The swine continue to stand up and be counted. This time its a mob of pro-infanticide racists harassing a Jewish student at, of course, Harvard University. Most amusing and/or horrifying is that one of the chief thugs was Ibrahim Bharmal, who is an editor at the Harvard Law Review—which former president Barack Obama once led (antisemitism is ever replete with ironies).
This case underlines something quite important: The answer to the question of what to do about this is obvious. Bharmal should be expelled immediately. His fellow thugs should be expelled immediately. If possible, they should face felony charges for aggravated harassment and/or assault. This is not hard.
It is only hard because, for the most part, the Axis of Antisemitism, especially its progressive wing, rules Harvard and the institution’s ostensible leaders are—for reasons unfathomable to me—absolutely terrified of them. The imperative, then, is to make those leaders more terrified of not doing something about it than of doing something about it.
Make it clear to them that if these fiends are not expelled, all Jewish donors will pull out, a federal civil rights investigation will begin, and the university will be sued for every penny of its endowment. In other words: adopt a “broken windows” policy on antisemitism or face ruin.
Harvard’s administrators may be many things, but they are not brave. They will fold. And we may hope someday to meet Bharmal and his fellow terrorists on the street begging for spare change on a freezing winter’s night.
For some bizarre reason, I have recently received several emails containing a statement from an organization called DAWN. They claim that Israel is about to ethnically cleanse not only Gaza, but also the West Bank and the Israeli-Arab community as well. In classic Chomskyite fashion, they further accuse the US and, one presumes, the entire American people of being complicit in this yet-to-be-committed crime.
Besides the fact that they sent these missives to me—who could not possibly be less sympathetic to any aspect of this group’s existence—the scenario they posit is vanishingly unlikely to happen. The US would never allow it and there would be nowhere for the expelled Palestinian Arabs to go. Egypt has made it clear that it won’t take them, Jordan will never do so for obvious reasons, and there aren’t really any other options.
The West Bank is landlocked, but theoretically, the Gazans could be given a million inflatable rafts and set adrift in the direction of North Africa or southern Europe, but putting aside any other considerations, purely on logistical grounds this is barely short of pure fantasy. One might as well theorize that they will be flown to Manhattan and put up at the UN building.
The question, then, is why DAWN is making such claims at all. First, there is the obvious reason that, however ecumenical it might pretend to be, it and all other organizations like it are little more than hardline Palestinian nationalist groups in all but name.
The emails, for example, extensively quoted the group’s director Sarah Leah Whitson, a former top official at Human Rights Watch, which under her leadership was transformed from a generic human rights group into a font of Palestinian nationalist ideology all but indistinguishable from Hamas. (Given that Whitson accomplished this more or less without anyone noticing, it is impossible not to have some dark admiration for her skills.)
Nonetheless, it should be clear that the primary goal of groups like DAWN or HRW, as with any hardline Palestinian nationalist group, is to further the extremist goals of the Palestinian nationalist movement. It is now clear to any thinking person that those goals consist primarily of destroying Israel through the use of barbaric terrorism. As such, these groups cannot help but advocate—indeed must advocate—for anything that furthers this terrorism.
That being the case, DAWN’s accusations make perfect sense. By accusing Israel of committing/planning to commit ethnic cleansing, you 1) undermine the legitimacy of Israel’s current quest for compensatory justice through military action and the Biden administration’s support for it, 2) justify any and all further acts of Palestinian Arab terrorism, however heinous they might be, and 3) incite and intensify mob violence and terrorism against Jews in the Diaspora, which Palestinian nationalists now employ very consciously as a weapon.
DAWN is, of course, a silly organization in its way, but what it and extremist nationalists like Whitson are doing could have very real consequences for their intended victims. If it does, all such groups ought to be held legally accountable.
This raises the inevitable question of precisely how to respond to blood libels like this. Obviously, everyone has their own ideas, which usually boil down to presenting the facts, refuting the accusations, and trying to phrase your argument in the most persuasive manner possible.
None of these, unfortunately, are going to work. The reason is that these people 1) hate your guts, 2) enjoy hating your guts, 3) will reject any truth that gets in the way of this demented pleasure, and 4) are interested in hurting you as badly as they possibly can, not in having a reasonable debate.
Given that one is dealing with sadists, then, the most obvious answer is to remember that sadists are not masochists. They get a sexual thrill from hurting other people, but they do not like to be hurt themselves. The best response to them, then, is not discourse but the same discursive violence they employ. In other words, invective.
The most effective way to respond to someone who is spewing a blood libel at you is simply to say, “You’re a liar.” Then keep saying it. Sooner or later, they’ll simply break down and start whining that they aren’t a liar, which only makes them look like liars. Then they’ll melt down and start spewing venom in a manner that makes them appear to be completely insane, which isn’t far from the truth. Make them show their true face.
Then we can move on to labels. Terms such as “pro-terrorist,” “pro-genocide,” “pro-infanticide,” “racist,” and “baby-killer” are all good and have the virtue of being completely accurate. Call them that and keep calling them that. Such terms confront these people with the moral reality of what they advocate and the manner in which they advocate it. This punctures their arrogance, denies them any aura of moral rectitude, and turns them into sputtering amoebae of rage.
As Sun-Tzu said, “When your enemy is angry, agitate him.” When he’s mad, he’ll make a mistake. Drive them mad, they deserve it.
Let me get this straight. If you don’t support the Netanyahu terrorist organization committing crimes against humanity and attempted genocide, you’re somehow antisemitic? Damn Bruh
You should probably take a couple steps back and re-think all of this