Wednesday, July 6, 2016

Trump and the star that winked at anti-Semitism::A letter published in his son-in-law's paper



Observer

An Open Letter to Jared Kushner, From One of Your Jewish Employees

Dear Mr. Kushner,

My name is Dana Schwartz and I’m an entertainment writer at the Observer, the paper owned by your publishing company. On July 2, as I’m sure you’re aware (and have probably been wringing your hands about for the last three days), your father-in-law Donald Trump tweeted out an image of Hillary Clinton in front of raining money with a six-sided star declaring she’s the “Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!”[...]

I responded to the meme, calling out its blatant anti-Semitic imagery because people can play ignorant, blame the corrupt liberal media for trying to “get” Trump, but it takes only a basic knowledge of world history or an understanding of how symbols work to see a wall of cash, a Star of David, and the accusation of corruption and not see the subtext.

But deny or play dumb as you might, when I tweeted out my response, my worst fears were realized: his message, whether purposeful or inadvertent, was met with cheers by those to whom that star’s message was certainly clear. Mr. Trump’s tweet was seen as a winking promise to this nation’s worst and most hateful individuals.

Here are just a tiny sample size of the responses I received: [...]

A few hours later, Trump deleted the original image and re-tweeted it out, this time with the star crudely covered by a circle (the tips of the star still visible), and a new hashtag: #AmericaFirst. Forgive me if I condescend in any way or explain what you already know, but I’m sure you’ve been busy lately so just a quick refresher: America First was a movement led primarily by White supremacist Charles Lindbergh advocating against American intervention during World War II. The Anti-Defamation League has previously asked that Trump refrain from the slogan due to its overt anti-Semitic implications.[...]

He and his campaign deny that the image—which had been found, previous to Trump’s tweet, on a white supremacist internet forum—has any Jewish implications at all. Instead of acknowledging the obvious, he and his campaign used it as an opportunity to undermine the free media in the style of the most dangerous regimes in history, and mock those like me, who had been getting strangers on the Internet telling her to put her head in the oven for the past day and a half.


Here are some of the excuses I’ve seen, both from Trump’s camp and Trump supporters:

“It’s available on Microsoft shapes.” There are a lot of symbols you can make on Microsoft Word, and sometimes symbols SYMBOLIZE ideas, concepts, or groups. A cross for instance. I feel silly explaining this to you. This explanation is so inane that I feel so condescending refuting it to you, ostensibly my boss, that it feels insubordinate. 
“It’s a sheriff star.” Because users on the white supremacist forums where this image was found were no doubt implying Hillary is in the pocket of the sheriffs. You know, sheriffs. The group stereotypically associated with greed and money. 
“He didn’t make it; he’s too busy to pay attention to everything he tweets out.” This is not an excuse for racism. Trump’s twitter account is seen by millions of people, and he is responsible for the message he’s sending to his supporters. Besides, Trump is running for president. Making mistakes because he wasn’t “paying attention” isn’t an excuse that qualifies him for the highest office in the land in any way. 
“It was an accident.” Then where is the apology?
These explanations are so facile, infantile in their blatant disregard for context or logic that I can only imagine them being delivered by someone doing so while grinning and winking. [...]

And then there’s the final explanation, the one most frequently cited by Trump’s most “reasonable” supporters on the Internet:

“Trump has a Jewish son-in-law, and granddaughter: he can’t be anti-Semitic.”

Mr. Kushner, I invite you to look through all of those images in the slideshow above, the vast majority sent in your father-in-law’s name. Right now, this hate is directed to one of your employees, but the message applies equally to your wife and daughter.

You went to Harvard, and hold two graduate degrees. Please do not condescend to me and pretend you don’t understand the imagery of a six-sided star when juxtaposed with money and accusations of financial dishonesty. I’m asking you, not as a “gotcha” journalist or as a liberal but as a human being: how do you allow this? Because, Mr. Kushner, you are allowing this. Your father-in-law’s repeated accidental winks to the white supremacist community is perhaps a savvy political strategy if the neo-Nazis are considered a sizable voting block—I confess, I haven’t done my research on that front. But when you stand silent and smiling in the background, his Jewish son-in-law, you’re giving his most hateful supporters tacit approval. Because maybe Donald Trump isn’t anti-Semitic. To be perfectly honest, I don’t think he is. But I know many of his supporters are, and they believe for whatever reason that Trump is the candidate for them. [...]

I can’t abide another defensive blame-shift to the media or to “politically correct culture gone amok.” David Duke, outspoken and explicit white supremacist, anti-Semite, and former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, saw the image your father-in-law tweeted out, and to him the message was quite clear to him. Those aren’t stereotypical “sheriff” hands in the corner.

The worst people in this country saw your father-in-law’s message and took it as they saw fit. And yet Donald Trump in his response chose not to condemn them, the anti-Semites who, by his argument were obviously misinterpreting the image, but the media. [...]

And now, Mr. Kushner, I ask you: What are you going to do about this? Look at those tweets I got again, the ones calling me out for my Jewish last name, insulting my nose, evoking the holocaust, and tell me I’m being too sensitive. Read about the origins of that image and see the type of people it attracted like a flies to human waste and tell me this whole story is just the work of the “dishonest media.” Look at that image and tell me, honestly, that you just saw a “Sheriff’s Star.” I didn’t see a sheriff star, Mr. Kushner, and I’m a smart person. After all, I work for your paper.

Edmund Burke once said, in times that are starting to seem more and more similar: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Well, here I am, and here we are. Both Jewish, both members of the media. And you might choose silence, but I’ve said my piece.

Respectfully,

Dana Schwartz

60 comments:

  1. Its the yellow six pointed star that's an anti semitic symbol. A red siz pointed star is meaningless.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In the context it was used - most people seem to disagree with you

    ReplyDelete
  3. The image was first generated by a Neo-Nazi twitter user. I don't think he makes the distinction you are making.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rabbi Eidensohn, please stop being silly. Do you really think that Donald Trump is an anti-semite even if he did get that graphic from a New-Nazi user? Do you know that his was the first country club in Florida to allow Jews?
    It would be nice to see you put up the same amount of posts about Clinton that you do about Trump. You are really not being helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Whether or not he is anti-Semitic is something that I do not know. But I do know that his Twitter account has repeatedly re-tweeted anti-Semites, including several who have blatantly white supremacist handles. He is giving those people a platform to reach millions of people. He is at best disingenuous when asked about why he is receiving support from white supremacists. He is probably doing all this so as to not turn off a significant portion of his potential voters, but I don't know that that is less reprehensible than being an anti-Semite himself.
    Also, I am not sure what you mean by R' Eidensohn "not being helpful." Do you mean not being helpful in terms of getting Trump elected? That would presuppose that getting Trump elected is a goal that he shares.

    ReplyDelete
  6. See, for example, here: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/430201/donald-trump-retweets-white-genocide-twitter-user

    ReplyDelete
  7. Regarding the quote from Burke - it is a common misattribution,if anyone's interested:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke#False_quotations

    ReplyDelete
  8. I understand that he has been re-tweeting numerous tweets, including those from anti-semites. I did not say that I approve of everything that he does. He seems to shoot from the hip quite often, and I chalk it up to that. Nevertheless, to use that to call him an anti-semite, when there is not a shred of evidence for this, is to follow the leftist media hysteria that, for example, has used this stupid story as a diversion from the much more important story of Clinton's FBI investigation, and I think that we can expect better from a blog such as this. Rabbi Eidensohn does not live in the US and really would not suffer the repercussions that those of us living here would suffer if Clinton were to get elected. While Trump is not perfect, no president is or was perfect for that manner, and he should really think twice about the repercussions of the other alternative before he posts.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Please read this:

    http://observer.com/2016/07/jared-kushner-the-donald-trump-i-know/

    ReplyDelete
  10. It is not just my perspective from Israel - a similar perception exists by the Europeans, most democrats and a significant number of Republicans. We are dealing with which candidate would be the smaller disaster - not a very good basis for picking a president.

    If I heard more statements like "Granted that Trump is a disaster but Clinton is a bigger disaster" I would feel more comfortable. But Trump supporters either ignore or justify statements which are very troublesome. I don't see a similar blindness to Clinton's many faults by her supporters.

    In sum, I don't see that Trump's followers understand what he is doing wrong. It is not enough to say "well he is not perfedt" Is imperfections are not random.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The Europeans--all of whom would like to see the United States's downfall. And you don't know that he would be a disaster. Many people think that he would be great. But we can all agree that she would be a disaster.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Excellent response from Jared Kushner:
    http://observer.com/2016/07/jared-kushner-the-donald-trump-i-know/

    ReplyDelete
  13. Nat, To be fair -- and I don't mean this meanly -- it's clear from this & other Comments here that you are prone to overstatement. To say, for example, that there's "not a shred of evidence" is really just not at all true. Perhaps not a preponderance of evidence, in your estimation, or a very strong sample of evidence, but DT & others here are not going on nothing.

    Facts:

    1) Trump's father, Fred Trump, was arrested in a 1927 KKK riot in Queens. More concerning is Trump's initial insistence that this be a case of mistaken identity on the part of the press, whereas further inquiry into the documentary record overwhelmingly rules out such a mistake.

    2) Trump's central campaign theme would appear to be one large race card, the most preposterous instance of which was his Campaign's maligning of Judge Curiel as a racist (the La Raza rumor). Can you imagine the Justices of the Supreme Court refusing to hear Brown v. the Board of Education (or Plessy v. Ferguson, for that matter) because all of them would have to recuse themselves on the basis of being white -- or, more currently, either black/white? LOL.

    3) Several of Trump's public statements and his campaign's actions seem to reflect a deliberate attempt to court the White Supremacist vote. Most notable among these was Trump's incredible feigning ignorance as to David Duke's very identity & hence his de jure refusal to disavow Duke's support.

    Last, it doesn't even really matter if he personally be an antisemite or not. As I think DT & others are emphasizing (and the author Dana Schwartz as well), his political actions are fanning flames lit by antisemites, and those ripples are far-reaching and not to be ignored. In short, this is a political, not personal, issue.

    ReplyDelete
  14. was not impressed. Trump is not an anti-Semite - but he has no problem of racists, and anti-Semites thinking he shares their view or at least willing to turn a blind eye - as long as they vote for him.. While politics allows many things - tolerating anti-Semitic responses from his supporters is not acceptable nor is racism.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Kushner's reply missed Schwartz' main point, which was not a personal point regarding Donald Trump's own views or inclinations but a political point regarding the ripples his campaign's practices have on public sentiment and the moral (in)defensibility of those practices. When a campaign makes a mistake, it should be acknowledged, the message clarified, and that that clarification would in this case include a natural denunciation of....well, in this case a substantial contingent of Trump's support base.
    Now, in passing, Kushner does attempt to dismiss this requirement as unrealistic, but it doesn't ring terribly convincing. Trump IS courting the David Duke contingent. Not because he's a racist personally, but because those votes help politically. On the moral defensibility of this, Schwartz & Kushner clearly disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  16. That said, FYI PR-maven Scott Adams (the creator of the comic Dilbert agrees with your assessment of the evidence as ultimately unsubstantive & mostly a smear. See here.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You have bought into the conventional wisdom that racism is the sin of sins. Actually, it's not. Toleration of others is more than good enough for me. What's more important is the rule of law, protecting property rights, protecting the country's borders, taking the Muslim threat seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I did not call him an anti-Semite, and fact wrote explicitly that I have no idea if he is one. As to whether the people in the U.S. would "suffer" more under Clinton or Trump, that is a matter of personal opinion and conjecture, not fact, and I do not know why you present is as fact. Most Americans, including many important figures in the Republican party, seem to disagree with you.

    ReplyDelete
  19. You can speak for yourself. I do not think she would be a disaster.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Excellent"? He totally fails to address the point, and defeats several straw-man arguments. The claim is not that Trump is an anti-Semite ("My father-in-law is not an anti-Semite. It’s that simple, really. Donald Trump is not anti-Semitic"). Nor is he expected to disavow every statement that a supporter of his makes ("hold Donald Trump accountable for the utterances of even the most fringe of his supporters"). The fact that he has a Jewish son-in-law is irrelevant, as well as the fact that said son-in-law has grandparents who were Holocaust survivors (two full paragraphs describing what they went through).
    Let's try to be clear: The issue is that Trump broadcasts statements made by white supremacist anti-Semites (e.g., one whose Twitter handle is "WhiteGenocideTM," among many. By doing so as the Republican presidential candidate, he provides a platform for these people to reach many millions of people. He has not accepted responsibility for that. Kushner's response does not address this at all.

    ReplyDelete
  21. No idea what you're talking about. He absolutely did address it, and it was disavowed.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Sorry, I don't see where he's courting the white supremacist vote. That's your assertion, unsupported by facts. The fact that they agree with a number of the things he says does not mean he agrees with their noxious views, or that he is courting them.

    ReplyDelete
  23. You are so full of it. The tweet is still up. What other lies are you peddling?

    ReplyDelete
  24. And if you are talking about the Jewish star tweet, Trump said yesterday that it should not have been deleted. He didn't "disavow" anything. And he never will. This is someone who once said that as a matter of principle he never apologizes or asks for forgiveness.

    ReplyDelete
  25. You're the one who is full of it! He took down the tweet within two hours and replaced the star with a circle. BTW, you made it clear that you would support Hillary regardless of who the republican nominee would be. You're just looking to discredit Hillary's opponent, whoever s/he would be. You would always find something to gripe about.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Trump himself said that it was a mistake to take it down. Get current before you rant.

    ReplyDelete
  27. In addition, my comment about not taking down the tweet was about the one from "WhiteGenocideTM" from January 22. That is still up.

    ReplyDelete
  28. And, you are lying here as well. Although who I would vote for is totally irrelevant, when you asked me if I would vote for any of the Republican candidates against Clinton, I replied that I would consider Kasich, and would have considered Rubio until one point of the campaign. So, take your "Honesty" and try selling it to someone else.

    ReplyDelete
  29. What other lies are you peddling?

    Gosh, I don't know. And when did you stop beating your wife, buddy?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Just above you said he didn't take it down. Now you say he said it was a mistake to take it down. Which is it? And which other lies are you peddling?

    ReplyDelete
  31. There was the tweet I referred to, citing the eminent philosopher WhiteGenocideTM. He retweeted that on January 21 and has not taken it down. There is the star of David tweet, also generated by an anti-Semite Twitter user, which one of his underlings took down and modified, but Trump himself said in a speech that he would not want it taken down. No lies, just it is hard to keep track of all the offensive tweets.

    ReplyDelete
  32. You're a little Trumpkin yourself, with the way you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of lying.

    ReplyDelete
  33. You must have your head in the sand, because it is by now a pretty well-known lie. I'll grant you that Trump won't expressly court that very marginal contingent. No one would seriously expect he would, but the message of this was all too clear to them:

    * Here's his original CNN interview of Feb. 28

    * And here's the almost immediate exposure of the lie (which really wasn't very believable anyway) [Also, here's the WSJ weighing in).]

    ReplyDelete
  34. That's all ya got? Not impressed.

    ReplyDelete
  35. If you're "unimpressed" with an answer, address the question yourself: What credible reason could there be for Trump to deny, falsely, that he knows who David Duke is?

    ReplyDelete
  36. And your answer is? To woo Duke's adherents? How does denying he knows him accomplish that?

    ReplyDelete
  37. BetYouCantPushJustOneJuly 8, 2016 at 4:06 AM

    Rabbi Eidensohn:

    I don't mean to be a nudnik - I have tremendous respect for you and your brother. But I want to revisit the issue of Ivanka's giyur in the face of this article, if you'll allow it:

    http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/u-s-election-2016/1.726788

    So the Beis Din in Petakh Tikvah ruled that the giyur is no good. I know we've argued this point, and I've conceded that there is no halachic precedent to invalidate a giyur, but I explained it like this to someone today:

    In the time of Dovid and Solomon, the converts were Ger Hedyot, then the Tanoim came and said that they were Kosher. R. Nechemya disagreed and we didn't pasken like him, but even he never claimed that giyur can be invalidated retroactively.

    So my explanation for the invalidation of the giyur by the Beis Din is that at best, the giyur is a giyur shel hedyotos, and since we have no Tanoim today to validate gerey hedyotos, she is at best a giyores shel safek.

    Don't mean to be a nudnik, your thoughts please if you will, and have a Gut Shabbos.

    ReplyDelete
  38. As I have noted before according to Rav Moshe Feinstein her convesion is clearlyvvalid. The issue of a beis din not recognizing her conversion is more of a political issue than a religious issue

    ReplyDelete
  39. The Democrat party is where anti-Semitism lives:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434730/leftist-anti-semitism?dfgihTYYXAjkTZXm.01

    ReplyDelete
  40. The Republican party is where anti-Semitism lives:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435527/donald-trumps-anti-semitic-supporters

    ReplyDelete
  41. Nope, only the ones who states falsehoods. By the way, can you show me where Trump "disavowed" the star of David tweet? All I have heard him say is that it should have been left up.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I notice you could not refute my point about the Democrat party. You shlepped out the Trump anti-Semite smear again, but that doesn't address my point.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Nope, only the ones who states falsehoods.

    Trumpkins say the same. You are what you claim to hate.

    ReplyDelete
  44. BetYouCantPushJustOneJuly 8, 2016 at 9:20 PM

    Ok thank you and once again Good Shabbos and G-D Bless.

    ReplyDelete
  45. 1: Actually, if you would bother to read the article you linked to, it says absolutely nothing about the Democratic party.
    2: You did not make a point, you linked to an article.
    3: The National Review is a right-wing publication. I think that an article there linking anti-Semitism to the right is more significant than article there linking anti-Semitism to the left.
    4: You have yet to show where Trump "disavowed" the star of David tweet, as you claimed in one of you comments.
    5: The article I linked to is not a "Trump anti-Semite smear." It is an article written by a quite rabid right-winger, who happens to be frum, articulating the virulent anti-Semitism he has encountered from Trump supporters, and his frustration with the Trump campaign refusing to do anything, and in some cases even encouraging, those attacks.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Wow. Three angry responses to a siple comment. Must have struck a raw nerve.

    Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  47. The type of people and attitudes my article discusses are Democratic party mainstream. Trump's anti-Semitic fans are not at all Republican party mainstream. They are hated by the GOP, as you know perfectly well. No equivalency at all.

    I made a clear and succint point, which you'd know if you weren't blinded by Hillary-love; namely, that the Democratic party is where anti-Semitism lives today.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Your interpretation is the one popularized by Trump's greatest enemies, the media. They are the only reason Clinton is still treading water. My read is Trump to the T. Your subsequent argument is a restatement of what's been said over and over, that he's a boor, a baby, has no idea of how to do politics, whatever. Yeah, and yet he's almost certainly the nominee, so evidently he's got something on the ball with his approach. Point is, it's not about anti-Semitism, it's about showing the press and the public that he won't be bullied.

    Clinton is dishonest as hell, but that's not what worries me about her. I simply think she and her party and her need to make "progressives" happy would be a disaster for Jewish interests, both domestic and abroad.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Just so that I can understand: An article that talks about what is going on in Europe and some college campuses is really about the Democratic party, and the article talking about the supporters of the Republican nominee is not about the Republican party. Got it.
    And by the way, so much for the anti-Israel Democratic platform, that was shot down in committee.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Yes I understood you correctly, then. Yet I don't see you addressing my point at all, which is really a paraphrasing of Schwartz' point, namely that it's immoral to deny knowledge of White Supremacism in order to flick off some "bullying" interviewer [highly debatable that that's bullying, but ok we'll leave that aside] with the incredible lie concocted shamelessly right on-the-spot falsely denying he knows who the KKK is. That Trump is so unhesitatingly ready'n'willing to do that is troubling by itself, and needs no testimonies from the Clinton camp or the media. Sorry, this is no groupthink talking.

    To be clear, the claim here is that that behavior (visible firsthand in my prior hyperlinks) is indefensible on grounds moral, not political. No one's saying it's bad politics or ineffective toward becoming the Party's nominee. Nor is the issue here that it's "boorish," although there & pretty much everywhere Trump certainly is boorish, no doubt. Nothing wrong with calling that out, except where to do so confuses matters, as you risk now.

    Perhaps you're right about Clinton, but it really doesn't matter for our purposes here; this thread isn't about who's a better candidate but whether Schwartz' point about Trump's rhetoric (and by extension her questioning of Kushner's complicity) has validity or is, as you assert, entirely concocted by the Clinton campaign. Refusing to "be bullied" by denying (so transparently falsely) that he knows who the KKK is? That's just weird, really very troubling behavior--as is, of course, re-tweeting anti-Clinton propaganda recognizably authored by antisemites, the subject of this post. (Really a scummy candidate you're willing to attach yourself to.) I don't know anything about Dana Schwartz, but her concerns are coherent & on point, not like Kushner pretends.

    ReplyDelete
  51. "Yeah, and yet he's almost certainly the nominee, so evidently he's got something on the ball with his approach."
    That "something" is that fact that 40% of the Republican primary voters are people who can relate to someone of his type.
    Even today, the MAJORITY of Republican voters surveyed say they would prefer a different nominee.

    ReplyDelete
  52. He would be a disaster. The Trump University fiasco says it all. What kind of "billionaire" (sic) needs to work overtime swindling to bilk $10-20M for his own pocket from a lower middle-class population, and so brazenly?

    I say this knowing it says a whole lot: Trump is, in every respect, far worse than either of the Clintons, and his record is far scummier. Those who think "he'd be great" are cheap targets for political salesmanship. Instead of throwing votes in with angry white trailer-park America and affecting the rest of us they should be busying themselves listening to Trump University presentations while chowing down on some Trump steaks, confining the harm of their naivete to themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  53. The attitudes are those of the progressive wing of the Democratic party, which is rapidly becoming the defining center of the part, and which Hillary will have to pander to if she has any hope of winning the election. Just so you can understand.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I see nothing in your lengthy response that I haven't responded to. I don't share your concern. Scummy candidates are everywhere this cycle. Pull any lever and you've "attached yourself" to one. My concern is what's best for the Jews.

    ReplyDelete
  55. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/im-a-jew-who-has-worked-with-donald-trump-for-years-hes-no-anti-semite/2016/07/08/c0991488-4527-11e6-bc99-7d269f8719b1_story.html

    ReplyDelete
  56. Nice article on the kindnesses of Trump

    http://townhall.com/columnists/lizcrokin/2016/07/10/trump-does-the-unthinkable-n2190160?utm_content=bufferd928a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

    ReplyDelete
  57. the MAJORITY of Republican voters

    Big deal. No one is ever going to make everyone happy. Proves nothing. Will they vote for him is the issue. And will enough Dems cross over. We'll just have to see.

    ReplyDelete
  58. 1: Less than 50% is far from "everyone."
    2: No Dems will cross over; nothing to see.

    ReplyDelete
  59. "Prefer a different nominee" doesn't mean they won't vote for the one they got. You supposedly prefer nominee other than Clinton, yet you plan to vote for her.

    Lots of possible crossover in the blue-collar white male demographic, of which there still are many despite the Democrat project of changing the racial makeup of this country, especially in such crucial mid-Western states as Ohio.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.