Brilliant and surgical as usual. Well said Avigail👍💚. It’s time we start to call out Israeli hasbara as the same repugnant propaganda spewed so successfully by Mr Goebbels & co. Isreal is truly an irony-free zone where they have so lost touch with any humanity they may have possessed and become the thing they claim to abhor the most: Fascist Supremacists working for a Greater Exclusively Jewish Isreal (Thousand Year Plan anyone?)
TL:DR europeans (and most of the rest of the word) crave American carrot and fear American stick.
This is why the only people to offer concrete aid to Gaza were the Houthis of Yemen. Their leaders have no western bank accounts to freeze, no western trophy properties to seize, no shiny western toys to take away, and consequently, no fucks to give.
Let's not forget all the years of the western powers, and their proxies already doing their worst to Yemen, and that made no dent in their determination to stand on the side of justice for the Palestinian people of Gaza.
If anyone wonders if there are people to admire in this world, this past 15+ months have made it clear that there are, and just who they are. And who they are not.
Thanks for articulating this crucial perspective, Avigail.
"Starmer and his gang supports Israel because they believe in the right of one group of people to take what it wants from another. They believe in the idea that some humans are more entitled than others to survive, acquire wealth, and live in comfort. Groups and individuals ‘prove’ their entitlement by the very act of using force to impose their will, making entitlement and force synonymous. In this framework, might is not only right; it is ‘righteous’."
👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾 Again, fantastic. I am so impressed by your piece - taking your experiences and reflections on Israel and its actions to highlight deeper truths about all of us as humans. I see that coffee was put to good use! 😋
Thank you, Avigail. I always appreciate your thoughts and analysis. Very insightful. "might is not only right; it is ‘righteous’." And there is surely not much worse than the righteous when they're wrong.
There are some things we can do to try and change the likely outcome of this ceasefire, which is that Israel will not complete all the ceasefire phases, and return to its bloodletting spree.
This is Trump's deal, or at least he believes it is. If the deal makes him happy, he'll want to see it continue. If he gets more good feelings from those supporting the ceasefire, than those who are unhappy with it, we can pretty much count on which side a narcissist will favor.
We need to encourage an on-going campaign to send praise, along with "thank yous" to Trump, on Inauguration Day and every day thereafter. Let him feel the love. He may decide he likes it. Encourage the idea of him deserving a Nobel Peace Prize, because he will have earned it, unlike Obama. We have turned out millions to protest this war. Can we turn out to save this ceasefire and the people of Gaza? It's a question with an unknown answer as of now.
Flattery has never had a higher calling. We owe it to Gaza, to humanity, and even possibly to Trump, to give it our best try.
Thank you, Avigail, for your view from within the ‘Jewishsphere’ (sorry but it kinda works) especially the one seething away in the pathological hothouse that is Israel. And yes, (nominal) Anglicans like me find it unsettling to criticise Jewish behaviour partly because of the reverence paid to Judaism in the Anglican ‘soul’, partly out of respect for all the wonderful things Jewish creators have brought us - especially in the arts, music, films and literature. And partly out of fear of recrimination in one form or another. All the while the Zionists have been quietly chipping away at our freedoms taking advantage of this reluctance to criticise. And here is where I disagree with your assessment of the seat of the problem at least within British politics. You refer to Kier Starmer as ‘smart’ and ‘educated’ in relation to settler-colonialism and go on to imply that his actions in support of this form of cultural and societal bullying (leading to genocide) are within his own agency. I suggest they aren’t and that like the US Congress he is a prisoner of the Zionists acting through US/UK relations, ‘Friends of Israel’ groups in the UK and the Establishment. On matters relating to issues affecting Israeli interests he is little more than a puppet just like US Congressmen, Secretaries of State and even the President himself who took over $1 million dollars from his Israeli ‘advisors’.
Only when we finally face up to the fact that we in the West have effectively experienced a ‘coup d’état by stealth’ will we become able to start to do something about it, when we realise, finally, that we and our freedoms have been corralled into our very own Gaza.
I am not in Israel David. I left in 1991 to Australia and have now lived in Scotland for 15 years. If I didn’t leave Israel I would either be dead by now or a mental health casualty.
There is no such thing as ‘Jewish creators’. There are people who did good things who identified as Jews. Equally there are enough people who did bad things who identified as Jews (e.g. Jeffery Epstein, Harvey Weinstein, etc.) This has nothing to do with Israel or with any collective Jewish identity.
The view you expressed is disturbing and is at the heart of the racism. It is grouping people together and attributing qualities to them based on group affiliation.
Can I take credit for Einstein's achievements because he was from Jewish background? Should I be tarred because of Epstein? Please do examine your beliefs because they are deeply problematic! And if they are also the beliefs held by the Anglican Church as an organisation then this is more than a little disturbing.
There is no such thing as ‘The Jews’ just like there is not such thing as ‘The Christians’, ‘The Muslims’, or 'The Buddhists'. The problem is with the word ‘The’…
On your other point, if Starmer or US politicians are ‘prisoners’, it’s because they are choosing to be. People must take personal responsibility for their choices, especially elected leaders entrusted with so much power. And if they are blackmailed, they should expose it. No. I completely reject your view. The Zionists are only powerful because people allow them to be.
As one of my dear clients one said, ‘People treat us the way they do because we let them’. Plenty of people know what is going on, and have always known. Our leaders are not hapless, passive victims. They are choosing their position.
Couldn't agree more. Poor Starmer, forced to take a knighthood and break all his pre leadership election promises, boo hoo. Fuck that. He knows what he's doing.
Avigail, I hope you can appreciate the pressure we are under, as opponents of genocide, by those who stand primed to accuse us of antisemitism. We (and that includes lots of people who identify as Jewish) are told that we “ha*e the Jews” and that we want to “ki** the Jews” or “drive the Jews into the sea”. These are the very words they use to attack, and silence, us. We are consequently obliged to say good things about “the Jews” to show that they are wrong. Fortunately, that’s easy to do; plenty of self-identified Jewish platforms take credit for the disproportionate accomplishments of people identified as Jewish. You’re sort of putting us in the position of damned if we do and damned if we don’t.
I’m a little concerned that this approach can slide into blaming the victim. I’m sure you’ve had clients who were abused as children, to whom you would never say, “they treated you that way because you let them”, nor would you say that to the people of Gaza.
Of course not. Blame the victim is one of the most despicable things our society does. The phrase refers to capable adults, not to children or vulnerable people. It also refers to the people around victims who remain bystanders and allow perpetrators to do what they do. The client who gave this phrase to me was very badly abused childhood and was on a journey to recover. On ths occasion I used it to refers to people like ‘poor’ Keir Starmer who is being ‘forced’ to support Israel.
I'm leaving people like Starmer and Biden out of it for the moment, since they got into politics intentionally and have themselves definitely played the game of coercion through bribery, blackmail, and deals to get where they are. But when we talk of capable adults, it gets murky. I do understand that taking responsibility can give a victim a sense of agency in their life, which is an important step. But here are some examples of categories of people, each of which I have encountered in real life, where it's more difficult to draw that line:
- A woman who has been told for decades that she is ugly and undesirable, stupid and incompetent, and "you'll never make it without me", to the point that she believes it. Is she "free" to leave her abuser? In one case I know, she was literally locked in the house to keep her from learning about anything, including herself. In another, she was threatened at gunpoint not to leave.
- One of the millions of women in village India who were married without their consent at 13 or 14; their lives and their awareness are totally controlled by their in-laws. Is she "free" to leave this de facto slavery when there is not one single individual or organization within a day's journey that will support her, materially or otherwise, least of all her family, who might never want to see her again (there are some heartwarming exceptions)? This also takes place in the UK today, the difference being of course that organizations are there to help, and education is compulsory, but still, the family pressure is intense. It's leaving and never going back.
- The young, strong, healthy black man (no apparent vulnerability there) who was ahead of me in line waiting for a seat at a lunch counter in small-town Florida. A seat came up and he waved me ahead of him. I smiled and said no, you were here first, go ahead. He said no, you go. I tried to insist, but he shook his head vehemently, looked away, and stepped away. I realized to my horror that if he had given in to my urging, he might have been served but he wouldn't have made it out of the parking lot alive. Was he "free" to reject this racial abuse? (BTW, this was not in the 50s, it was in the year 2000.)
I know you haven’t lived in Israel for a while Avigail; you stated this in a previous contribution. My comments are independent of where you live.
I think you completely miss the point I’m trying to make concerning those creators who are Jewish. They themselves - in my limited experience - make little or no reference to this but that doesn’t mean that I, as a Gentile, don’t make anything of this at least in a collective, non-judgemental way. So ‘The ‘otherness’ of their being Jewish has some small significance that perhaps, as a Jew yourself, you are unable to fully comprehend. Sorry if this sounds a bit bumptious but it’s rather like my ‘Englishness’; it’s largely lost to me but my French friends here in France are very aware of it especially through my use of humour and indirectness.
And to group people together based on qualities I attribute to them is a totally naturally human trait and invaluable if you are to generate a useful ‘shorthand’ for behaving well with them. (Though at no point do I refer to ‘The Jews’ as you impute). But you assume it is negative and refer to ‘racism’. You comment on my ‘beliefs’ but this comment sounds like ‘belief’ to me triggered by a word stating or implying a grouping of individual qualities by the other however vaguely or apparently inconsequentially (by the other, me in this case). You then go on to build on this with the notion that you think that I might think that your Jewishness might link you to Epstein. Or another Jew. I’m surprised that you should say something like this; the language appears to be more driven by the desire to impose than the idea of rightness. And so I, in turn, suggest you look to your judgement process and the existence of ‘trigger words’ - like grouping, stated or implied especially in relation to Jews - which invokes a particular negative, emotional reaction in you to the information presented which may be wrong-headed or else overly-assertive or both.
And I hold to my ‘belief’, however vague, that the cult of the Zionists has ‘captured’ the minds of many of our leaders. (Yes, ‘the Zionists’). But I would dearly love to be wrong on this. We shall see.
Thanks for clarifying. It just seemed from how you wrote that you thought I was still in Israel.
The instinct to group and generalise serves a few purposes, including as you say as a ‘shorthand’ to how to behave in other cultures. But group norms tell us very little about individuals. While useful for survival, this tendency to generalise is nonetheless a primitive, survival instinct that does lie at the heart of racism, or at least enables it. We must outgrow it if we want to live in healthy, safe, and growth-promoting environments. There is nothing in my comment to you that generalises about you or anyone. I’m just questioning beliefs.
Well, yes you do Avigail. Telling me to ‘examine my beliefs because they are deeply problematic’ is a généralisation and not a very complimentary one at that. Especially as we both know that ‘problematic’ here is a euphemism for ‘bad’ as in the ‘racism’ you imply in your earlier text. I’m not sure if your thinking is flawed here or you’re actually trying - perhaps unconsciously - to be unkind.
And all this because you’ve chosen to call out my totally valid positive comment about ‘Jewish creators’ as part of my argument about why Gentiles may have difficulty in criticizing Jews whether Israeli or not. (This was the theme of your last piece). I find this a little baffling.
I guess it’s because you have a ‘thing’ about others inducing individual qualities from attributed group ones, about inferring the particular from the general. I don’t. It’s part of my intelligence and good faith. It’s part of yours too even if for me you chose to make an exception.
No, David. I really don’t get what your issue is with me. I think I am *really clear* when I write and express myself. When I recommend that you, as an individual person examine your beliefs, I am talking to you as one individual.
I don’t understand how this indicates any generalisation. Generalising about you would be to say that because you are let’s say Tibetan, then therefore you believe something or other that is stereotypical of Tibetan culture… You are a person with a belief that says that generalising about people based on the group they belong to is acceptable, because it is natural and useful. I didn’t say you think I am like Epstein, I said that your positive generalisation about Jews can also be used in reverse — by highlighting examples of bad Jews and then attributing those qualities to anyone with the label ‘Jew’. And it is indeed used by racists. Positive generalisation is still as problematic and lacks validity just as much as negative generalisation.
Human beings are unique and while we are affected by the culture or cultures we develop in, we also chose our identity and beliefs. People should always be given the change to say who they believe they are rather than be given a label to be defined by. It is OK for you not to like my comment or how I express myself. I am just suggesting that you consider my position on generalisation. Incidentally, if you have read other essays I have written you would also see that I do not identify as Jewish. I’ll leave you to read about this yourself. Thanks for reading and commenting.
Brilliant and surgical as usual. Well said Avigail👍💚. It’s time we start to call out Israeli hasbara as the same repugnant propaganda spewed so successfully by Mr Goebbels & co. Isreal is truly an irony-free zone where they have so lost touch with any humanity they may have possessed and become the thing they claim to abhor the most: Fascist Supremacists working for a Greater Exclusively Jewish Isreal (Thousand Year Plan anyone?)
TL:DR europeans (and most of the rest of the word) crave American carrot and fear American stick.
This is why the only people to offer concrete aid to Gaza were the Houthis of Yemen. Their leaders have no western bank accounts to freeze, no western trophy properties to seize, no shiny western toys to take away, and consequently, no fucks to give.
So with all our ingenuity we’ve managed to create a world largely driven by fear, extortion, threats and blackmail. Charming…
And legalized bribery.
Let's not forget all the years of the western powers, and their proxies already doing their worst to Yemen, and that made no dent in their determination to stand on the side of justice for the Palestinian people of Gaza.
If anyone wonders if there are people to admire in this world, this past 15+ months have made it clear that there are, and just who they are. And who they are not.
Thanks for articulating this crucial perspective, Avigail.
"Starmer and his gang supports Israel because they believe in the right of one group of people to take what it wants from another. They believe in the idea that some humans are more entitled than others to survive, acquire wealth, and live in comfort. Groups and individuals ‘prove’ their entitlement by the very act of using force to impose their will, making entitlement and force synonymous. In this framework, might is not only right; it is ‘righteous’."
I wish I was wrong 🤦🏽♀️
👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾 Again, fantastic. I am so impressed by your piece - taking your experiences and reflections on Israel and its actions to highlight deeper truths about all of us as humans. I see that coffee was put to good use! 😋
Thank you. It’s so kind of you. 🙏
Thank you, Avigail. I always appreciate your thoughts and analysis. Very insightful. "might is not only right; it is ‘righteous’." And there is surely not much worse than the righteous when they're wrong.
There are some things we can do to try and change the likely outcome of this ceasefire, which is that Israel will not complete all the ceasefire phases, and return to its bloodletting spree.
This is Trump's deal, or at least he believes it is. If the deal makes him happy, he'll want to see it continue. If he gets more good feelings from those supporting the ceasefire, than those who are unhappy with it, we can pretty much count on which side a narcissist will favor.
We need to encourage an on-going campaign to send praise, along with "thank yous" to Trump, on Inauguration Day and every day thereafter. Let him feel the love. He may decide he likes it. Encourage the idea of him deserving a Nobel Peace Prize, because he will have earned it, unlike Obama. We have turned out millions to protest this war. Can we turn out to save this ceasefire and the people of Gaza? It's a question with an unknown answer as of now.
Flattery has never had a higher calling. We owe it to Gaza, to humanity, and even possibly to Trump, to give it our best try.
Masterful article. I will circulate this if I may.
I will be grateful if you do. Thank you for asking.
Thank you, Avigail, for your view from within the ‘Jewishsphere’ (sorry but it kinda works) especially the one seething away in the pathological hothouse that is Israel. And yes, (nominal) Anglicans like me find it unsettling to criticise Jewish behaviour partly because of the reverence paid to Judaism in the Anglican ‘soul’, partly out of respect for all the wonderful things Jewish creators have brought us - especially in the arts, music, films and literature. And partly out of fear of recrimination in one form or another. All the while the Zionists have been quietly chipping away at our freedoms taking advantage of this reluctance to criticise. And here is where I disagree with your assessment of the seat of the problem at least within British politics. You refer to Kier Starmer as ‘smart’ and ‘educated’ in relation to settler-colonialism and go on to imply that his actions in support of this form of cultural and societal bullying (leading to genocide) are within his own agency. I suggest they aren’t and that like the US Congress he is a prisoner of the Zionists acting through US/UK relations, ‘Friends of Israel’ groups in the UK and the Establishment. On matters relating to issues affecting Israeli interests he is little more than a puppet just like US Congressmen, Secretaries of State and even the President himself who took over $1 million dollars from his Israeli ‘advisors’.
Only when we finally face up to the fact that we in the West have effectively experienced a ‘coup d’état by stealth’ will we become able to start to do something about it, when we realise, finally, that we and our freedoms have been corralled into our very own Gaza.
I am not in Israel David. I left in 1991 to Australia and have now lived in Scotland for 15 years. If I didn’t leave Israel I would either be dead by now or a mental health casualty.
There is no such thing as ‘Jewish creators’. There are people who did good things who identified as Jews. Equally there are enough people who did bad things who identified as Jews (e.g. Jeffery Epstein, Harvey Weinstein, etc.) This has nothing to do with Israel or with any collective Jewish identity.
The view you expressed is disturbing and is at the heart of the racism. It is grouping people together and attributing qualities to them based on group affiliation.
Can I take credit for Einstein's achievements because he was from Jewish background? Should I be tarred because of Epstein? Please do examine your beliefs because they are deeply problematic! And if they are also the beliefs held by the Anglican Church as an organisation then this is more than a little disturbing.
There is no such thing as ‘The Jews’ just like there is not such thing as ‘The Christians’, ‘The Muslims’, or 'The Buddhists'. The problem is with the word ‘The’…
On your other point, if Starmer or US politicians are ‘prisoners’, it’s because they are choosing to be. People must take personal responsibility for their choices, especially elected leaders entrusted with so much power. And if they are blackmailed, they should expose it. No. I completely reject your view. The Zionists are only powerful because people allow them to be.
As one of my dear clients one said, ‘People treat us the way they do because we let them’. Plenty of people know what is going on, and have always known. Our leaders are not hapless, passive victims. They are choosing their position.
Couldn't agree more. Poor Starmer, forced to take a knighthood and break all his pre leadership election promises, boo hoo. Fuck that. He knows what he's doing.
Avigail, I hope you can appreciate the pressure we are under, as opponents of genocide, by those who stand primed to accuse us of antisemitism. We (and that includes lots of people who identify as Jewish) are told that we “ha*e the Jews” and that we want to “ki** the Jews” or “drive the Jews into the sea”. These are the very words they use to attack, and silence, us. We are consequently obliged to say good things about “the Jews” to show that they are wrong. Fortunately, that’s easy to do; plenty of self-identified Jewish platforms take credit for the disproportionate accomplishments of people identified as Jewish. You’re sort of putting us in the position of damned if we do and damned if we don’t.
I’m a little concerned that this approach can slide into blaming the victim. I’m sure you’ve had clients who were abused as children, to whom you would never say, “they treated you that way because you let them”, nor would you say that to the people of Gaza.
Of course not. Blame the victim is one of the most despicable things our society does. The phrase refers to capable adults, not to children or vulnerable people. It also refers to the people around victims who remain bystanders and allow perpetrators to do what they do. The client who gave this phrase to me was very badly abused childhood and was on a journey to recover. On ths occasion I used it to refers to people like ‘poor’ Keir Starmer who is being ‘forced’ to support Israel.
I'm leaving people like Starmer and Biden out of it for the moment, since they got into politics intentionally and have themselves definitely played the game of coercion through bribery, blackmail, and deals to get where they are. But when we talk of capable adults, it gets murky. I do understand that taking responsibility can give a victim a sense of agency in their life, which is an important step. But here are some examples of categories of people, each of which I have encountered in real life, where it's more difficult to draw that line:
- A woman who has been told for decades that she is ugly and undesirable, stupid and incompetent, and "you'll never make it without me", to the point that she believes it. Is she "free" to leave her abuser? In one case I know, she was literally locked in the house to keep her from learning about anything, including herself. In another, she was threatened at gunpoint not to leave.
- One of the millions of women in village India who were married without their consent at 13 or 14; their lives and their awareness are totally controlled by their in-laws. Is she "free" to leave this de facto slavery when there is not one single individual or organization within a day's journey that will support her, materially or otherwise, least of all her family, who might never want to see her again (there are some heartwarming exceptions)? This also takes place in the UK today, the difference being of course that organizations are there to help, and education is compulsory, but still, the family pressure is intense. It's leaving and never going back.
- The young, strong, healthy black man (no apparent vulnerability there) who was ahead of me in line waiting for a seat at a lunch counter in small-town Florida. A seat came up and he waved me ahead of him. I smiled and said no, you were here first, go ahead. He said no, you go. I tried to insist, but he shook his head vehemently, looked away, and stepped away. I realized to my horror that if he had given in to my urging, he might have been served but he wouldn't have made it out of the parking lot alive. Was he "free" to reject this racial abuse? (BTW, this was not in the 50s, it was in the year 2000.)
It's murky.
Ok, now (as an American) you have activated a deep envy for Scotland!
And of course, pity for Israel in not being a place you could live.
I know you haven’t lived in Israel for a while Avigail; you stated this in a previous contribution. My comments are independent of where you live.
I think you completely miss the point I’m trying to make concerning those creators who are Jewish. They themselves - in my limited experience - make little or no reference to this but that doesn’t mean that I, as a Gentile, don’t make anything of this at least in a collective, non-judgemental way. So ‘The ‘otherness’ of their being Jewish has some small significance that perhaps, as a Jew yourself, you are unable to fully comprehend. Sorry if this sounds a bit bumptious but it’s rather like my ‘Englishness’; it’s largely lost to me but my French friends here in France are very aware of it especially through my use of humour and indirectness.
And to group people together based on qualities I attribute to them is a totally naturally human trait and invaluable if you are to generate a useful ‘shorthand’ for behaving well with them. (Though at no point do I refer to ‘The Jews’ as you impute). But you assume it is negative and refer to ‘racism’. You comment on my ‘beliefs’ but this comment sounds like ‘belief’ to me triggered by a word stating or implying a grouping of individual qualities by the other however vaguely or apparently inconsequentially (by the other, me in this case). You then go on to build on this with the notion that you think that I might think that your Jewishness might link you to Epstein. Or another Jew. I’m surprised that you should say something like this; the language appears to be more driven by the desire to impose than the idea of rightness. And so I, in turn, suggest you look to your judgement process and the existence of ‘trigger words’ - like grouping, stated or implied especially in relation to Jews - which invokes a particular negative, emotional reaction in you to the information presented which may be wrong-headed or else overly-assertive or both.
And I hold to my ‘belief’, however vague, that the cult of the Zionists has ‘captured’ the minds of many of our leaders. (Yes, ‘the Zionists’). But I would dearly love to be wrong on this. We shall see.
Thanks for clarifying. It just seemed from how you wrote that you thought I was still in Israel.
The instinct to group and generalise serves a few purposes, including as you say as a ‘shorthand’ to how to behave in other cultures. But group norms tell us very little about individuals. While useful for survival, this tendency to generalise is nonetheless a primitive, survival instinct that does lie at the heart of racism, or at least enables it. We must outgrow it if we want to live in healthy, safe, and growth-promoting environments. There is nothing in my comment to you that generalises about you or anyone. I’m just questioning beliefs.
I give up.
It makes two of us.
Well, yes you do Avigail. Telling me to ‘examine my beliefs because they are deeply problematic’ is a généralisation and not a very complimentary one at that. Especially as we both know that ‘problematic’ here is a euphemism for ‘bad’ as in the ‘racism’ you imply in your earlier text. I’m not sure if your thinking is flawed here or you’re actually trying - perhaps unconsciously - to be unkind.
And all this because you’ve chosen to call out my totally valid positive comment about ‘Jewish creators’ as part of my argument about why Gentiles may have difficulty in criticizing Jews whether Israeli or not. (This was the theme of your last piece). I find this a little baffling.
I guess it’s because you have a ‘thing’ about others inducing individual qualities from attributed group ones, about inferring the particular from the general. I don’t. It’s part of my intelligence and good faith. It’s part of yours too even if for me you chose to make an exception.
No, David. I really don’t get what your issue is with me. I think I am *really clear* when I write and express myself. When I recommend that you, as an individual person examine your beliefs, I am talking to you as one individual.
I don’t understand how this indicates any generalisation. Generalising about you would be to say that because you are let’s say Tibetan, then therefore you believe something or other that is stereotypical of Tibetan culture… You are a person with a belief that says that generalising about people based on the group they belong to is acceptable, because it is natural and useful. I didn’t say you think I am like Epstein, I said that your positive generalisation about Jews can also be used in reverse — by highlighting examples of bad Jews and then attributing those qualities to anyone with the label ‘Jew’. And it is indeed used by racists. Positive generalisation is still as problematic and lacks validity just as much as negative generalisation.
Human beings are unique and while we are affected by the culture or cultures we develop in, we also chose our identity and beliefs. People should always be given the change to say who they believe they are rather than be given a label to be defined by. It is OK for you not to like my comment or how I express myself. I am just suggesting that you consider my position on generalisation. Incidentally, if you have read other essays I have written you would also see that I do not identify as Jewish. I’ll leave you to read about this yourself. Thanks for reading and commenting.
A crime is a crime. Regardless.