Subscribe to The Jewish Standard free weekly newsletter

 
font size: +
 

Anna Baltzer, Jewish defamer of Israel

 
|| Tell-a-Friend || Print
 
 

In 1505, a Moravian Jew named Joseph Pfefferkorn renounced his faith and undertook a campaign to get the Talmud banned by claiming it blasphemed Christianity. Pfefferkorn was unschooled and a criminal, but that didn’t stop the Dominicans in Cologne, who at the time were eager to cast aspersions on the Jews, from employing him. They recognized the value of a Jew accusing other Jews.

The practice of finding Jews to bear false witness against other Jews has been repeated in many venues. Today, in America, some mainline Protestant churches have eagerly adopted this practice in an effort to demonize Israel. In November, the Wyoming Presbyterian church in Millburn, N,J., invited Jewish anti-Israel activist Anna Baltzer to speak and present her slide show alleging Israeli crimes against the Palestinians.

Baltzer is an acolyte of the International Solidarity Movement, a cult-like group that recruits naïve Westerners to interfere with Israeli anti-terror operations. Its founders have spoken approvingly of suicide bombings. Baltzer boasts a busy schedule of speaking engagements at churches, universities, and even an appearance on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Her message consists mostly of rehashed accusations against Israel made by Palestinian speakers. But Baltzer uses her Jewish heritage to accrue credibility before predominantly non-Jewish audiences who often fail to see through her deception.

In her appearance at the Presbyterian church, Baltzer told the audience that they were responsible for alleged Israeli transgressions on the west bank because “if the Israeli government does it, in fact it’s really U.S. taxpayers doing it.” Settlers carry U.S.-made weapons, she said. Her attempt to conflate the privately owned small arms of Israeli citizens with American support for Israel’s national defense is typical of her deceptiveness.

Baltzer’s core message is to delegitimize Israel.

She foists upon her audience absurd claims, like her assertion that the Arab armies that invaded the Jewish state the day after its founding were merely reacting to Israel’s expulsion of 350,000 Palestinians from their homes. Aside from sanitizing the stated Arab intention to eliminate Israel, she also misrepresents the impetus behind Palestinian flight. Noted historian Efraim Karsh demolished the myth of Palestinian expulsion. His book, “Fabricating Israeli History,” documents how most Palestinians’ flight was stoked by their own leadership and that relatively few were compelled by Jewish forces.

Baltzer analogizes Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians with South African apartheid, contending that the reason there is no Palestinian Nelson Mandela is that Palestinians are not allowed to organize because Israel jails potential leaders. In reality, most Palestinians sitting in Israeli jails are tied to terrorist acts against Israelis. Moreover, Palestinians have their own governing institutions. In her zeal, Baltzer can’t even get Mandela’s story right. In fact, the famed South African leader spent much of his adult life sitting in a South African jail.

Despite her accolades as a peace activist, Baltzer is an apologist for Hamas, whose founding charter invokes Islamic doctrine to sanctify killing Jews. The most Baltzer can admit to is that Hamas is “more aggressive” than the secular Palestinian group, Fatah. Proclaiming that it has agreed to a long-term ceasefire if Israel will withdraw to its recognized borders, Baltzer ignores Hamas’ repeated affirmation it will never accept Israel’s right to exist.

Baltzer mocks Israel’s attempts to protect its population and reveals a contempt for the lives of Palestinians too. She decries Israel’s decision to build the “Wall,” rhetorically asking, “Does segregation bring peace?” The facts are clear. In the year prior to the decision to build the security barrier, 452 Israelis were murdered by Palestinian terrorists, mostly in suicide bombings. Since the building of the barrier, that figure has gone down by more than 90 percent, and in 2009 there were no successful suicide bombings in Israel.

Baltzer promotes blood libels against Israel. In her talk at the Wyoming Church an attendee challenged her as to why she published on her blog for months a false story spread by one of her colleagues accusing Israeli soldiers of shooting several Palestinian children in front of their mother. Baltzer retorted that she removed the story prior to her appearance on the Daily Show in October upon learning it was false. She added that although this case turned out not to be true, “I don’t think it’s hateful to hold a nation accountable for targeting civilians.” So while admitting one story was a lie, she continues to promote another unsubstantiated accusation.

Baltzer urges on the Palestinians to further intifadas. This ultimately reflects back on the churches, like the Wyoming Presbyterian Church, that invite her to speak. According to a community newspaper’s account of the event, when an audience member questioned why the church repeatedly invited speakers with an anti-Israel message and none to present the other side, a church member responded, “[A]ny time you want to put together such a meeting, the minister reports to us.” The interim pastor, Lou Kilgore added, “I’ll make the same offer,” but indicated since he’s temporary, you’ll have to hurry.

Pastor Kilgore’s response reveals the depth of the problem. While providing a platform for Baltzer’s anti-Israel advocacy, the church leaders absolve themselves of the responsibility to provide a balanced educational perspective. They leave it up to the Jewish community to supply a speaker to rebut the anti-Israel speakers. When it comes to incitement against Jews, how little has changed.

Steven Stotsky is a senior research analyst with the Committee for Accuracy in. Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA).
{/exp:member2:custom_profile_data}
Disclaimer
The views in opinion pieces and letters do not necessarily reflect the views of The Jewish Standard. The comments posted on this Website are solely the opinions of the posters. Libelous or obscene comments will be removed.
 
|| Tell-a-Friend || Print
 
 

Stay tuned for the return of comments

HARRY posted 07 Feb 2010 at 06:47 AM

On January 1, letter writer, Janice Rubin, wrote “Can the naïveté of some of our fellow Jews possibly be due to their insular environment? I can’t imagine why else they would believe that right-wing Christians are friends of the Jews because they support the State of Israel. With friends like that, Jews don’t need enemies.” 
True, Jews don’t need enemies.  We, Israel and world Jewry, have more than enough enemies.  We also can’t afford to reject friends.  Jews are certainly not an insular, narrow-minded people.  It is important for us to recognize our friends and our enemies.  As I see it, the Christian-right, the right-wing Christians, are our friends.  It is the Christian-left, the mainline Christians who are our enemy.  One example, it is the mainline Christians who led the campaign for major investors to divest from companies doing business with Israel. 
Another example:  Read the Feb. 5 article by Steven Stosky, Anna Baltzer, Jewish defamer of Israel.  Who sponsors villains like Anna Baltzer?  Steve Stosky says, “The practice of finding Jews to bear false witness against other Jews has been repeated in many venues. Today, in America, some mainline Protestant churches have eagerly adopted this practice in an effort to demonize Israel.”  The Christian-left are active enemies of Israel. 
Janice Rubin is concerned about the Christian “underlying attitude toward Jews”.  Christianity is a proselytizing religion.  This includes right-wing and left-wing Christians.  Today, we Jews have the freedom to convert or not to convert.  In good and bad times, most Jews have chosen not to convert.  I know that Pastor Hagee, a Christian right leader rejects the “replacement theology” of the need for Jews to convert. 
My liberal and conservative Christian friends have never tried to convert me.  They show no concern whether I burn in hell or not. 
I have more practical concerns.  Who are the true friends and supporters of Israel?  Who are enemies of Israel in speech and action?  My choices are simple.  The right-wing Christians actively support Israel in speech, action, and financially. 
Harry Lerman,
Paramus, NJ
201 262 8098

Paul posted 22 Jun 2012 at 04:33 AM

“Baltzer’s core message is to delegitimize Israel.”

After listiening to several presentations by Anna Baltzer, I have to say that her core message is not to delegitimize Israel, but garner support for those people, Jewish and Gentile, Israeli and non-Israeli, who would ask Israel to live up to high standards of Jewish teaching, morality and ethics.  Her message is that non-violent oppression and violent oppression lead to desperation and violence; that injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.  Her message is that she has seen injustice toward Palestinians and it is not helpful to solving any problems facing Israel

This is hardly a pernicious, hateful, “self-loathing” or even controversial message.  By demonizing Ms. Baltzer you permit yourself to dismiss her.  By focusing on her mistakes, you allow yourself to dismiss the truths she imparts.  By claiming she “incites against Jews” you mischaracterize her motives and efforts.  The same could be said of many Old Testament prophets—such as Jeremiah.  But. of course, that is merely to miss the message because it is unpleasant. 

It is sad that you would demonize and stifle one who points out that Israeli policies are not productive of a lasting peace.  Mubarak was never going to live forever.  Sooner or later, Egypt would clamor for democracy.  Democracy is not evil; not even in Muslim countries.  How has the time been spent since Sadat was murdered?  Are Israelis and Egyptians more friendly?  More sympathetic to one another?  More understanding of one another?  What foundation has been laid for a lasting peace?  How about Jordan?  How about Saudi Arabia?  How about Turkey?

Is it not possible that Israel could do more to foster better relations?  Is it not possible that some Israeli policies towards Palestinians are inhumane, unjust, and lead to violence?  Is it not possible that more just and humane policies could foster better relations with Turkey? Egypt? Perhaps even Iran? 

“While providing a platform for Baltzer’s anti-Israel advocacy, the church leaders absolve themselves of the responsibility to provide a balanced educational perspective.”

Do you really believe that Americans and their churches and the media do not provide a balanced educational perspective on Israel?  How often is there anything critical of Israeli policies towards Palestinians shown on American television?  But for a few timid pieces on Sixty Minutes, there is nothing on American television critical of Israeli policies towards Palestinians.  Americans are not being incited to hate Jews or Israel by anyone of serious stature in America.  Anti-semites and Holocaust-deniers are routinely and vigorously denounced (and justifiably so!).  Please do not let hysteria and paranoia blind you to all constructive criticism.  You do yourself and your cause a great disservice.

 

‘Live long and prosper’

The death of Leonard Nimoy on Friday, February 27, at 83, marked the passing of an American icon — indeed, a star of global renown, and a Jewish hero as well.

Nimoy’s accomplishments were many. He was an author, poet, musician, photographer, philanthropist, educator, and director, and of course an actor who played many roles on stage and screen. But he is best known for his role as Mr. Spock on Star Trek, the television series that first aired in 1966. It is a role he reprised in the various sequels, spinoffs, and remakes that appeared after the original series went off the air in 1969.

Nimoy was a Boston native, fluent in Yiddish, whose parents were Orthodox Jews who escaped from the Soviet Union. As he related in various interviews, his background informed his portrayal of the sole alien being on the Starship Enterprise. Spock hailed from the planet Vulcan but was also half-human, making him an alien on Vulcan as well. His status reflects that of immigrants and their children, first-generation Americans who, like Nimoy, grow up in a household, community, and culture that still has one foot in the old world.

 

 

Je suis Charlie?

It says much about the age that we live in that so many of us first learned of the terrorist attacks in Paris on January 7th through Twitter, and that the slogan that came to represent much of the international response to the massacre originated as an image tweeted by French artist and music journalist Joachim Roncin, and soon morphed into a hashtag that rose to the top of the day’s trending topics, and has become one of the most popular hashtags in the history of that social network.

I am referring, of course, to Je suis Charlie, or in hashtag form, #jesuischarlie, and its English version, #iamcharlie.

Some followed up on this formula with the variations Je suis Ahmed or Je suis Ahmed Rabet, to acknowledge the Muslim police officer who was so brutally murdered in the attack on the French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, and as a subtle reminder that the terrorists are not representative of Muslims in general. Others added Je suis Juif, meaning I am Jewish, to recall the fact that four hostages were murdered in a kosher supermarket, in addition to the 12 killed at the offices of the Parisian periodical. (Several of them also were Jewish.) Members of the Jewish community in France and abroad were encouraged by the appearance of Je suis Juif signs and hashtags, especially as the slogan was displayed by some French Muslims, although there has also been some criticism that it was not shared widely enough.

 

 

To end terrorism, start with moral clarity

The most often asked question I hear today is “How do we stop radical Islamic terrorism?”

Of course there are no quick, easy solutions but any attempt must start with an absolute commitment to speaking and acting with moral clarity.

How can it be that there are leaders today, including the president of the United States, who simply refuse to use the words “Islamic terrorism” or “Islamic jihad”? I am not an expert on Islam, and I have no true sense whether Islam is or is not a religion of peace.

 

 

RECENTLYADDED

Israel, not Netanyahu, is the ultimate target

There is no world leader more hated by well-meaning liberals in America and Europe than Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Whereas once the bile was directed at former U.S. president George W. Bush — for invading Iraq and Afghanistan, for identifying radical Islam in both its Shiite and Sunni variations as an existential threat, and for backing Israel — it’s now largely focused on Netanyahu, an alleged “racist” and “war criminal” who just happens to have won a resounding vote of confidence from the Israeli electorate on March 17.

Two New York Times editorials speak to my point rather elegantly. The first, published on March 13, asked whether Turkey could still be considered a reliable NATO ally — concluding, based on the Ankara government’s stance toward international crises from the Islamic State insurgency to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that it can’t. But while the substance of the editorial was basically correct, the lack of any ad hominem attack on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was notable. “Increasingly authoritarian” was the best the New York Times could manage when it came to describing this boorish thug, who rejoices in conspiracy theories, baits his country’s declining Jewish population even as he assures them that they are safe, and imprisons journalists with the devil-may-care attitude only a dictator can enjoy.

 

 

Dirty dancing

Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu, please come to your senses

Benjamin Netanyahu is the winner of the most recent election in Israel.

The odds are that he will be asked to build a coalition and continue his premiership. I wish him well. But many are still gargling to get the yucky taste out of their mouth.

Every match-up will have a winner and a loser, whether pitcher versus batter or presidential hopefuls. But if a win is achieved through sneaky tactics or cheap moves, it salts the wound of the loser and mitigates the validity of the winner. That is what happened when the incumbent prime minister made some political statements on the eve of last week’s election.

 

 

Universities punish bigotry — but not anti-Jewish bigotry

A few weeks ago, the University of Oklahoma appropriately responded swiftly and strongly when members of a fraternity, Sigma Alpha Epsilon, sang anti-black chants that included the “n” word and references to lynching.

The university expelled two students and shut down the entire fraternity chapter, even though not all its members were involved in the incident. Similarly, colleges and universities are cracking down on hostile actions against women. For example, after members of Delta Kappa Epsilon chanted “No means yes” on campus, Yale University banned the fraternity for five years.

Yes, these responses were tough, but they sent an important message not only to the wrongdoers and the university community, but also to society at large: that bigotry against African-Americans and women is repugnant and intolerable, and there will be harsh consequences for those who engage in it.

 

 
 
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31