike my parents who grew up in such an environment, I have a sense of security when I walk down the street with my kippah in full view.

Yet around me are people whose attitudes hearken back to those of the bad ol' days of yore. Yees, yes, they say they have no problem with Jews, only with Israel. In fact, they have lots of Jewish friends who are also (strictly coincidental) anti-Israel. Therefore they are not anti-Semites.

I wonder though. If the TIFF had chosen to honour Beijing (China occupies Tibet) or Moscow (Russia occupies Ossetia and Chechnya), would Danny Glover, Hanoi Jane and John Greyson have had such a problem? Would filmmakers be withdrawing their films in protest? Would a single Hollywood celebrity have signed a petition if an actual tyranny had been honoured instead of the only democracy in the Middle East and the only one in which the preferred company of this crowd - socialist fanatics and radical homosexuals - are able to openly express their views without fear of being lynched?

Somehow I doubt it. Their concern is with Israel and Israel alone. For Darfur they'll give lip service. For the Congo, they'll say they're concerns. But for a terrorist nation that is trying to destroy Israel? For that they'll sign petitions and make sure everyone knows!

As producer Simcha Jacobovici notes:

"Frankly, I think there's no other word but anti-Semitism. I don't know if they're doing it consciously or unconsciously, I want to make that clear, but the idea that anything that Israel does is by definition illegitimate, and anything that the other side does is by definition legitimate, what do you call that?"

This is Jew-hatred, plain and simple. The only way to deal with it is to aggresively refute the lies they continue to cloak themselves with. These people are anti-Semites and do not deserve the civilized appearance that society continues to give them.

Bloody Brit's

If there's one consistent feature to British history, it's anti-Semitism. The English have kicked us out of their foggy island, occupied our Land and tried to give it to our enemies, and generally functioned as a thorn in our side throughout European history. It comes as no surprise when jerks like Jack Straw or other British functionaries pick up in the best tradition of Bevin and Eden with their anti-Semitic approach to Jewish affairs. Thus this article in The Jerusalem Post exemplifies what most people with their eyes open have come to expect from Brittania:
It has been a terrible month for Israel's reputation in Great Britain. The government has announced a partial arms embargo in protest of Operation Cast Lead. The Charity War on Want has held a launch event for a new book entitled Israeli Apartheid: A Beginners Guide. The Guardian has featured commentaries promoting the apartheid analogy as well as accusing Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of using Nazi language to defend settlement policy. The BBC and other media outlets have given massive coverage to the recent Breaking the Silence report slamming the IDF for committing "war crimes." Barely a day goes by without a new front being opened against the Jewish state. Those of us who follow such matters are always in danger of getting too close to our subject. But, given that the IDF is not involved in combat operations, I for one have never seen a period like it. On Friday, the Guardian ran two anti-Israel opinion pieces on one and the same day.
There's something in the air. The Israel-haters smell blood, and they're going in for the kill. It could be that we are on the threshold of a new era. But why now? The simplest explanation is that the relentless, unremitting stream of anti-Israeli invective that has been pumped into the public mind in Britain over the last decade or so was always going to reach critical mass at some point. There is nothing particularly significant about the timing. The clock has been ticking for years. Israel's time has simply come.
ULTIMATELY, THE simple explanation may be the best explanation. But there are a number of other factors now at play which may have helped bring the situation to a head.
First, the election of Barack Obama is perceived by many British opinion formers as heralding a refreshing new approach to Israel from the United States. For linguistic and historical reasons, political change in America is keenly felt in Britain. Obama's comments calling for a freeze on the settlements have provided the pretext for a renewed assault on Israel in general using the American president's huge popularity as cover. Second, the election of Netanyahu combined with the appointment of Avigdor Lieberman as foreign minister have offered new opportunities to make the attack personal. Even for Israel's most virulent detractors, it was not easy to mount a hate campaign against Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni. Netanyahu has been demonized in Britain for years. Lieberman is portrayed as little better than a skinhead. The wolves have been thrown fresh meat. Third, Foreign Secretary David Miliband has recently recast the tone of British pronouncements on the Middle East and relations with the Islamic world in a way that serves the broader agenda of Israel's opponents. For example, in a speech in Oxford in May and reported in the Guardian, he spoke of abjuring distinctions between "moderates and extremists" - a line that, despite Foreign Office denials, was widely interpreted as potentially paving the way for talks with Hamas and other militant groups. He also referred to "ruined crusader castles," "lines drawn on maps by colonial powers" and to the failure "to establish two states in Palestine."
Miliband cannot be held entirely responsible for the way his words are interpreted. But it is precisely in such guilty, post-colonial terms that Israel's opponents in Britain have always talked. To hear their own kind of language echoing back at them from the leading figure in the UK foreign policy establishment is likely to embolden them further.
Fourth, in a country whose opinion formers still fulminate about the invasion of Iraq - sometimes portrayed as a venture inspired by Israel and Zionist neoconservatives in America - the Netanyahu government's hard line stance on Iran has got the alarm bells ringing again. Are we going to get sucked in to yet another war in the Middle East for the benefit of Israel, they ask.
Fifth, Netanyahu's new emphasis on insisting that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a specifically Jewish state is pushing Israel's opponents against the wall and forcing them to declare themselves with greater clarity. Of course, this does not just apply to Britain. But as a country whose opinion forming classes rank among the most hostile to Israel in the Western world, the move has provoked a particularly hysterical reaction. Since the Palestinians have made it clear that they have no intention of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, British opponents of Israel have been forced to choose between accepting that Palestinian rejectionism forms the real root cause of the conflict or themselves rejecting the Jewish character of Israel and the whole Zionist enterprise to boot.
PUT ALL of these factors together and it becomes easier to understand why a situation which was awful to begin with has deteriorated so rapidly.
The obvious question now is where next. With the partial arms embargo in mind, we should obviously be watching for an extension of formal sanctions. Outside the governmental sphere, it is a racing certainty that unions will renew efforts for trade and academic boycotts. Media hysteria will grow as each new assault on Israel's integrity helps legitimize and validate the next. For the Jews of Britain, the prospect of increasing anti-Semitism against this backdrop is all too real.
It is fortunate for us that a decade of self-hating misrule by the Labour party has reduced Britian from its importance during the Thatcher years to that of a corrupt second world country. As a result, Israel doesn't have to worry quite as much as one might think about British pique. But while the English lion may be old and arthritic, it still has quite a bite to it. The bastardly British can still do a lot of damage to Israel and the Jewish people in general.
Perhaps all this rising anti-Semitism, in combination with the transformation of London into Londonistan, is writing on the wall for the Jewish community there. Times will shortly be getting much worse for them. Perhaps it's time to pack up and move east so that Israel can be anglicized a little more.

Seven Jewish Children, One British Anti-Semite

Carly Churchill's new blood libel against the Jewish people, a short play entitled Seven Jewish Children is making the rounds in civilized society, much as accusations that we use Chrisian childrens' blood to bake our matzos once did. The play is short and admission to its performances is free at the request of the author. The only stipulation is that patrons make a donation to a so-called Palestinian charity upon attendance.
And, in the finest tradition of all post-Holocaust Jew haters, all those involved with the play deny being anti-Semitic. This includes, of course, the Jewish directors who just have to involve themselves with this filth:
"People have a right to be offended, and I respect those who have read the play and are offended," said Roth, the artistic director of Theater J at the Washington DC Jewish Community Center where the 10-minute play was performed this week. It also will be staged Saturday night and Sunday afternoon in Washington at the Forum Theater.
Roth himself was upset by the script.
However, he has added two pro-Israel plays to the evening as well as a panel discussion as part of an effort to give a broader context to the play.
One of the great canards Jew-haters recite is that it is legitimate to criticize Israel just like it is fine to criticize any country for its perceived failings. And if they were being honest abou it, there would be little to argue about. Israel, chalilah, has a great many failings. Its determination to survive despite its enemies' wishese, is not one of those failings.
Pointing this out leads to one of two further lies. "I'm not anti-Semitics. I just hate Israel." Why, pray tell, of all the countries in the world do they specifically choose Israel to heap vitriol on? If its because of its supposedly brutal occupation, well China is more brutal in Tibet. If it's because they are supposedly denying an indigenous people their right to unfettered autonomy, doesn't Britain still occupy Northern Ireland?
The other lie is: I can't be an anti-Semite. I'm Jewish. The answer to that is also simple: You can be a self-hating Jew.
But let's look at the play itself (linked above) and it will become obvious where the biases are:

Tell her this is a photograph of her grandmother, her uncles and
me
Tell her her uncles died
Don’t tell her they were killed

First, look at the wording. "Tell her..." implies that the child has asked a question and, instead of receiving an honest answer, is getting a lie, a fabrication, something to make the situation easier. "Tell her the divorce isn't her fault" for example. Is this an implication that the people in the photos aren't her real relatives, that we somehow all carry around black and white pictures to use as guilt-inducers when someone questions our right to insist on surviving? Is this a reference to the anti-Semitic statement: You Jews suffered in the Holocaust. How can you do the same thing to the Arabs?


Tell her there were people who hated Jews
Don’t tell her
Tell her it’s over now
Tell her there are still people who hate Jews
Tell her there are people who love Jews
Don’t tell her to think Jews or not Jews
Tell her more when she’s older
Tell her how many when she’s older
Tell her it was before she was born and she’s not in danger

Maybe I'm just not into art but this isn't writing. This isn't even good poetry. It's rambling, aimless, meaningless rambling. What is the point here? Is it to convey that we'll say anything to our children, give them any answer to justify what we're doing to survive?

Tell her it’s sunny there
Tell her we’re going home
Tell her it’s the land God gave us

Did you know that the reason the Arabs care about Yerushalayim so much is because they have a tradition that Mohammed, y"sh, ascended to Heaven on his magical horse from there? Not that any of their sacred texts actually say that, but somewhere along the way they took the name of the place, al Aksa (the farthest place), decided it was Yerushalayim and this is why they consider it a holy city.
How many times is Yerushalayim mentioned in the Bible? Hundreds. How many times in the Koran and the Hadit? Zero, zip, nada. Israel is the land God gave us. How can that be presented as a shallow excuse, unless we are expected to stop believing it?

Tell her they’re Bedouin, they travel about
Tell her about camels in the desert and dates
Tell her they live in tents
Tell her this wasn’t their home

Until the Jews returned to Israel, the above is an unfortunately accurate. Mark Twain, upon touring the land in the late 19th century, was amazed at the emptiness and desolation. Until the Jews returned there was nothing there. No mythical, prosperous and civilized Palestine. They wandered in one end, wandered out the other. Only the Jews tenaciously stayed. And when the time came to fight for it, only they didn't run.
Of course, Churchill has a few lines for that:

Tell her for miles and miles all round they have lands of their own
Tell her again this is our promised land.
Don’t tell her they said it was a land without people
Don’t tell her I wouldn’t have come if I’d known.

Another little known fact about early Zionism is that it succeeded as a movement despite the attitude of some of the early Zionists. Since they were secular, the idea that God had chosen that time in history to begin the ingathering of the exiles was missed by them. Instead they were attracted by the idea of an empty land, a "land without a people for a people without a land". And when they discovered that a few Arabs actually lived there, they were horrified. All that they had been organizing went against their secular European values (the same values that would build the gas chambers of Auschwitz a few decades later).
Well the truth is different - the Arabs do have countless empty miles around and around. They have 23 states of their own. And the majority of the people who came knew why they were coming and would have come anyway because they simply had no place else to go.

Don’t tell her anything about bulldozers.
Don’t tell her about the queues at the checkpoint

And by all means, don't tell her about the suicide bomber who lived in the house getting bulldozed. Don't tell her about the terrorists that created the need for the checkpoints in the first place. The typical Jew-hater's response to Jewish survival - they start the fight, we survive and suddenly we're guilty for the whole fight in the first place.

Tell her we’re stronger
Tell her we’re entitled
Tell her they don’t understand anything except violence
Tell her we want peace

Ms Churchill, by the grace of God, for the first time in 1900 we are stronger, we are entitled, they don't understand anything except violence (ask them yourself if you don't believe me) and we don't want peace but they have rejected every legitimate offer. You might make these sound like worthless excuses but they are the inconvenient truth.
Is there any point in going on? This play should be ignored and any Jews who either help promote it or are involved with it should be shunned with the same hatred we now reserve for the Neturei Karta. For in the end, they are no different.

Never Leaving on Time

In the 1930's, it was the German Jews who steadfastly remained in "the Fatherland" despite Hitler, y'sh, and his stated intention to wipe them out. Now it's the French Jews (and the British ones, and the German ones, and...) who seem to be missing all the signs on the wall. The future of Europe is clear. Unless something is done by the native population, the continent will have an Muslim majority within fifty years. Any guesses on how sympathetic they'll be to our people?