Would Burning of Red Heifer Really Require Destruction of al-Aqsa Mosque and/or the Dome of the Rock Temple?

Table of Contents

 1. Rabbis to Slaughter and Burn Red Heifer in Holy Land

2. Where I First Heard About This, and Where I First Reported on It

3. Background on the Red Heifer and its Ancestors

4. Why I Am Writing About This Now, and When Will the Heifer Will Be Burned?

5. Background on al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock Temple, the Third Jewish Temple, and Prayer at the Temple Mount

6. Significance of Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock Lost on Christians and Westerners

7. Post-Script

 

   

 

Content

  

 

1. Rabbis to Slaughter and Burn Red Heifer in Holy Land

     Over the last six months, there has been increased discussion of the prospects that a red heifer will be ceremonially slaughtered and burned by rabbis in the Holy Land.

 

     For example, in December 2023, podcaster Tim Pool posted a video titled, "Reports Say the Red Heifer Was Born, ANOTHER Sign Pointing to the END OF DAYS", and a shorter version of the same video, titled "Why is the Red Heifer So Important?".

     Those videos can be viewed at the following links:
     - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lrCG2QyqUE
     - http://www.youtube.com/shorts/FtTDmqB1-xI

     On April 9th, 2024, Al Jazeera reported that there are five red heifers which could possibly be selected for burning: "They have come from halfway across the world and are kept under tight security and raised according to the strictest rules. They are five pure red heifers without blemish who have never worked, given birth, been milked or worn a yoke."
     http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/9/what-do-texan-red-heifers-have-to-do-with-al-aqsa-and-a-jewish-temple
     The "blemishes" referred to include black and white hairs.

 

2. Where I First Heard About This, and Where I First Reported on It

      In my July 2011 article "A Jewish and Democratic State", I reported that red heifers from America had already been procured, for the purposes of establishing a breeding line of heifers from which a perfect heifer may be selected for future slaughter and burning.

     [Note: That article is available at the following address:
     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/07/jewish-and-democratic-state.html]

     I wrote:

     "The Temple Institute has made and procured several items which are to be used in ritual services in the Temple. Such services would involve the use of sacred vessels, a mock-up of the Ark of the Covenant, and a red heifer bred to have attributes specifically outlined in the Bible. This red heifer is to be sacrificed, becoming only the tenth or eleventh in history, and its ashes are to be used in order to purify the souls of those who have come into contact with the corpses of the dead, or with their graves.

     "In the last two decades, Christian cow farmer Clyde Lott of Nebraska has assisted the Temple Institute to obtain hundreds of heifers from which the sacrificial animal is to be bred. A candidate for slaughter named Melody was even produced back in 1996, and another was born in 2002, but both were subsequently found to be unsuitable for sacrifice. However, in March 2010, a representative of the Temple Institute claimed that there was [']definitely a kosher red heifer here in Israel.[']"

 

     [Author's Notes: 1) The Temple Institute is an Israel-based rabbinic organization dedicated to restoring the Temple of Jerusalem. Its Hebrew name is Machon HaMikdash. 2) The red heifer to be burned would be the tenth in history, not the eleventh, and its slaughter is not considered by Jews to be a sacrifice.]

     The article from Al Jazeera states that, in 2022, "five red yearlings were donated by an evangelical farmer from Texas, United States, and flown to Israel as [']pets['] to get around restrictions on importing live animals as livestock at the time."

     That article did not mention Clyde Lott by name, but considering that Lott is from Nebraska (and also has ties to Mississippi) rather than Texas, it's possible that either a second farmer donated red heifers, or else that the article from Al Jazeera accidentally misnamed the home state of the farmer who provided the cows.
     There are several sources which specifically name Texas as the home state of the cows. One source was Bashem Youssef, and the other is the following article from CBSNews.com, titled "What these red cows from Texas have to do with war and peace in the Middle East""
     http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-war-hamas-red-heifers-from-texas-jerusalem-jewish-temple-al-aqsa/

 

     I wrote that article shortly after becoming aware, in either 2010 or 2011, that there were ongoing attempts to rebuild the Temple in either 2010 or 2011, when I saw a video on YouTube by a young Christian man (who was at that time about 20 years old) saying that he had interviewed a rabbi whom had told him that rabbis in Israel were interested in procuring red heifers.

     I read a rumor, somewhere online - after that video was posted - alleging that the young man had not been heard from since coming out with the news about the heifers. Essentially, he had "disappeared", according to some people following the story at the time. I did not mention that young man, in my original article, because I was unable to find his name, or the video. But that is how I became aware of this story.

     It is worthwhile to note, here, that - prior to 2010 - it was not exactly a secret that some rabbis wanted to rebuild the Temple. After all, there was an attempt to lay a cornerstone for the Jewish temple twenty years prior to that date.
     [Note: There will be more information on that towards the end of section 5 of this article.]

     As would be expected, when it comes to a news story steeped in biblical history, some explanatory background will be necessary here; specifically, regarding why these red heifers are being procured, and what making use of them would require and entail.

3. Background on the Red Heifer and its Ancestors

     In Jewish tradition, the blood of a red heifer - and the ashes of a ritualistically slaughtered and burned red heifer, mixed with water (creating the "Waters of Sanctification") - can spiritually purify people who have come into contact with the corpses of the dead. But the red heifer chosen must not have any blemishes, nor may it have ever carried a burden.

     The first burned heifer in modern history would be the tenth in history to be burned; at least, from the Jewish perspective.

     According to John J. Parsons's article - quoting "Mishnah, Parah 3:5" - this tenth red heifer will be the final red heifer, and will be burned by Mashiach himself "at the time of the rebuilding of the future Temple".
      According to the article "The Tenth Red Heifer: The Superiority of Yeshua's Sacrifice" (by John J. Parsons, writing for Hebrew4Christians.com), the Christian view is that Jesus was (or at least symbolized) the tenth heifer.
     The article at the following link contains some information about the first nine red heifers that were burned (the last of which was burned in the first century A.D.):
     [Source: http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Tenth_Red_Heifer/tenth_red_heifer.html]
     That Christian view also holds that Jesus is not only the heifer, but also the new Temple.

     While that disagreement exists, there are also people - some of whom describe themselves as "Jews for Jesus" or "Messianic Jews" - who would say that Christians have an obligation to attempt to fulfill as much of Jewish law as possible, including burning the red heifer and rebuilding the Third Temple.
     One such pastor, Texas-based Byron Stinson, whom I e-mailed - and whom supports the burning of the heifer, and Christians' involvement in it - said that it's not that the heifer's burning is necessary because Jesus's sacrifice wasn't enough; it was enough. It's just that - according to Stinson - despite the fact that burning the red heifer isn't necessary to honor Jesus's sacrifice, that doesn't mean it's the only thing that Christians are commanded to do to honor Jesus (while Jews honor the Father). Stinson argues that Christians - all Christians - are still called-on and obligated by their Creator to fulfill as many of the 613 or 618 commandments of the G-d of Abraham.
     The following passage from the Bible helps explain and clarify that perspective. In Matthew 5:17, Jesus said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

      [Note: You can learn more about Byron Stinson by visiting his website, which can be found at the following link:

  http://www.byronstinson.me]

     Based on the information that I gathered while writing "A Jewish and Democratic State" - as well as the articles that I am reading today - the burning of a red heifer is supposed to precede the construction of the Third Temple of Jerusalem.
       According to "a senior Palestinian source in contact with Hamas leadership", "the slaughtering of the red heifers" ... is "the signal to rebuild the Third Temple".
     [Source: http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-palestine-west-bank-settlers-red-cows-third-temple]
     Presumably, a fair number of Muslims share this view.

    The following article from the Temple Institute clarifies that the heifer will not be slaughtered in the Temple, specifying that it is to be slaughtered and burned at the "Mount of Anointment", which is located on the Mount of Olives.
     http://templeinstitute.org/red-heifer-numbers-19/
     Evidently, this means that the Temple does not need to exist - in whole or in part - in order for the red heifer to be slaughtered. But for the Jews, it is the next logical step, and an eventuality, and a hope.
     Tennessee-based Christian evangelical preacher Perry Stone cautions that the burning of a red heifer "does not mean the immediate rebuilding of the Temple". 

     What this all means is that Zionist Jews will continue to support efforts to slaughter and burn a red heifer at the Mount of Olives - without needing a Temple (yet) in order to make that happen, and prior to the rebuilding of the Third Temple - but as a signal that the Temple will be rebuilt.

 

 

4. Why I Am Writing About This Now, and When Will the Heifer Will Be Burned?

      The reason why I am writing about this now - beginning on April 11th, 2024 - is that there seems to be a dispute regarding exactly when such a red heifer will be burned.

     In Tim Pool's reporting from December 2023, he stated that the burning will occur on or before Passover (called Pesach in Hebrew), which occurs on April 22nd this year.

     A woman using the TikTok username "karressmarie4" posted a video in March, saying that she had heard that March 29th was the date of the planned burning. However, since encountering that video, I have not seen any information which corroborates her claim.

     Egyptian-American surgeon-turned-comedian Bassem Youssef stated in a recent interview that the red heifers being considered for burning were going to turn three years old on April 10th.
     [Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbsYrZapzqA; see 27-minute mark]
     Readers and viewers should note that, after making this statement - from 27:30 to 27:35 - Youssef refers to the new Jewish Temple potentially being built "over" al-Aqsa Mosque, one of the two mosques on top of the Temple Mount (that is, the group of religious buildings on top of Mount Moriah in Jerusalem). This will come up again shortly.
     [Note: Muslims call Al-Aqsa mosque "Masjid Al-Aqsa". The building was constructed, at first under the leadership of Abdul Malik ibn Marwan, between approximately 685 and 715 C.E.. Abdul Malik ibn Marwan died in 705.
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd_al-Malik_ibn_Marwan]

     According to Perry Stone, the red heifer "must remain unblemished until it is three-and-a-half years old".
     [Source: http://mycharisma.com/propheticrevival/40-year-old-warning-amid-red-heifer-false-prophecies/]

     Stone also notes that the heifer must go unburdened for that entire period of time.
     He cites the Book of Numbers, Chapter 19, when pointing to how such a heifer is to be prepared for burning.

     Presumably, this would imply that the heifers will not be ready for slaughter until October 2024 (depending on who has their information right).

     According to the Temple Institute, the very organization which is making preparations for the burning of the heifer and the rebuilding of the Temple, "The heifer must be three years old and perfect in its redness." However, this same article goes on to say that "The Commandment calls for the animal to be a [']heifer,['] that is, 3 or 4 years old; although an older animal could also be used."

     [Source: http://templeinstitute.org/red-heifer-numbers-19/]

     The article linked above does not contain any mention of Pesach / Passover; nor of any particular date on which the heifer can or must be burned. [Note: The article clarifies that the heifer is not viewed as a sacrifice, saying "...the red heifer is not a sacrifice per se, for it is not slaughtered in the Temple...".]

     What this all means is that, unfortunately, it's possible that - even if we knew which heifer is due to be burned, and knew its precise birth date - we might not be able to figure out even the approximate timing of the ceremony.
     However, according to the article from Al Jazeera, Christian preacher Michael Samuel Smith says that, in his opinion, "the first successful red heifer sacrifice will take place in the spring of 2024 around the Passover to Pentecost timeframe".
     That estimate would put the timeframe at between Monday, April 22nd and Sunday, May 19th, 2024.
     Granted, that span of time is nearly a month long. But it's a more specific estimate than is the guess of Passover and Passover alone; and considering that March 29th and April 10th have passed with no reports of heifers having been burned, it's probably accurate.
     It's probably safe to assume that, if this slaughter happens, then it will happen within a year.

     Setting aside speculation regarding the timing of the ceremony, here's what we do know.

5. Background on al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock Temple, the Third Jewish Temple, and Prayer at the Temple Mount

     As I explained above, for the red heifer to be slaughtered and then burned, does not require the rebuilding of the Third Temple beforehand, nor is such a ceremony supposed to take place inside such a temple.
     Moreover, as noted above, Bashem Youssef (a Muslim) refers to the new Jewish temple's potentially being built "over" al-Aqsa Mosque. Therefore we can assume that this possibility is being discussed in the Muslim world.
     And, if I'm not mistaken, Bill Clinton may have considered the possibility of building over the Mosque as part of his role in the negotiations between the State of Israel and the Palestinian Authority in the year 2000 [Note: I wish I could provide a source for this, but unfortunately, I can't remember where I heard or read it.].

     Part of the difficulty Christians and secularists have, in understanding the importance of al-Aqsa Mosque, is the issue of what, exactly, constitutes al-Aqsa. First of all, al-Aqsa is a complex which consists of several religious buildings, and contains both al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock Temple.

    [Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa]

     A second difficulty is establishing the previous locations of the First Jewish Temple and the Second Jewish Temple, which are not precisely known. Jews call the First Temple Beit Ha-Mikdash, while Muslim speakers of Arabic refer to this area by a linguistically related phrase; Bay-al-Maqdis.

     http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3216/jewish/What-Was-the-Holy-Temple.htm

     It could be argued that these facts make it exceedingly problematic to declare that any particular portion of al-Aqsa compound must be replaced or destroyed in order to build a Third Jewish Temple. While this fact is detrimental to the Zionist rabbis' argument, it is a fact which does not threaten the safety of Jewish people, because it could theoretically allow for coexistence of Jewish and Muslim sites upon the Mount. Accepting this fact could also help Muslims keep their holy sites (i.e., the two mosques) intact.

     So if the red heifer doesn't require the Temple, and the Temple doesn't require the destruction of al-Aqsa, then why is there this controversy about al-Aqsa Mosque. Why are people worried that al-Aqsa may have to be destroyed (either in whole or in part) in order for the Jewish Temple to be built, if another option exists?

     Perhaps it's because "building the new Temple on top of al-Aqsa" could easily be used as code for "building the new Temple on top of the ruins of al-Aqsa, after it's been destroyed".
     I say this because it is a concern, amongst Palestinians, and a valid one.
     In 2012, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said that Israeli authorities "were preparing models of what they call the Temple, in order to build it on the ruins of al-Aqsa."
     [Source: http://jcpa.org/article/abbas-temple-denial/]

     Additionally, controversy and worry arise from the supposition that the burning of the heifer foretells the rebuilding of the Temple, or at least that its burning precedes and/or allows the rebuilding of the Temple in the order of exegetic events in the Jewish tradition.
     On March 5th, Chris Livesay of CBS News reported that "fervent believers" "insist" that the temple can rise again "only with that offering".
     [Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-war-hamas-red-heifers-from-texas-jerusalem-jewish-temple-al-aqsa/]



     In my article "A Jewish and Democratic State", the burning of the red heifer and the rebuilding of the Temple are both listed as part of the seventh of sixteen sets of events prophesied in the Bible. That seventh set of events is titled "Chapter 7: The Rebuilding of the Holy Temple", in the second part of that article, titled Transubstantiation,
     [http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/07/jewish-and-democratic-state.html]

     As I explained in that chapter, the First Temple (Solomon's Temple) began construction in 954 B.C.E., and was destroyed by the Babylonians in 587 B.C.E.. The Second Temple (Herod's Temple) was renovated in 19 B.C.E., and destroyed by the Romans in 70 C.E..

     Those temples were located on the Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem, in the eastern part of the center of the city. The Temple Mount is located on top of Mount Moriah, and is referred to in Hebrew as Har HaBayit.
     [Source: http://www.ajc.org/news/what-to-know-about-jerusalems-temple-mount-and-the-status-quo-agreement#:~:text=The%20Temple%20Mount%2C%20known%20in,central%20to%20the%20Christian%20Gospels.]

     Muslims call this site "Haram ash-Sharif", meaning Noble Sanctuary.
     [Source: http://decipherblogsite.wordpress.com/2017/09/30/jacobs-ladder-muhammads-miraj/]

     Currently located at that site are the Dome of the Rock Temple (which was completed in 691 C.E.) and al-Aqsa Mosque (completed in 705 C.E.).

 

Image created by Jerusalem Story in 2022
[http://www.jerusalemstory.com/en/article/where-jerusalem-uncertain-and-unfixed-boundaries-city]

     Administrative control over the Temple Mount is currently wielded by the Jordanian Islamic Waqf, a religious endowment and trust. Each the Waqf, the rabbinic authorities, and the Israeli Defense Forces wield some degree of influence and control regarding people's behavior while visiting the site (for example, the manners in which they may dress, whether they may pray openly, and at what times and locations, and depending on whether they are a tourist or a citizen, and depending on their religion).
     Here are some links that explain the conditions for visiting the Mount:

     - http://templeinstitute.org/guide-to-ascending-the-mount/
     - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Mount_entry_restrictions#:~:text=a%20religious%20duty.-,Israeli%20restriction%20policy,can%20visit%20at%20a%20time.

     - http://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-107hr2566ih/html/BILLS-107hr2566ih.htm     - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Mount_entry_restrictions#:~:text=a%20religious%20duty.-,Israeli%20restriction%20policy,can%20visit%20at%20a%20time.

     One purpose which the rabbis have in policing behavior at this site is to ensure that people do not trample on the Qodesh Ha-qadashim. This refers to what is called, in Latin, the "sanctum sanctorum" (which translates to "Holy of Holies"), the Tabernacle where the Ark of the Covenant is believed to have once rested. According to Britannica.com, the Holy of Holies was located toward the West end of Solomon's Temple.
     [Source: http://www.britannica.com/topic/Holy-of-Holies]
     That spot may only be visited by the High Priest (the Nasi) and only on Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement). Since 1967, the Chief Rabbinate of Israel has ruled that Jews must not be permitted to walk on that ground. 

     This is the reason why open prayer upon the Temple Mount is a hotly-debated topic.

     Especially so, prior the restoration of the Temple (by which I mean, between now and when the Temple is built). That's because, when the Temple is constructed, only then would Isaiah's prophecy of its becoming "a house of prayer for all nations" (Isaiah 56:7) truly be fulfilled.
     From what I can glean, the notion that humanity would be instantaneously converted to Judaism via an obvious miracle, wherein all people would suddenly know the word of G-d by heart, without having to read it, is part of Jewish beliefs about the Olam Ha-Ba (which means "World to Come", but is sometimes erroneously translated as "End of Days" or "End Times").
     Hence, if all people suddenly became Jewish - or at least obeyed all of G-d's commandments (or became Noahides) - their prayers would share the same significance, all being directed toward the same god. This would make the presence of people of all faiths - and having their prayer be open, public, or even unregulated - more of an acceptable and viable solution to the so-called "problem" of restrictions on open prayer at the Mount.
     Unfortunately, it's unclear whether Isaiah 56:7 really means that everyone praying at the Temple will be Jewish, or else that people will be free to pray in the Third Temple even if they're praying to a god other than the G-d of Abraham. After all, it says "for all nations", not "for all faiths".
     But that is a discussion which lies beyond the scope of this article. However, you can read "A Jewish and Democratic State" if you would like to know more about my views regarding how to geo-politically interpret these ongoing attempts, by Israelis, to fulfill Jewish prophecy.


     It's probably a safe bet to assume that some of the people whom have ignored restrictions upon open prayer (and other activities) at the mount, are probably not aware of all of the issues which I have mentioned above.
    Such people include the rabbis of the Temple Mount Faithful Movement, Rabbi Susan Silverman (the sister of Jewish-American comedienne Sarah Silverman), and Rabbi Yehuda Glick.

     Articles about several attempts by Jewish people to pray at the Temple Mount follow below:

     1. Seventeen Palestinians were killed, and many Israelis and Palestinians were injured, after the Temple Mount Faithful Movement decided to lay the cornerstone for the Temple.
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990_Temple_Mount_killings

     2. In 2013, Rabbi Susan Silverman and her daughter were arrested for praying at the Western Wall while wearing blue and white shawls ("tallilot").
     http://www.nydailynews.com/2013/02/11/comedienne-sarah-silvermans-sister-and-niece-arrested-for-praying-at-the-wailing-wall-in-jerusalem/

     3. In 2015, Rabbi Yehuda Glick urged Jews to ascend the Mount, but within the boundaries outlined in the Midrash. At least eight hundred fifty Jews ascended the Mount as a result of Glick's urging. This article mentions the fact that a man named Dr. Motti Inbari has pointed out that the motives for Jews ascending the Mount include causing the Israeli government to see it as a site which should not be relinquished to Palestinian or Jordanian authorities on account that it is not unoccupied.
     http://www.timesofisrael.com/as-support-widens-for-jewish-prayer-on-temple-mount-should-we-fear-apocalyptic-consequences/



     Back to the mosques.

     The Al Jazeera article mentioned above, is titled "What do Texan red heifers have to do with Al-Aqsa and a Jewish temple?". Written by Mersiha Gadzo, the articles answer to the question in its headline, reflects and summarizes the unease felt by Muslims at the prospect of the red heifer's burning:

     "These red heifers [-] and the archaic ritual they were brought to Israel for [-] stand at the heart of a convoluted effort by a segment of ultranationalist Jews to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, the third holiest site in Islam that has stood on a hill in the Old City of Jerusalem for more than 1,000 years, and replace it with a [']Third Temple[']".

     Gadzo goes on to write that a Third Temple "[...]can only be constructed after the coming of the awaited Messiah[...]".
     To be specific, Jewish law obligates the Jewish people to build the Temple, if and when they are able to do so, and the group of people who participate in the rebuilding of the Temple are called the zemach, which means "branch". The zemach is (or are) an expression of the Messiah (Mashiach), and Mashiach is to supervise the construction of the Temple.

     Of course, the difficulty comes when we have to figure out how a Third Holy Temple of Jerusalem is supposed to appear atop the Temple Mount, while the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa are already standing there.
     From the Muslims' point of view, the burning of the red heifer constitutes a threat to destroy those mosques, because that is apparently the quickest and easiest way to make room for such a Jewish temple.
     This is why the discussion of the prospect of the potential upcoming burning of a red heifer, worries Muslims so much. This is a time of inflamed violence between Israelis and Palestinians; especially since October 7th, 2023, since which time some 1,300 to 1,500 Israelis, and over 34,000 Palestinians, have been killed. And a number of other events are happening simultaneously; including the end of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan (as well as a solar eclipse over the United States on April 8th, N.A.S.A.'s ionosphere experiments which involved firing three rockets at the eclipse, and an experiment by C.E.R.N. in Europe).
     Moreover, Muslims in the area are aware that rabbis in Israel are planning to burn a heifer (or heifers). It's possible that this awareness could explain the motivation for some of the attacks originating from the Palestinian side. The reasons which Palestinians would have, to be worried about the burning of the heifer and the establishment of the Temple, include the possibilities that those events would be touted by Israelis as successes which ostensibly prove the Jewish prophecies and religion correct; and that this could potentially serve to justify and excuse further oppression of - and violence against - Palestinians in the future.
     You can read about some of the clashes at - and conflicts over - the Al-Aqsa compound, over the last two years, by visiting the following links:
     1. 2023 Al-Aqsa Clashes:
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Al-Aqsa_clashes
     http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/17/israeli-forces-attack-palestinian-worshippers-at-al-aqsa-mosque
     http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/04/israel-opt-second-night-of-horror-at-al-aqsa-mosque/#:~:text=Israeli%20forces%20regularly%20raid%20al,cities%20and%20towns%20inside%20Israel.
     2. 2024: Jordan Says Israel's Al-Aqsa Restrictions Risk Explosion:
     http://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/jordan-says-israels-al-aqsa-mosque-restrictions-risk-explosion-2024-03-11/

     

     These clashes - and the reasons which follow - show why we should be concerned about the potential for an escalation of violence, surrounding these events - especially the potential upcoming heifer ceremony - whether we are Muslim, Jewish, Christian, or even secular or atheist.



6. Significance of Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock Lost on Christians and Westerners

     What I am about to say, I say, not necessarily in order to advocate for the preservation of Christian artefacts in particular - nor primarily in the interest of promoting and preserving Western or Judeo-Christian traditions - but so that people of all faiths may see their holy sites remain intact, and be respected; and so that historically valuable sites may be preserved.

     The reason why the consequences of burning the red heifer would be so potentially dire - for people of faith, and for science-minded agnostics and atheists and humanists alike - is that the Dome of the Rock Mosque (which sits atop the Temple Mount, and is part of the Al-Aqsa compound) is the location where the Crusaders set up their first and most important prayer site, once conquering the Holy Land (resulting in the Dome of the Rock fall under Christian control in the year 1099). The Crusaders called it "Templum Domini", the Temple of the Lord.
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templum_Domini

     The Crusaders converted the mosque into a church in 1099.
     http://aleteia.org/2021/06/03/when-mass-was-celebrated-in-the-dome-of-the-rock/

     The following year, Bolduan (born in France in the 1060s) became the first Christian King of Jerusalem, taking the name King Baldwin I.
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldwin_I_of_Jerusalem


     According to the same article above - from Aleteia.org - the Dome of the Rock is the same site from which the Islamic prophet Muhammad is said to have ascended to Heaven during the famous "Night Journey" or "Night Flight". Muslims call this journey the "Mi'raj", and believe that Muhammad spoke to G-d during this journey.
     It is not universally agreed upon, by Muslim scholars, whether Al-Aqsa Mosque is the site from which that journey began or ended, nor whether that mosque was involved in the journey at all (given that it was not constructed until after Muhammad's death). However, Muhammad is said to have been taken from the "Sacred Mosque" (i.e., the mosque in Mecca) to the "Farthest Mosque", which Muslims generally agree is a reference to Al-Aqsa.
     [Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isra%27_and_Mi%27raj]
     According to a Muslim commenting on Quora.com, hadiths claim that Muhammad felt that he had a duty to build an Islamic temple on Mount Moriah because the temples of David and Solomon had sanctified the site.

     Also, Jews believe that this is the same site where Abraham - the father of all Abrahamic religions - was ready to sacrifice his son Isaac, but was stopped by the Angel of the Lord (as detailed in Genesis 22).

     Additionally, the Dome of the Rock is named for the rock which is located inside the building, around which the temple was built (serving to protect the rock).
     It was on this rock that biblical patriarch Jacob (son of Isaac and grandson of Abraham) is said to have laid his head, and dreamed of a ladder leading to Heaven.
     This event is detailed in Genesis 28, and is followed by G-d telling Jacob "I will give you and your descendants the land on which you are lying" (Genesis 28:13).
     http://biblehub.com/genesis/28-13.htm

     But perhaps what's most important of all - to all Abrahamic faiths - is what's underneath that rock (dubbed "the Foundation Stone", and also called the "Pierced Stone" or "Noble Rock").
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_Stone

     And that is the Well of Souls.
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well_of_Souls


     Thus, if either Al-Aqsa or the Dome of the Rock - or both - were to be damaged, then Christians and Muslims the world over - as well as those who value history and the preservation of historical sites - would suffer a tremendous loss.
     That is why this is so important.

     U.N.E.S.C.O. (the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization) refers to Al-Aqsa by its Arabic name only.
     [Source: http://www.dw.com/en/unesco-approves-resolution-on-jerusalem-holy-site/a-36162918]
     However - and unfortunately - al-Aqsa Mosque is not on U.N.E.S.C.O.'s list of World Heritage Sites.
     [Source: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/]

     That is the situation we are in.


     So, even if the rebuilding of the Third Jewish Temple is not necessary for the red heifer to be slaughtered and burned, eventually news may come that a red heifer has been slaughtered. And, according to Jewish tradition, the rebuilding of the Temple is to follow.
     And, in the rebuilding of the Temple (whether Mashiach will be around for the beginning of its construction or not), the questions of which particular locations atop Mount Moriah are appropriate for that site - and of whether building a Jewish temple there will require the partial or total destruction of Al-Aqsa compound - will have to be answered.
     But - hopefully prior to that happening - Al-Jazeera writer Mersiha Gadzo and others will caution us that the Mashiach is supposed to return in-between these two events - i.e., slaughter of heifer, followed by burning of heifer, then return of Mashiach, then construction of the Jewish temple - and we should be careful not to forget this fact, because it may come up later. Especially so if rabbinic groups burn a heifer, and then make significant strides towards the construction of the temple, without near-universal agreement among Jews that the Mashiach has come, and regarding what his (or its) identity is.

     Therefore, today - especially considering the recent violence - Mount Moriah and Al-Aqsa compound are under considerable danger.
     That is why it is such a shame that Christians, Muslims, and secular people have lost sight of - and forgotten - what is precious about these sites. The Dome of the Rock has come to be associated so much with Islam, that those who are eager to support U.S. involvement in the State of Israel's wars, have caused us to forget its Catholic, Christian history.
     People who are concerned about this should do anything and everything they can to encourage interfaith dialogue and education about other religions (of course, in a manner which does not directly instruct children and other unwilling people to write or utter prayers of religions they don't wish to practice), or else religious sites of historical significance could be threatened in future wars.
     Until the end of the occupation of the Golan Heights, the cordoning-off and blockading of the Gaza Strip, and the curtailing of liberties in the West Bank, it will always be controversial for Jews to practice their religion freely and openly, and construct monuments, and protest, atop Mount Moriah; and it will always be provocative, in the minds of Muslims, for Jews to attempt to do so.
     Therefore, I would recommend that Jews and Muslims (and other groups) in the area, use communal autonomy and decentralized federations or confederations, to resolve their disputes. That is a method which would satisfy Jewish scriptural recommendations that each community have its own court of rabbis, but that Jerusalem's court does not have universal authority over every Jewish community. Moreover, it would allow Muslims to exercise authority over Muslim-majority communities.
     I would also urge people to familiarize themselves with, and consider supporting, the 1947 U.N. partition plan, which would have made Jerusalem into a U.N.-administered international zone.




7. Post-Script

     Please read my recent article "Israelis' and Palestinians' Unwillingness to Forgive Casualty-Free Attacks Leads to Deaths on Both Sides", which can be accessed at the following address:
     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2023/10/israelis-and-palestinians-unwillingness.html

     You can also read my August 2020 article "Why I Support Autonomy, But Not Statehood, For Palestinians" at the following address:
     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2020/08/why-i-support-autonomy-for-palestinians.html

     My 2011 article "A Jewish and Democratic State" - which has links to the bottom that lead to numerous other articles I've written on Israel and Palestine - is available here:
     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2011/07/jewish-and-democratic-state.html

     Additionally, there is a search bar on my blog (located at the top-right of this article and all articles) which will allow you to search for any and all articles that I have written about Israel, Palestine, and any other topic.
     
     

Majorities of Sections 1 through 5
were written, and published incomplete, on April 11th, 2024.

Originally published under the title
"Sacrifice of Red Heifer May Require Destruction of
al-Aqsa Mosque and/or the Dome of the Rock Temple"

Edited and expanded on April 12th, 2024.

Edited, expanded, and completed on May 8th and 9th, 2024.

Reaction to the Tree of Life Synagogue Shooting in Pittsburgh

Table of Contents

1. What Happened
2. Why the Shooter Did What He Did
3. The Politics Behind the Shooter's Motivations

4. My Inward Reaction to the Shooting, Part 1: White-on-Black Violence, and Guns in Church

5. My Inward Reaction to the Shooting, Part 2: Christian-on-Muslim Violence

6. My Inward Reaction to the Shooting, Part 3: Israeli-on-Arab Violence

7. My Outward Reaction to the Shooting

8. Explanation of My Outward Reaction

9. People's Reactions to My Statements, and My Response
10. Insensitive Israeli Reactions to the Shooting
11. Post-Script

Content

1. What Happened

     On the morning of Saturday, October 27^th, 2018, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, a gunman's fire interrupted Shabbat morning services at Tree of Life, a Jewish synagogue also known as l'Simcha (Hebrew for “gladness” or “joy”). The gunman shot 18 people, killing 11 of them, and injuring seven, including a police officer. Three handguns and a rifle were found at the scene of the shooting.

     The gunman was later identified as Robert Bowers, a 46-year-old white man. Bowers was subsequently charged with 11 counts of using a firearm to commit murder, and multiple counts of hate crimes based on religion; a total of 29 charges.

2. Why the Shooter Did What He Did

     Bowers's posts on his account with the social media site GAB.ai show complaints about supposed Jewish infiltration of the United States and its government. His posts indicate that he believes that Donald Trump's devotion to nationalism, and to keeping immigrants out, has been compromised by “kikes” (an ethnic slur used against Jewish people).

     One of Bowers's targets was H.I.A.S., the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (pronounced “HEE-yuss”). H.I.A.S. was founded in 1881 to aid Jewish refugees fleeing Russian pogroms. H.I.A.S. now aids refugees of all backgrounds. Bowers posted “HIAS likes to bring invaders that kill our people. I can't sit by and watch my people get slaughtered. Screw your optics, I'm going in.”

     Bowers apparently chose Tree of Life as his target because it belongs to a group of synagogues which coordinates with H.I.A.S.. Bowers has described H.I.A.S. as bringing in “hostile invaders to dwell among us”. He also complained on social media, “It's the filthy EVIL Jews Bringing the Filthy EVIL Muslims into the Country!!”

     Bowers evidently carried out his crime because he believes that Tree of Life, H.I.A.S., one of H.I.A.S.'s projects called National Refugee Shabbat, and other groups, are part of an extensive conspiracy between Jewish-Americans and refugees, to assist en masse illegal entry into the United States.

     I hope that what I have stated above accurately and sufficiently reflects Bowers's set of reasons and motivations for committing the 29 crimes with which he has been charged. I do not intend this list of reasons to be anything other than an M.O. (modus operandi); an explanation – not an excuse, nor a rationalization – of why the shooter did what he did.

3. The Politics Behind the Shooter's Motivations

     The Tree of Life shooting came after months of reports, especially by Fox News, about the “migrant caravan”; a group of people mostly from Honduras, whom are attempting to migrate to the United States. Many American conservatives believe that billionaire financier and Hungarian Jewish immigrant to the United States George Soros, and other wealthy liberals, are funding the caravan.

     Conservative and nationalist media pundits across the board have labeled members of this caravan as “hordes” of “invaders”, mostly made up of military-age men, with few women or children. I personally believe this to be nothing but fear-mongering, and that the right is doing this because it desperately needs an excuse to use military force within our borders. Some of them even want to see undocumented immigrants get shot for the mere crimes of illegal entry and rock-throwing, and their president is promising them that show.

     Due to the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, there is a limit on the president's ability to use U.S. military troops within the borders of the United States; that is, unless there is a military-level threat to our country and our borders. It seems that Trump's supporters are willing to cast any group or nationality they don't like, as providing aid and comfort to America's enemies, and as providing substantial support to terrorist groups, in order to boost their claim that such a military-level threat really exists.

     Right-wingers seem to want people to think that al-Qaeda and I.S.I.S. are hiding behind every immigrant in that caravan, because they want to see a bloodbath at the border, performed legally by our boys in blue, with Donald Trump at lead command. Some seem to suspect that every single undocumented immigrant is potentially violent, and/or a foreign spy.

     I find it shameful to see such an obvious resurgence of ultra-nationalism and aversion to people not born here, and just as shameful to see people deny it and make excuses for it.

4. My Inward Reaction to the Shooting, Part 1: White-on-Black Violence, and Guns in Church

     I cannot say that I was shocked to hear that 11 Jewish people had been shot at a synagogue. Appalled and horrified, yes; but not shocked, not surprised.

     My inner immediate reaction to the shooting was, first, “This is just like the black church in Charleston that got shot up three summers ago”. For those who don't remember, white racist Dylann Roof shot nine African-American church attendees to death in June 2015 at Charleston's Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church.

     My second thought after the shooting was, “This kind of violence happens in the Middle East every day.” I apologize if this seems insensitive, but I live near Chicago, which sees some 500 murders a year. Eleven murders is a Fourth of July weekend for someone in Chicago. I say this not to trivialize or normalize the violence; I am merely stating a cold, hard fact: America's major cities are violent places, and pretending that they are not will only lull us into a false sense of security. I do not mean to be opportunistic by using this shooting to bash gun control, and I know it is ironic to call for more guns when people have just been shot, but I believe that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

     I saw it reported that the synagogue was a gun-free zone. It may seem paradoxical, but as a private security guard who works unarmed in a gun-free zone, I find gun bans quite difficult to enforce without the use of guns. Fortunately, people have begun to understand that. In response to a shooting at a black church on November 12^th – at First Baptist Church of Jeffersontown in Kentucky – the church has begun to allow select people to be armed, and they have made this fact known to the public. I for one am glad that the church has undertaken this step to attempt to protect their parishioners, and I hope to see more of this.

     I hope there will be no gun accidents at churches as a result of this, wherein people lose control of their guns. I would hate to see such an event used to justify prohibiting churches from deciding who can have guns on their property and when. As unlikely that that may seem, the pro-gun-control lobby is very powerful, and the N.R.A. doesn't protect gun rights as much as we'd like to think (especially not the gun rights of minorities). I hope that more pro-gun African-Americans understand what it means that Martin Luther King was denied a concealed carry permit by his racist government before he was shot to death.

5. My Inward Reaction to the Shooting, Part 2: Christian-on-Muslim Violence

     Another one of my initial reactions to the synagogue shooting was that I recalled an incident from several years ago, in which someone vandalized an Islamic mosque by leaving bacon or pork on its doorstep or door handles. Upon further investigation, I found that there were several incidents wherein white Americans vandalized mosques with pork; one in 2016 and the other in 2017. In January 2016, Michael Wolfe broke into the Islamic Society of Florida Masjid al-Munin Mosque in Titusville, and left a slab of raw bacon behind. On January 22^nd, 2017, Laurel Kirk-Coehlo wrapped pork around the door handle of the Davis Islamic Center in Davis, California. Both Wolfe and Kirk-Coehlo caused additional property damage to the mosques, and were subsequently charged with hate crimes.

     The reason why the synagogue shooting made me remember the use of pork in vandalism against mosques, is that I know that both Jewish and Islamic dietary laws forbid the eating of pork. I knew people vandalized mosques with pork because they want to offend Muslims' religious ideals, and horrify them by damaging their property with the body of a dead animal.

     The only thing I didn't understand was “When is someone going to vandalize a synagogue with pork?” I say this out of concern; I suspected that somewhere, maybe there is somebody out there who hates both Jewish people and Muslims, who would want to offend and horrify both of them by defacing their places of worship with pork.

     A while after hearing of the bacon attacks, my mindset about race in America went like this: “It seems perfectly acceptable in this country right now to hate all Muslims, Hispanics, and immigrants. I can't believe there is not more violence against Jewish people.” To be perfectly honest, I saw those acts of vandalism against the mosques, and I thought that if someone did eventually decide to leave pork out in front of a synagogue, at least people would remember that there are dangerous people out there who hate Jewish people for no reason, without anybody getting shot to death.

     This was a fleeting thought, which I at no point took seriously, nor made any plans to carry out. All I ask is that my readers ask themselves this: If earlier this year, someone had broken into a synagogue, smashed its windows, killed nobody, and left a pile of bacon behind, wouldn't fewer Jewish-Americans be calling for increased restrictions against the arrival of new immigrants? I believe that lives are on the line when it comes to immigration; the U.S. is rigging elections and sponsoring coups overseas, they are coming here, and we are drastically under-filling our immigration quotas from dangerous countries. I would like to see thousand-fold increases in the number of immigrants coming to America from Syria, for example.

     Robert Bowers hates both Jewish people and Muslims. He believes that “filthy evil Jews are bringing filthy evil Muslims into the country”. But he chose to kill Jewish people at a synagogue, instead of defacing a synagogue with pork, or defacing a mosque with pork, or killing Muslims at a mosque. That is why we should ask why Bowers chose to harm Jewish people instead of Muslims.

     Some might suggest that he is an “equal-opportunity racist” who “hates everybody equally”, a thoughtless sentiment echoed by comedians such as Carlos Mencia, and parroted by their fans. Bowers certainly believes that both Muslims and Jews are “filthy” and “evil”. But it would be foolish to say he's not a white supremacist, so we can only conclude that he believes white people to be superior to Muslims and Jews. To call this man anything less than a domestic terrorist who thinks himself a warrior in a fight against all things white and non-Christian – and perhaps even a fascist or Nazi sympathizer - would be an outright lie.

6. My Inward Reaction to the Shooting, Part 3: Israeli-on-Arab Violence

     Aside from thinking about Charleston, the amount of violence elsewhere, the issue of whether to allow guns in church, and the bacon vandalism incidents, the last thought I remember having after the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting was “The State of Israel just bombed the Gaza Strip a week ago, and I didn't share it on Facebook because I thought it would be perceived as anti-Jewish because it's critical of Israel.”

     On October 17^th – ten days before the synagogue shooting - the I.D.F. (Israeli Defense Forces) bombed the Gaza Strip, six days after Israelis shot six Gaza residents in response to 14,000 Gazan protesters in coming to the heavily fortified Israel-Gaza border. On October 20^th, I found out that there had been some clashes in Gaza. The State of Israel was looking aggressive and in-the-wrong in the news.

     At the time, I believed that there existed a realistic possibility that Jewish people would be targeted for violence somewhere in the world, as a response to those actions in Gaza, by someone who believes all Jewish people are citizens and agents of the State of Israel, and wants to use that idea to justify killing Jewish people. I suspected that attacks on Jewish people would increase because in mid-2018, I found out about Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro.

     Yaakov Shapiro is a Hasidic rabbi, an author, and a contributor to the YouTube channel “True Torah Jews”. In one lecture, entitled “Has Zionism Hijacked Judaism?”, Rabbi Shapiro stated that it is a statistically proven fact that when the State of Israel is having conflicts with other nations, on average, attacks on Jewish people increase around the world. He did not cite his source for that fact during that lecture, but he did say that several years ago in Mexico, Jewish people were attacked following an uptick in Israeli violence.

     Those claims would certainly make sense if they turned out to be true; I was unfortunately unable to corroborate them. But I believe that if Jewish people worldwide do get attacked more on average when Israel is at war, then it is because many people believe that all Jewish people condone the actions of the State of Israel, even the occupation of the West Bank (in violation of a United Nations resolution).

     The State of Israel's founding document, the Basic Law, defines itself as “a Jewish and democratic state”. Precisely what constitutes a “Jewish state” was left up to the citizens of the State of Israel to decide. Shapiro has explained that the State of Israel works very hard to convince the people of the world that the State of Israel is a representative – or even the representative – of all Jewish people. In his videos for True Torah Jews, he has stated that “Israel gets Jews into hot water all over the world”.

It is regrettable to admit this, but I fear that Israel is trying too hard to present a unified face for all 15 million of the world's Jews. I understand that it would make no sense to show a divided Israel to the world, or to show the world that the Jewish people are fragmented, because that would make Israel and Jewish people look weak to the world.

     But I also believe that there are many peace-loving Jewish people, many of them on the political left, who want to criticize the occupation of the West Bank and the bombings of the Gaza Strip, but are afraid to do so because they are afraid to be shouted-down as “Israel-hating Jews”, “self-hating Jews”, or even “anti-Semitic Jews” who don't want a strong Israel, and are careless about the safety of Jewish people. For the State of Israel to pretend to speak with one voice, seemingly on behalf of all Jewish people, offends Rabbi Shapiro as a Jew, and personally, it frightens me as a person who values individual rights and doubts the value of having too strong or domineering a government.

     I am not trying to imply that Robert Bowers saw some news that made the State of Israel look bad, and immediately used that, and solely that, to justify killing Jewish people. But more and more Americans are waking up to the fact that the occupation of Palestine is wrong. Many people wrongly blame Jewish people and Judaism for the occupation of Palestine, and do not differentiate between a Jew and an Israeli. Some people out there want to punish all Jews for Israel's crimes.

     I know that what I have just described might seem like it better fits the profile of a Muslim who hates Jewish people and opposes the occupation, but a white supremacist does not have to love Muslims or oppose the occupation to see Israel getting away with war crimes, and conclude from that fact that “the Jews are getting special treatment”, and then decide to go out and kill Jews, with that as one of the many reasons why he hates Jewish people.

     On the other hand, though, it's entirely possible that Bowers would look at Israeli actions in Gaza and support it, because his enemies “the filthy evil Jews” and “the filthy evil Muslims” are destroying each other. It's also possible that he sees Israel bombing Gaza, and cheers it on for ruining its own reputation, while also killing a few “evil Muslims” in the process. I believe that this is roughly the position of “alt-Right” Nazi sympathizer Richard Spencer, the white American who promotes the occupation of Palestine as part of his ideal vision for a Jewish ultra-nationalist society.

     I apologize for conjecturing as to what Robert Bowers's opinion of the Israel-Palestine conflict is; I know it may seem like an opportunistic attempt to blame Israel for the shootings, and bring Israel into the discussion when nothing in the reporting of the shooting indicated a hatred for the State of Israel or an opposition to its actions. But it is a fact that some people who commit acts of violence against Jewish people do commit those crimes out of a desire to get revenge for acts of violence Israel has committed, and even make their motivation known to their victims.

     A survey taken in spring 2016, among undergraduate students at 50 U.S. university campuses, revealed that “the high rates of anti-Semitic harassment and hostility at these campuses 'are largely driven by hostility toward Israel”. That same Brandeis University survey – titled “Hotspots of Antisemitism and Anti-Israel Sentiment on US Campuses” – also revealed that 20% of students reported “being blamed for Israel's actions because they are Jewish”, and that one-third of respondents reported witnessing “some form of anti-Semitic harassment, often Israel related.”

     It would be careless to fail to ask whether, if the Israel-Palestine conflict had been solved years ago, there would be as much hatred of Jewish people and anti-Jewish violence (based on the idea that the State of Israel represents all Jewish people). It would also be careless to fail to ask whether, if the State of Israel did not draft half of its citizens into its armed forces, fewer people would suspect every person who had ever lived in Israel of being an agent of its government.

     I would never accuse the State of Israel of welcoming acts of violence against Israelis, nor of provoking acts of violence against Jewish people around the world, nor of putting Jewish people at risk by staging fake so-called “false flag” attacks. And there is nothing I would say about the State of Israel that I would not also say about my own government, that of the United States of America.

     But in my opinion, the State of Israel is sowing the seeds of its own destruction, by making its own reputation worse, when it lashes out against its enemies with disproportionate force. Jewish scholars who criticize Israel's violent and illegal actions, such as Dr. Noam Chomsky and former University of Chicago professor Norman Finkelstein, have identified the State of Israel's actions as tantamount to what Nazis did to Jewish people during the Holocaust, have attempted to make their voices heard on the matter, to very vocal criticism, and their careers have greatly suffered because of it. And understandably so; it would be easy to confuse cautioning people about the Holocaust with trivializing the Holocaust by comparing a less deadly event to it (before it becomes that deadly).

     Since 2006, I have been aware of a group of Hasidic Jewish activists called Neturei Karta, which criticizes both the occupation of Palestine, and the very idea of a Jewish political sovereignty. I have tried, for the last twelve years, to make it known that not all Jewish people support the State of Israel and the occupation of Palestine. My hope in doing so has been to help non-Jewish people understand that not only are most Jewish people peace-loving, and horrified by the occupation and by Israel's wars, but also that many of the core ideals of the Jewish religion itself are profoundly antithetical to many of the things that the Israeli government, armed forces, and police are currently doing.

     I know that it may seem anti-Semitic to list the crimes of Israel, but the State of Israel has undeclared nuclear weapons, it drafts into its army young people who want to study the Torah, and racial discrimination and harassment are prevalent in Israel's immigration, security, and travel practices. Arabs, white Christians, peace-loving Jewish people, and secular atheists alike, all see these practices, and are horrified to see them being done in the name of the Jewish religion. With the symbol of the Jewish religion, the Star of David, emblazoned on the flags and war planes of the people raining fire down onto people.

     I can only imagine how it must feel to be Jewish while Israel is at war. Imagine this: Israel - a country across an entire ocean - attacks someone, and all of a sudden Jewish people around the world are liable to be asked whether they know why Israel did that, and whether they know anyone who was involved, and whether they condone it.
     I would hate to find out that most Jewish people feel pressured or obligated to make excuses for Israel's actions. But I also have to admit that Israel is doing very little to make Jewish people feel comfortable criticizing the state without being labeled “self-hating Jews”. Some staunch supporters of Israel even stoop to saying "All criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic." I believe that to repeat such a thing is to intentionally confuse the difference between Israeli nationalism in Palestine, and the Jewish religion which is termed Judaism. The effect is that peace-loving, Judaism-loving critics of the occupation of Palestine can be more effectively and efficiently silenced as anti-Semites. In my opinion, generally, the Jewish religion is peaceful, while the current administration governing the nation of Israel is not.

     I would like to see all Jewish people around the world feel free to criticize whichever of Israel's actions they personally morally object to. I do not want any Jewish person to feel like they either have to excuse or disown Israel's crimes, and I think it would not hurt Israel or its image one bit to allow people to criticize its violent and illegal actions, and even demand answers and accountability for those crimes.

     Some may claim that by saying this, I am promulgating the idea that all Jewish people think alike and support Israel, or that I am saying “the Jews need to keep their own people in line”; but I am not. I am simply expressing my hope that all Jewish people - of all political, religious, and ethnic backgrounds – feel comfortable speaking their minds on the subjects of Judaism, the State of Israel and its policies, the occupation of Palestine, and the safety of the Jewish people.

     I am genuinely concerned that the State of Israel will not admit that it has nuclear weapons, and it concerns me that Israel won't sign a treaty to promise not to sell nuclear weapons to other countries. I am concerned about its draft; its racist security and travel policies; and the occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights in defiance of a United Nations resolution. Israel's recent “nation state law” makes me concerned that Israel is planning to make moves to completely ban all Arabs and Muslims from the country.

     I hope that my readers will understand that if my criticism of the State of Israel is harsh, it is not directed at Jewish people, nor the Jewish religion. I also hope that these thoughts will help explain my reaction to the Tree of Life shooting on social media.

7. My Outward Reaction to the Shooting

     The day after the Tree of Life shooting - on October 28^th, 2018 – I posted the following on my Facebook wall:

     “I guess the Zionists' plan to put Palestinians and undocumented immigrants into internment camps before too many people start hating the Jews[,] and demanding that they be killed too[,] isn't working out so well, is it[?]”

     Needless to say, many of my Facebook friends were upset by the callousness and insensitivity of this statement, as well as the timing. Although I did not mean it as a joke, I did mean it sarcastically, and I understand why my statement upset people.

     At the time when I said this, I was sick of seeing white people attack religious communities – black churches, mosques, synagogues – and I could barely mask my total lack of shock that someone had murdered 11 Jewish people at a synagogue. It's not that I didn't have the sympathy to mourn the dead at that time; I simply didn't have the energy to do so.

     I have seen friends die recently, and many young people in this country are seeing a lot of their friends die of opiate overdoses. That, and news of celebrities dying, and our childhood heroes getting accused of heinous acts, have all served to completely drain me of the ability to feel any more sadness this year. This country is slowly turning into a war-zone, the war might be a race war, and I do not have time to mourn the dead in the middle of what I see to be a battlefield.

     I want people to understand that we are in a race war zone, and that Jews, Muslims, immigrants, homeless people, non-whites, and the L.G.B.T.Q. community, should all consider arming themselves; because their police and governments have been overtaken by fascist sympathizers, want to restrict vulnerable people's abilities to use guns to defend themselves, and maybe even want many of them dead.

     I admit that I said what I said in order to deliberately arouse anger. Unfortunately that backfired, and people got angry at me, instead of getting angry at those who normalize hatred of foreigners because they are foreigners, even if the people doing the race-baiting are Jewish.

     I don't even feel comfortable calling Jewish racists “Jewish”, because I believe that people who commit violent acts, and promote hatred on the basis of race or religion or national origin, have no religion. But if the few Jewish people who are racist want to call themselves Jewish while espousing racist and fascist viewpoints, I also have no right to try to infringe on their freedom of speech. That's why I state my open disagreement with them, and that's why I use it to explain how their open espousal of racist viewpoints is making racists feel comfortable to espouse their racist ideas about Jewish people, and act on it.

8. Explanation of My Outward Reaction

     I apologize to anyone whose feelings I hurt by making this statement. I see creeping Nazism in this country, and I am trying to call it like I see it. I know that it will be difficult to do so without inciting a sort of stampede. But a focused stampede, with a clear and direct target (racists), is what I intend to incite.

     I would also like to add that I did not use the term “concentration camps” simply for comic effect; I know that mentioning Jews being put in concentration camps is an upsetting thought, but it is not impossible to imagine, and the possibility of it concerns me, so I mentioned it.

     I used the term “concentration camps” because I agree with Dr. Noam Chomsky's characterization of the conditions in the West Bank and Gaza as that of an “open-air concentration camp”. Also, because I believe that President Trump's “family detention centers” for undocumented immigrants are the closest thing we have in America to concentration camps. Especially if there are any such sites that are secret, or are working people to death.

     I also apologize for not making my statement clear enough.

     The essence of my statement was that 1) fervent supporters of the State of Israel (which I termed “Zionists”) have put the people of Palestine into an open-air concentration camp, 2) that there exist Jewish supremacists in America who want to encourage people to hate and fear Hispanics and undocumented immigrants, and 3) that those Jewish supremacists were incorrect to predict that they could bash Arabs forever, and that it would never make any racist think “It's OK to be racist now”, and shoot some Jewish people.

     As I stated above, the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting did not shock me. It upset and horrified me, but all I wondered was why it didn't happen sooner, when it's perfectly acceptable to be racist against everyone besides Jewish people. It's even acceptable to be racist to Jewish people, though, if you promote a Jewish stereotype in the context of a comedy show, such as Family Guy or South Park.

     We should ask ourselves, why is it more acceptable in so many places in America to openly make a joke about “Jews having all the money”, than it is to speak critically about the occupation of Palestine? Could you even imagine a TV show trying to get away with making a joke about the occupation? Even if the joke avoided criticizing Jewish people and the Jewish religion, some people who strongly support Israel would likely try to find a way to try to describe the joke as anti-Semitic, and claim that a hate crime has occurred.

     Discouraging people to talk about the State of Israel might seem like a great way to quiet criticism of Jewish people, but in my opinion, what it does, is make Jewish people afraid to talk about the State of Israel, in addition to everybody else. If Jewish people do not talk about Israel, and feel free to criticize it, then the State of Israel will remain the belligerent nation it is today, on the brink of nativism and racial supremacy, and peace-loving Jews around the world will not be believed when they say “that nation does not represent my interest, and does not speak for all Jews.”

9. People's Reactions to My Statements, and My Response

     I understand why people were upset by what I said. I was told by one friend that I was “conflating people of Jewish ancestry with Zionism”, and “implying that Jewish people all think alike and think about their tribe to the exclusion and detriment of others is EXACTLY what anti-Semitism has always consisted of.”

    However, I hope that my previous comments have made it perfectly clear that I have known for twelve years that not all Jewish people support Israel's actions, which should go to show that I am very aware that not all Jewish people agree on everything. I know there are various sects and movements within Judaism, and political parties in the State of Israel, and that the State of Israel is an extremely diverse place, in terms of politics, religion, and race. I hope it stays that way.

     Another friend of mine who saw my post said “The congregation were victims of a terrible tragedy and your first thought is about how they had it coming... this is simply a tragedy to which the only response is empathy”.

     I never intended to suggest that the 11 Jewish people who got shot to death at their morning prayers had it coming. What I said was that Jewish racists – not the victims – are among those trying to make people feel comfortable to express their racism, and that this is one of the consequences.

    My friend was correct to point out that empathy is an appropriate response to the shooting, and that I was not thinking about whether what I said was in good taste, nor whether the timing was appropriate. But as I explained earlier, I do not have any more energy this year to spend expressing sadness and empathy.

     I live in a culture that has profoundly desensitized its people to violence. I find it a waste of time to grieve the dead, or post condolences to families of victims who will never see my social media account. The best think I could think of doing at the time was to make people aware that it's not only white Americans who are calling for Arabs and Hispanics to be rounded up, put in camps, and deported; it's fervent supporters of the State of Israel, who support the occupation and its racist nation-state law too.

     I apologize that my focus was on Israel supporters, rather than all racists, but I cannot see war planes with the Star of David on them attacking Gaza one week, then a guy shooting Jewish people in a synagogue the next week, and get away with steadfastly maintaining that there is absolutely no connection or relationship between these two events whatsoever.

     I am not saying that correlation equals causality, but there is much that Israel and its supporters could do to de-escalate tensions between the I.D.F. and Israel's prisoners of war (the Palestinians), and to improve the reputation of Israel (and, as a result, of Jews) as one which promotes peace and immigration, instead of demonizing them.

     To the suggestion that I meant the victims had it coming, I say the following: they did not have it coming, and I commend what Tree of Life and H.I.A.S. were doing (helping refugees settle in America).

     Many white racists in America believe that African-Americans and Jewish-Americans are engaging in “false flag” attacks against themselves, or members of their own community, in order to portray themselves as under attack, and to inspire sympathy.

     I would be lying through omission if I failed to note that there have been incidents wherein black and Jewish people have left racist graffiti, but I also believe that white racists, and conservatives in general, drastically overstate the frequency with which such acts of racist vandalism are attributable to the people who first reported them to the police. I do not believe that the Tree of Life shooting was a false flag by Jewish people or Israelis, intended to inspire sympathy for them.

     It is an unfortunate fact that in 2007, Sarah Marshak, a freshman at George Washington University, admitted to drawing swastikas on her own dormitory door. However, in Marshak's defense, she stated that she drew swastikas on her door in order to draw people's attention to a previous incident, wherein the same dorm had been vandalized with swastikas. Marshak believed that the previous vandalism incident was not taken seriously, and that's why she decided to draw more swastikas.

     While it would not be unreasonable to describe Marshak's actions as an act of staged vandalism, or even to ask whether she did not draw all the swastikas in the first place, I will not say those things. Another student, a male, was arrested for drawing swastikas around the same time, and was subsequently banned from campus. It's entirely possible that he drew the first swastika (or the first two or three), and I believe Marshak did what she did to get people to realize how serious the problem of hatred against Jewish people is. I resent people pointing to that incident and using it to conclude that most or many anti-Semitic attacks are done by Jewish people.

     I believe that the reason why my friend thought I was saying the synagogue's congregants had it coming, is because I was blaming “Zionists” for 11 Jewish people getting murdered. In response to this, I will repeat the words of Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro: “Israel gets Jews into hot water all over the world.” It's not that Israel directly provokes violence against Jewish people intentionally, it's that the State of Israel has nothing to lose when Jewish people are in danger.

That's because, when Jewish people are in danger, whether or not they get saved, Israel looks good. If Israel helps save the Jewish people who are being threatened, then it's done something good, and the I.D.F. gets more money. If the State of Israel fails to protect Jewish people, and they die, then Benjamin Netanyahu holds a press conference, appears very somber, and makes a statement saying “we stand with the victims”.

     And that is a totally appropriate way to show empathy. However, all that really accomplishes, in my opinion, is make it look like the Israeli army is standing by the Jewish people, saying “We are doing what we do in Palestine because people do this sort of thing to Jews.” It makes all Jewish people look bad, and only a very undiscerning person would claim that I'm trying to make all Jewish people look bad by pointing out that Israel is making them look bad, by claiming it represents all Jews.

     I would never claim that Zionists intentionally put Jewish people at risk. I would also never claim that the people at Tree of Life welcomed acts of violence against them for helping Muslims settle in America. I do not believe in the white supremacist idea that Jewish people are trying to flood the nations of the world with immigrants in order to undermine their sovereignty, racial purity, and moral values. I do not believe that all Muslims are terrorists, and I hope that all non-violent immigrants to America are safe (whether legal or undocumented).

     I was told by a friend that my statement showed that I was “refusing to differentiate between Nazi ideological antisemitism... and leftist antisemitism.” Nazi antisemitism, my friend explained, “hates Jews IN SPITE of the Israeli genocide of the Palestinians” because they “view that conflict as being a net positive no matter who actually wins”, while leftist antisemitism “carries some of the same nonsensical racist roots but is heightened by a lack of differentiation between Judaism and Zionism.”

     Before continuing, I must note that I feel it inaccurate to reduce all hatred of Jewish people to the phrase “anti-Semitism” - especially considering that at least 2/3 of Jewish people worldwide do not have Semitic heritage, and are thus non-Semitic Jewish people – but I will use the term “anti-Semitism” here to mean “hatred of Jews” for the sake of brevity.

     I agree with my friend's distinctions between these two types of hatred of Jewish people. However, I don't want to be too careful differentiating between various types of anti-Semites, because if I spend too much time talking about how and why they're different, people might assume that I think one is less bad, or maybe even better, than the other.

     I oppose anti-Semitism whether it comes from the right or the left, and I understand each camp's motivations for their hatred of Jewish people. That is why I try to get right-wing anti-Semites to soften their hatred of Jewish people, with the ideas that all religions should get along, and that Judaism is a religion that anybody can join regardless of race or nation. Obviously, few racists change their mind.

     Additionally, I try to inform left-wingers who might hate Jewish people, that not all Jewish people support Israel. I believe that the more people know this, the less people will associate Jewish people and Judaism with Israeli violence, and the less they will believe that all Jewish people think the same.

     I do not mean to sound anti-Semitic by listing all the reasons people hate Jewish people. I am not excusing, nor condoning, hatred of Jewish people, when I explain what the most common historical reasons have been for mistreatment of the Jews. This may be offensive to some people, but it is necessary to explain history, and avoid the same kind of thing happening in the future.

     But my friend is right; leftist and Nazi anti-Semitism share “some of the same nonsensical racist roots”. Among them, the ideas that all Jewish people are wealthy, or are engaging in discriminatory hiring practices by hiring only other Jewish people, or control the banking industry, or are hoarding the world's money supply, or are even keeping gold on them at all times.

     These stereotypes are disgusting, they are motivated by a desire to see Jewish people in poverty, and they often neglect the fact that there are many more non-Jewish people who are greedy and power-hungry, than there are Jewish people altogether.

     But more concerns about Jewish people which the left and right share, are their apparent control over American foreign policy, and their religion. White nationalist America-firsters don't want Jewish people deciding what America's military does, and left-wing pacifists don't want the State of Israel to get away with the occupation of Palestine, or see America imitate Israel by reinstating the draft. At the same time, secular atheists on the left and the Christian right both have an aversion to the Jewish religion, ranging from a slight distaste, to wanton misunderstanding, to outright hatred.

     I am not trying to characterize Robert Bowers, the alleged Tree of Life Synagogue shooter, as a leftist. Nor am I trying to prove Donald Trump's claim that hatred of religion, or hatred of Judaism, motivated the attack.

     What I am trying to do is make people aware of why people harm Jews, who else they might hate, what other types of racists they might be willing to work with, who they might try to take out next and how they might do it. Additionally, whether there is anything that we can do to make it easier for leftists to understand that the actions of the Israeli army, and a few rabbis who committed some crimes, should not be used to justify distrust of Judaism or hatred of Jewish people.

     I do not mean to say that left-wing anti-Semites need to be held more responsible than right-wing anti-Semites. I am simply saying that left-wing anti-Semites are probably a lot easier to convince to stop hating Jews, than literal Nazis are. That is why I spend more time criticizing left-wing hatred of Jews than right-wing hatred of Jews. Because it's obvious that fascists will never change, but peace-loving secularists who dislike Judaism but don't understand it, might be convinced that the Jewish religion is not out to get them.

     My friend stated that the anti-Semitism described as motivated by Israel's actions, is “not typically the right-wing kind that created this attack, but the left-wing kind.” I agree with my friend completely on this; however, I am still not willing to rule-out the possibility that Israel getting away with bombing Gaza could have been just one of the many negative thoughts about Jewish people that enraged Bowers that week.

     Whether or not Bowers saw the Gaza bombings and thought negatively of Israel because of it, I believe that hatred of Jewish people was not the sole cause of this shooting. The desire to make it harder for refugees to come here and settle comfortably, was obviously at least a secondary motivation, perhaps even the primary motivation. But we have to look at the whole picture: he killed Jewish people in order to try to stop a Jewish group from helping refugees, whether those refugees are Jewish or not.

     In my opinion, it is patently absurd to consider none of these facts, and simply conclude that the shooter being “crazy”, or the shooter hating Jews, explains the whole thing. I would never say that Bowers shot Jewish people because Jewish people are bringing immigrants into the country. What I am saying is that Bowers shot Jewish people because he believes that Jewish people are deliberately trying to bring in a number of immigrants that they know America cannot handle.

     I do not believe that such a number exists; especially not when the United States let eleven refugees come into America from Syria in 2016, when hundreds of thousands of Syrians needed help (after they and their government had undergone years of bombardment by three or four national militaries and two or three terrorist groups vying for control of the area).

     The idea that there are Jewish people in America who have forgotten that their ancestors came here as immigrants – some of them illegally and without proper documentation, which is perfectly justifiable when their home state has collapsed, or succumbed to war or civil war, or has been overtaken by bloodthirsty racists – and still advocate closing the door on the immigrants who are trying to come in after them.

     In my opinion, America is a “city of immigrants”, and discrimination on the basis of national origin is not the American way.

10. Insensitive Israeli Reactions to the Shooting

     I know that what I am about to say might re-ignite suspicion that I wrote this piece solely to attack Jewish people, but I have to more fully explain why I chose to criticize the State of Israel, and the racists who make excuses for its war crimes and atrocities, in the wake of the Tree of Life shooting.

     On October 29^th, 2018 – two days after the shooting – Grayzone Project founder and editor Max Blumenthal published an article entitled “Israel's Far Right Blame 'Leftist' Victims of Pittsburgh Synagogue Massacre”. The subtitle of the article reads, “As Israeli Minister of Education Naftali Bennett sets out to Pittsburgh, prominent members of the governing Likud Party have blamed the Jewish victims of the neo-Nazi massacre 'for causing anti-Semitism'.”

     According to Blumenthal, in the hours after the shooting, a listserv for the Israeli Likud Party (the party of the ruling majority, led by Benjamin Netanyahu) “pumped out talking points”, addressed to “Likud Party ambassadors”, claiming that the shooter “drew inspiration from a left-wing Jewish group that promoted immigration to the U.S. & worked against Trump.” This is evidently a reference to H.I.A.S. (the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society), which Bowers openly criticized on social media.

     To suggest that Bowers “drew inspiration” from H.I.A.S., when he chose his victims specifically because they belonged to a congregation that was associated with H.I.A.S., is like saying that Hitler “drew inspiration” from Jews when he used his hatred of Jews to justify killing them. It's ridiculous and offensive, and it's the last thing that should be said by someone who wants all Jews to agree with them and feel well-represented by them.

     Blumenthal continues his article by explaining that a Likud Party member and so-called “Israeli hate rapper” Shadow (real name Yoav Eliasi) described Robert Bowers, who killed eleven Jews, as “a man fed up with subversive progressive Jewish leftists injecting their sick agendas” into his country. Eliasi also said “HIAS brings in infiltrators that destroy every country. The murder was fed up with people like you [presumably referring to the Jewish people at HIAS]. Jews like you brought the holocaust and now you're causing antisemitism. Stop bringing in hate money from Soros.”

     This echoes, almost exactly, the kind of anti-immigrant sentiments expressed by right-wing white American racists. Eliasi's views seem to parrot talking points from Fox News and the Alex Jones Show. I'm bringing this information to the American public because I want people to understand that not everyone cheering-on attacks of Jewish people hate Jewish people. Some of them are Jewish. But I'll say it again: Those who promote or excuse violence, in the name of religion or nationality or race or anything, have no religion.

     I'm not going to say that Yoav Eliasi is not Jewish. I'm not going to say that the people at Tree of Life or H.I.A.S. aren't Jewish. I'll leave that to Israel's Askhenazic chief rabbi David Lau, an Orthodox rabbi who said in an interview after the shooting, that Tree of Life is “a place with a profound Jewish flavor” or “profound Jewish mark”. Rabbi Lau was subsequently criticized for refusing to say that Tree of Life is a synagogue, especially considering that the congregants were shot while praying to the G-d of Abraham. Benjamin Netanyahu (and others) later corrected him, and confirmed that it is a synagogue.

     While we're on the topic, Orthodox control over “who is a Jew” in Israel, is another thing that concerns many Jewish people. This is because Orthodox rabbis have gotten a reputation of telling other Jewish people that they're not Jewish, or not Jewish enough. This “voluntary separatism” is increasingly becoming less voluntary, and it is a growing source of unease between the various sects and movements of Judaism.

     I hope that my readers will look into the history of the foundation of the State of Israel, and of the political movement of Zionism with emigration to the Holy Land. I believe that if they do this - and consider the views of Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro, Neturei Karta, the Satmar Rebbes Teitelbaum, and Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein – then they will eventually understand that the State of Israel, from the beginning and at its core, is based on the idea that a nation-state can effectively determine what is or is not the Jewish religion, and perhaps even who is and is not a Jew.

     I am not Jewish. But as a student of history, all of this terrifies me. I do not know how to express my empathy for the victims and their families, besides to state that they should arm themselves as soon as possible, and recommend that vulnerable people take up arms to defend themselves in case the police decide that they're not worth their time. I apologize if it is self-aggrandizing of me to pretend that I could ever say anything that could save a Jewish life. But I have to try.

     I do not wish for Jewish people worldwide to present themselves with a single face that is divided. Nor do I want to see all Jewish people represented by an imperialist Jewish supremacist occupier. I would rather have people see Jewish people as individuals, who have no obligation to make excuses for any nation, and have the right to be safe and defend themselves. But I cannot pretend that it is not true that some Jewish people actually do look at other Jews being killed, and think to themselves “they weren't really Jews”, or even “it's OK because they support immigration and they don't want a strong Israel.”

     I believe that the State of Israel, or at least the Likud Party, is trying to make Jewish people all over the world, choose between saving either the State of Israel, the I.D.F., and the occupation of Palestine on the one hand, or else saving the Jewish religion and protecting Jews from being lulled into a false sense of security by Israel and then not protected.

     I hope that the Jewish people in my country are intelligent enough to see that the State of Israel is embracing a white-nationalist distortion – a caricature – of what Jewish culture is supposed to be about, instead of true Judaism. Based on my study of Judaism, I believe that its central moral principles are a belief in G-d, peace, mercy, equality, duty, loyalty, and the idea that oppressing people brings more dishonor and shame than being oppressed.

     I hope that the rest of the 21^st century does not feature a lot of Jews being oppressed. But I also hope that we don't see Jewish people doing the oppressing. Rabbi Yaakov Shapiro says that his study of traditional Jewish values has led him to conclude that Jewish people find it more dishonorable to participate in someone else's oppression, than it is to become the victim of oppression.

     Opportunists might use this to try to claim that Shapiro and I would rather see Jews killed than “a strong Israel” (read: “a brutal, warlike Israel”), but we do not wish to see either scenario happen. Unfortunately, right now, we are seeing both. I have recommended herein how I think that that situation could and should change for the better.

     I apologize again if I have upset anyone with my statements. I do not intend to upset or offend anyone, but to inspire anger and dissatisfaction, and to make people aware of the seriousness of the problems of anti-Jewish violence and threats to the safety of Jewish people. I regret that I was not more precise; I only meant to say that Jewish racists thought they could get away with fomenting racial hatred forever without it coming back to bite Jewish people in the ass.

     I am not rejoicing that the Tree of Life shooting happened. I am a doomsayer and I make negative predictions all the time. I hate being proven right. I apologize if my post sounded like gloating; I was genuinely horrified, but without surprise, so I was unable to pretend that I did not know that Jewish blood would eventually be shed in order to complete the racists' “perfect” nationalist dream (wherein each of the world's 193 countries embrace nativism and ultra-nationalism, and kill or deport everybody who's not exactly like whatever the racist model of the ideal citizen is, which may take hold in their countries during the sweeping xenophobic fervors that will shape their national destinies).

     I am concerned that the Israeli Defense Forces may increase their activities over the holidays, which seems to have been the pattern over the last several years. I suspect that some people will try to use this to justify attacks against Jewish people, as a way to get revenge. I do not condone the Tree of Life shooting, I do not condone any potential copycat attacks, I don't condone attacks against peaceful Jewish people, and I don't condone the use of violence against Jews in order to make a statement about Israeli violence.

     I will not say I condemn these attacks, because to say I have the power to condemn people is to call myself G-d, and I refuse to do that. And that is why I have been hesitant to condemn the attacks, why I have put more focus on urging non-violent Jewish people to arm themselves, and why I am telling people that there are real concentration camps in America and Israel, and that not all Jewish people want to help immigrants and refugees get settled.

     These are sad facts, but they are true, and we have to deal with them if we want to help keep peaceful Jewish people and peaceful immigrants alike safe from attacks against them, whatever the motivations may be.



11. Post-Script

     (added on July 16th, 2021)

     Read the following article, from Israeli media outlet Ha'aretz.com, to learn more about Naftali Bennett (who became the Prime Minister of Israel in 2021):
     http://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-americans-may-never-forgive-israel-for-its-reaction-to-the-pittsburgh-massacre-1.6616617

Written on November 16^th, 2018

Based on Notes Taken Between October 27^th and November 16^th, 2018

Originally Published on November 16th, 2018

Post-Script Added on July 16th, 2021