Trending Topics:

Criticism of Women’s March leaders reminiscent of attacks on Jesse Jackson 30 years ago

Activism
on 38 Comments

Recent criticism of Women’s March activists Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory over accusations of antisemitism have caused a new round of moral panic about left-wing antisemitism. Sarsour, whose anti-Zionism has been well documented and fretted over in major media outlets including the New York Times, has been a target by Zionists and conservatives for years. Mallory has largely avoided the same level of controversy as Sarsour. However, her recent interactions with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan has focused attention on both her and the controversial Nation of Islam leader. Allegations of antisemitism and sanctimonious calls for Women’s March leaders to educate themselves about Farrakhan and denounce him echo attacks on Jesse Jackson three decades ago.   

Jackson first found himself targeted by supporters of Israel in 1979, when United Nations ambassador Andrew Young was forced to resign after it was revealed that he had met with representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organization, which was against American policy. Young was the first African American appointed to the position, and both his appointment and resignation came with much press coverage and analysis. The Young Affair inflamed tensions between American Jews and African Americans, with Jewish groups and intellectuals going on the defensive and arguing that they were unfairly under attack by African Americans angry about Young’s forced resignation.

Neoconservative media such as Commentary and the New Republic used the controversy surrounding the Young firing as proof of systemic changes in the relationship between American Jews and African Americans and blamed the Black community for the tensions between Jews and African Americans that were becoming more strained. The pages of both magazines were filled with accusations of antisemitism mixed with calls for American Jews to support Ronald Reagan for president because, they argued, the Democratic Party no longer supported Jewish interests. Writing about Andrew Young’s ouster from the UN in Commentary in 1979, neoconservative commentator Murray Friedman argued that the reaction by African Americans to Jewish organizations’ efforts to get Young removed was unfair and that African American leaders in the late 1970s were not making a concerted effort to challenge antisemitism in the African American community.

When Jackson visited Israel in September 1979, Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan helped to ensure that he would not be officially received by the Israeli government. This was in direct response to Jackson’s support for Andrew Young in the wake of the PLO controversy. Israeli officials took issue with Jackson calling then Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin a terrorist for his past involvement in the militant right-wing Irgun. Jackson also called Israel a theocracy.

Jesse Jackson’s Presidential campaigns in both 1984 and 1988 were ended in large part due to unfounded accusations of antisemitism stemming from Jackson’s support for increased dialogue with the PLO and his association with Louis Farrakhan. Months before Jackson made his infamous comments where he referred to New York as “hymietown” in an interview that he thought was off the record, a group called Jews Against Jesse Jackson took out an advertisement in the New York Times rallying against Jackson. The ad ran on November 11, 1983. It read, in part, “We believe that Jesse Jackson is a danger to American Jews, the state of Israel and to America itself.”

Jackson also received extensive criticism from Jewish leaders for his association with Black Nationalist leader Louis Farrakhan, whom Jackson finally denounced in June 1984 over Farrakhan’s antisemitic and anti-Israel statements. American Jews not only refused to support Jackson in his efforts to become president, but in many cases, Jewish groups actively worked against Jackson. The attention paid to him by the media during Jesse Jackson’s presidential campaign helped to make Farrakhan a household name. The Nation of Islam was a small and relatively obscure religious group that was most famous for its association with Malcom X, who broke with the Nation shortly before his assassination in 1965. By the early 1990s, Farrakhan was going on national speaking tours. Without being used to attack Jackson, Farrakhan would almost certainly have remained a minor figure.

Supporters of Jesse Jackson believed that the Jewish criticisms of Jesse Jackson were far too harsh. Jackson himself argued this shortly after making the comments, saying that Jewish groups did not take the threats against him by the Jewish Defense League and radical groups. [1] Other supporters of Jackson claimed that it was clear that the harsh reactions from the Jewish community were rooted in continuing resentment towards the Andrew Young affair, signaling that Jewish groups still blamed Jesse Jackson for making them look like they forced Young out of his position as ambassador.

The fallout from Jackson’s 1984 Presidential run lasted for years. By the time that Jackson left the primary contest, his reputation among American Jews was in shambles. He spent the next fours trying to re-build his reputation in the Jewish community by traveling to synagogues, as well as making visits to the sites of European death camps and emphasizing Jewish suffering during the Holocaust.

Jackson’s efforts to mend fences did not help him politically. When he prepared to run again for President in 1988, Jewish Democrats were hesitant to offer their support for his campaign. New York’s Jewish mayor Ed Koch claimed that Jews would be “crazy” to vote for Jackson based on Jackson’s earlier statements as his support for the PLO. Many Jews clearly agreed with Koch’s sentiment and Jackson received only 7 percent of the Jewish vote in the New York Democratic primary. [2]

Polls conducted by the American Jewish Committee in 1988 showed a notable lack of support for Jackson among American Jews. Fifty nine percent of American Jews believed that Jackson was antisemitic versus only ten percent who said he was not. According to the same poll, otherwise liberal Jews would be willing to shift their vote to Republicans if Jackson was elected with a generic Republican beating Jackson 44 to 24 percent with the rest undecided. [3] This number is even more shocking when you consider that American Jews voted predominantly for the Democratic Party since the 1930s.

American Jewish relations with Jesse Jackson over the course of the 1980s show how much the Jewish community was changing. While Jews overall remained liberal, there were clearly defined limits to this liberalism. When African American leaders including Jackson openly voiced their support for the Palestinians, or even the idea that Palestinians exist and should have the right to meet with the United States diplomatically.  By the early 1980s, the state of Israel had become a central tenant to American Jewish identity, and old issues that had defined American Jewish identity for decades, such as support for advancing African American civil rights, were no longer any match for an identification centered on specifically Jewish issues such as Israel.

If the Jewish community’s experiences with Jesse Jackson in the 1980s teaches progressives anything, it should be that accusations of antisemitism can be weaponized to de-legitimize those on the left, especially people of color. Jesse Jackson, Linda Sarsour, and Tamika Mallory all work to make American society more equitable. Forcing them to contend with unfounded accusations of antisemitism functions only to distract from their broader messages and suppress their voices. Accusations of antisemitism against Palestinian solidarity activists have become commonplace, and as campaigns such as the BDS movement grow in strength, Zionist supporters will no doubt continue to use similar tactics to silence challenges to Israeli hegemony over Palestinians. Jewish allies need to learn from the past and be prepared to speak up and not allow unfounded accusations of antisemitism that threaten to derail social justice and solidarity movements to go unchallenged.

Notes

1. Bob Faw and Nancy Skelton “Thunder in America” (Austin, TX: Texas Monthly Press), 1986. 75.

2. Sol Stern “Jesse’s Jews: The Unlikeliest Constituency” The New Republic June 20,1988. P.19.

3. Jews Still Favor Democrats, but Anti-Semitism is a Concern American Jewish Telegraph Agency October 14, 1988

About Eric Morgenson

Eric Morgenson is a PhD candidate in history at the State University of New York at Albany. His dissertation 'The Last Step to Whiteness' studies Jewish involvement in the civil rights movement from the 1950s until the 1980s. He is a monthly columnist for the Activist History Review.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

38 Responses

  1. annie
    annie
    March 22, 2018, 1:56 pm

    thank you Eric Morgenson, very interesting. especially regarding history i have heard about but am not that familiar with — what happened w/jesse jackson and andrew young. i have some other ideas especially wrt that link to the commentary article. but first, a couple questions.

    Supporters of Jesse Jackson believed that the Jewish criticisms of Jesse Jackson were far too harsh. Jackson himself argued this shortly after making the comments, saying that Jewish groups did not take the threats against him by the Jewish Defense League and radical groups. [1]

    do you mean jackson said ‘Jewish groups did not take the threats against him by the Jewish Defense League and radical groups’ seriously?

    When African American leaders including Jackson openly voiced their support for the Palestinians, or even the idea that Palestinians exist and should have the right to meet with the United States diplomatically.

    When African American leaders including Jackson openly voiced their support for the Palestinians, or even the idea that Palestinians exist and should have the right to meet with the United States diplomatically, what happened? it “show how much the Jewish community was changing? ” or it demonstrated “clearly defined limits” to jewish liberalism?

    i just wanted a little more clarity. because friedman’s article opened by distancing american jews (or american jewish groups) from Young’s toppling and implied his resignation was strictly a state dept affair basically divorced from jewish involvement. as i mentioned, i don’t know the history there but i find that almost unfathomable. wouldn’t it be more accurate to assume young was swiftly taken out, or any black leader rigorously opposed by signaling any alignment or sympathy towards palestinians, at least in part by pressure from within the jewish community?

    thanks

  2. Stephen Shenfield
    Stephen Shenfield
    March 22, 2018, 2:04 pm

    Farrakhan had a series of meetings with rabbis of the anti-Zionist Neturei Karta, as a result of which Farrakhan acknowledged that his earlier anti-Semitic position was mistaken and began to distinguish between Jews and Zionists.

    • wondering jew
      wondering jew
      March 22, 2018, 7:06 pm

      Stephen- don’t you think someone whose toxicity towards Jews was so loud and outrageous, doesn’t he have a duty of being just as loud with his repentance?

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        March 22, 2018, 9:34 pm

        And the chief rabbi, yonah?
        And nutty stating black migrants are worse that Sinai terrorists.

        Clean your own filthy house before you comment on others.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        March 23, 2018, 2:49 am

        The chief rabbi sucks. Netanyahu sucks. Farrakhan sucks. Am I okay now, old geezer? Or do you have some more hoops I need to jump through before I’m allowed to comment?

      • March 23, 2018, 9:22 am

        Just one more hoop Yonah – proclaim Zionism sucks too

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        March 23, 2018, 12:33 pm

        ” Or do you have some more hoops I need to jump through before I’m allowed to comment?”

        You gotta jump over men and horses, hoops and garters, and
        lastly through a hogshead of real fire!

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        March 23, 2018, 1:40 pm

        “The chief rabbi sucks. Netanyahu sucks. Farrakhan sucks”

        The whole world sucks.

      • oldgeezer
        oldgeezer
        March 28, 2018, 9:46 pm

        @yonah

        Why the histrionics yonah?

        You know you don’t need my permission to comment. We both know you wouldn’t seek it if you did need my permission.

        The only person you are trying to fool is yourself.

        So drop the act and at the same time be honest with yourself. You are not ok with all people being equal. You are not ok with human rights for all. You are not ok with people being treated the same equally. You are neither liberal nor progressive.

        You’re a squalid small minded tribalist that feels you’re entitled to something others aren’t. You minimize the suffering of the other and maximize that pain of the tribe. The pain of a nuclear state stomping on the heads and necks of the less fortunate. I do know you don’t agree with all they do. I recognize and acknowledge that. But in the end you don’t give a jot of concern for the outright evil that they perpetrate on defenseless civilians.

    • Yitzgood
      Yitzgood
      March 23, 2018, 11:27 am

      Farrakhan had a series of meetings with rabbis of the anti-Zionist Neturei Karta, as a result of which Farrakhan acknowledged that his earlier anti-Semitic position was mistaken and began to distinguish between Jews and Zionists.

      Curious as to whether this is true? I suggest doing a Twitter search on the phrase “Synagogue of Satan.”

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        March 23, 2018, 1:37 pm

        “I suggest doing a Twitter search on the phrase “Synagogue of Satan.”

        It’s what Thelonious would want you to do.

  3. Ossinev
    Ossinev
    March 22, 2018, 2:42 pm

    ” it should be that accusations of antisemitism can be weaponized to de-legitimize those on the left”

    I am sure that I am not the only one out there be it left right centre or all three mixed up but I used to inwardly groan when I heard or read the expression “anti – Semitism” in the context of criticism of Israel.

    Nowadays I just yawn. It is so predictable , so pathetic and so so boring.

  4. wondering jew
    wondering jew
    March 22, 2018, 4:06 pm

    Too bad mw can’t afford an editor. Maybe you meant moral panic, rather than moral manic. Certainly you meant tenets rather than tenants.

    Malcom x was murdered because of the (true) gossip that he spread about the womanizing of “the honorable”elijah muhammad. Farrakhan, faithful disciple, called for malcolm’s death.

    I always assumed that Andy young got a green light from Carter to talk to the plo, but once it came to light, young had to be fired. That’s how the state dept. works. Break the rules and get caught, lose your job.

    Jesse jackson’s 1984 campaign never got off the ground. It’s difficult to tell what role farrakhan’s threat to kill the reporter who reported “hymietown” played in that campaign. Death threats against reporters is low. (Understatement).

    Jesse Jackson’s defeat by dukakis in the NY state primary was pivotal to his loss of the nomination in 88. It was not farrakhan who was key to his defeat, nor koch. It was jackson’s stance on israel. ( ted Kennedy’s defeat of Carter in the 1980 NY state primary was also due to Jewish voters and their support for israel.)

    • March 23, 2018, 9:29 am

      “( ted Kennedy’s defeat of Carter in the 1980 NY state primary was also due to Jewish voters and their support for israel.)”

      Should read – ted Kennedy’s defeat of Carter in the 1980 NY state primary was also due to Jewish voters and their support for Israel and it’s virulent racism towards Palestinians.

    • March 23, 2018, 7:34 pm

      Yonah: ‘Break [State Department] rules and get caught, lose your job.’

      Thank God that’s not the way it works in the real world, right, Yonah? There, your Marc Riches and Jonathan Pollards and Alan Grosses, etc., can knowingly break the rules, get caught, then rely on powerful Jewish groups to scream an injustice has been done, and demand their release.

      For added enjoyment they will send around their poodle Bill Richardson to do their bidding w the promise he’ll (again) be mentioned as a potential vp choice.

    • RoHa
      RoHa
      March 23, 2018, 8:02 pm

      “Certainly you meant tenets rather than tenants.”

      Yonah, have you embraced linguistic pedantry? If so, I’m delighted to welcome you to the True Way.
      Remember, no comma after a subject clause!

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        March 24, 2018, 2:58 am

        Not so fast, RoHa.

        The incriminated passage reads “By the early 1980s, the state of Israel had become a central tenant to American Jewish identity” and I have more than a little trouble imagining a discriminating language user (“linguistic pedant”) applying “tenet” to a goddam state. Feeding or coddling that state would have been OK grammatically albeit repulsive morally. But the material “state of Israel” itself as a tenet? Nah.

        “Tenant” may be unorthodox here but at least it makes sense. “Owner and landlord” would have been much more appropriate. And our very own Reb Fredman doesn’t get his brownie point.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        March 24, 2018, 9:50 am

        echinococcus: “But the material “state of Israel” itself as a tenet? “
        ——————————————-

        Good point. But “tenant” doesn’t work with with the preposition “to” in that construction. So either way it’s bad writing.

      • Keith
        Keith
        March 24, 2018, 11:19 am

        ECHINOCOCCUS- “By the early 1980s, the state of Israel had become a central tenant to American Jewish identity”

        I understand what you are saying and I agree with what you said.

      • echinococcus
        echinococcus
        March 24, 2018, 12:14 pm

        Sibiriak,

        You’re absolutely right but one should never waste an opportunity to state that they aren’t tenants but owners.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        March 24, 2018, 9:18 pm

        Come now, gentlemen. I think that, in context, we can fairly read “the state of Israel” as shorthand for “the desirability of, necessity for, and obligation to support the state of Israel”.
        For my part, I would prefer “tenet for American Jewish identity”.

        However, we should bear in mind that Brother Yohan is but newly Saved, and still a beginner in the Ways of Righteousness. Let us, therefore, rejoice over the sinner who Repenteth, and applaud his early steps out of the destructive darkness and into the Light.

      • wondering jew
        wondering jew
        March 24, 2018, 10:10 pm

        Roha- thanks for the kind words.

    • oldgeezer
      oldgeezer
      March 23, 2018, 9:06 pm

      @yonah

      Absolute understatement. Which is why both the US and Israel are at the bottom of the gutter for threatening and targeting journalists when they feel like it.

  5. Keith
    Keith
    March 23, 2018, 4:51 pm

    ERIC MORGENSON- “Recent criticism of Women’s March activists Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory over accusations of antisemitism have caused a new round of moral panic about left-wing antisemitism.”

    Charging anti-Semitism appears to be the one-size-fits-all weapon of choice to attack those who the Jewish elite wish to discredit. Apparently, it is now claimed to be anti-Semitic to criticize neoliberal globalization and the activities of Geoge Soros. No joke. A quote and a link.

    “Peter Beinart, writing in The Atlantic, explained that “globalist” is “an epithet … a modern-day vessel for a slur” against the Jews, and he linked to a video of Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the ADL, who verified that “the term ‘globalist’ was developed and originated in extremist circles populated by white supremacists” (by which I can only assume he meant the Anti-globalization Movement, which apparently is just a big Nazi front). Eli Rosenberg, in The Washington Post, although allowing that “globalist” can sometimes mean “globalist,” emphasized that, “to some observers of extremism,” it also “speaks to something darker.” Bret Stephens, in The New York Times,couldn’t quite decide whether using the word makes you an official goose-stepping Nazi or just a garden variety anti-Semite. CNN’s Don Lemon, delving into “the ugly history” of the word, explained that “it is shorthand for a worldview based on racism, xenophobia, and anti-Semitism” … the worldview of “far right conspiracy theorists obsessed with prominent Jews like George Soros.” And these are just a few of the many examples.” (C J Hopkins) https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/03/23/then-they-came-for-the-globalists/

    • annie
      annie
      March 23, 2018, 5:49 pm

      keith, i was sort of blown away recently when i found out “globalist” was now off limits according to greenblatt. i thought that’s like crazy, since it means “a person who advocates the interpretation or planning of economic and foreign policy in relation to events and developments throughout the world”. and while i don’t advocate global economic planning (at all!), there’s no way i don’t advocate interpreting foreign policy “in relation to events and developments throughout the world”. i think of a person such as myself as a globalist, certainly in my analysis. but maybe i have just been operating under wrong definitions. either way, i totally resent being informed a term or word is now off limits based on some past reference. crazy!

      and re “Charging anti-Semitism appears to be the one-size-fits-all weapon”, this was my main take away from AJ’s undercover UK sting. the underlying theme (which i wrote about). and since hearing of the still unpublished AJ US undercover lobby sting, someone (maybe ali abunimah i can’t recall) revealing there was a clip in it that said the accusation of anti semitism, as a tool, had lost, or was losing, its usefulness. something about how the US series focused on accusation of anti semitism as a weapon. wish i could recall where i read that.

    • Sibiriak
      Sibiriak
      March 24, 2018, 8:24 am

      Labour fury as it emerges Jeremy Corbyn once defended ‘anti-Semitic’ public mural showing a group of ‘hook-nosed’ men around a Monopoly board

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5538549/Labour-fury-Corbyn-defending-anti-Semitic-public-mural.html

      • Bumblebye
        Bumblebye
        March 24, 2018, 10:04 am

        The Heil sowing hate again, when the truth about Corbyn is so very different:

        https://skwawkbox.org/2018/03/23/corbyns-voting-record-shows-mearone-smear-could-not-be-more-misleading/

        ‘New Left Media’ – a place to find the truth.

      • annie
        annie
        March 24, 2018, 10:46 am

        bumblebye, it seems all hecks breaking loose in the UK today, with this latest smear plus the perfectly justifiable owen smith sacking. check out this old skwawkbox article, spot on https://skwawkbox.org/2017/06/25/6-desperation-tactics-labour-insiders-expect-the-right-to-use-now/

      • Keith
        Keith
        March 24, 2018, 11:02 am

        SIBIRIAK- “Labour fury as it emerges Jeremy Corbyn once defended ‘anti-Semitic’ public mural showing a group of ‘hook-nosed’ men around a Monopoly board”

        Yes, and with the all-seeing eye from US currency in the background. And with what appears to be Third World people being crushed under the weight of Western financial capitalism. And since all of these bankers are white, it is clearly anti-Caucasian! As for the “hook-noses,” that is hardly a unique identifier. Besides, a lot of international bankers and currency speculators (Soros, Singer, etc) ARE Jewish. Are we to hide that fact? Their Jewishness makes them immune to criticism? And why are all of these Jewish groups defending these people? Who even noticed the mural or made the alleged connections? The ongoing vilification of Corbyn as a defender of anti-Semites is a much more serious matter. Between that and the Skripal nerve gas propaganda, Britain has clearly gone off the rails.

      • Bumblebye
        Bumblebye
        March 24, 2018, 12:42 pm

        Annie, I read Skwawkbox daily, so I’ve read the repost today along with a couple more articles re JLM and JVL.

      • annie
        annie
        March 24, 2018, 1:14 pm

        it’s an awesome site bumblebye. i’ve followed them on twitter since i first discovered them about a year ago. it’s sort of mindblowing what’s going on with the labour party in the UK. the attacks on corbyn are unrelenting.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        March 24, 2018, 9:23 pm

        “Their Jewishness makes them immune to criticism?”

        Yes. Haven’t you been paying attention?

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      March 24, 2018, 9:49 pm

      The ‘globalist’ is today’s ‘rootless cosmopolitan’.

      • Citizen
        Citizen
        March 25, 2018, 6:40 am

        Call international bankers & investment groups/ financiers rootless? True, the greenback is cosmopolitan….just don’t expect any to be bohemian or fine artists, eh?

  6. Ossinev
    Ossinev
    March 24, 2018, 2:09 pm

    @Annie
    “it’s sort of mindblowing what’s going on with the labour party in the UK. the attacks on corbyn are unrelenting”

    The dynamics of the electorate here in the UK are very different from elsewhere in Europe and hugely different from the US. Yes there is blatant Zionist Lobbying and political funding , yes there is blatant media imbalance when it comes to coverage of the I/P conflict but it is a drop in the ocean IMHO compared to what goes on in America.

    The UK electorate for example does not have a huge volume of zealous end of days Evangelists blindly supporting Israel .Despite the crap which is fed to them by the likes of the Daily Telegraph (aka Daily Telavivagraph) , the Daily Times (with its phalanx of Zio hacks led by Mad Melanie Phillips) and silly tabloids such as the Daily Mail Britons and especially the young are much more aware of the reality of what Israel is doing and are increasingly sympathetic to the Palestinians. Even the older less well educated generations have memories of family members who as British soldiers and police were murdered by Zionist terrorists during the Mandate period. Additionally IMHO a significant proportion of the UK public resent the Zionist portrayal of the UK as being some sort of hotbed of anti – Semitism especially given the history of Britain`s resistance to Nazism and efforts to save Jews in the lead up to and during WW2 – the Kindertransport/Frank Foley spring to mind.

    The attacks on Corbyn yes are unrelenting but as with Israeli panic vis a vis BDS it is likely because the Israel Firsters in the UK are in panic mode at the very strong possibility (some would say probability ) of Corbyn becoming Prime Minister after the next election with he and his cabinet openly and actively supporting the Palestinians. They are aided and abetted in this by the Tories and the pseudo – Tory Blairites in the Labour Party who simply see the alleged Anti – Semitism card as part of their ongoing weaponry in the fight against a hard left Labour Party.

    • Bumblebye
      Bumblebye
      March 24, 2018, 7:44 pm

      We might not have the evangelical element, but we have a scary number of people following extremist racist US, Aussie and Israeli sites on fb that encourage xenophobia and especially islamophobia. Thankfully ‘Britain First’, Jayda Fransen and Paul Golding have been tossed off the platform, but I’m sure they’ve become martyrs to the cause (many of BFs 2m followers were foreign, btw). From what I bumped into online, their age range ran the gamut from young to late middle age. In the near total absence of UKIP during the GE last year many were actively promoting the tory line – and the tories in turn were actively seeking their votes.
      Online, with the ‘New Left Media’ I have seen stuff that Phil dreams of – in the last 12 to 15 months especially, more critical articles about israel, anger at being tarred with the brush of ‘antisemitism’, and a determination to reject at full strength, that charge. With proof, as per the Skwawkbox article linked above.

  7. Marnie
    Marnie
    March 25, 2018, 7:37 am

    It’s a fiction that jews and african americans have so much in common, a myth. A weapon wielded by zionists to keep african americans in a certain place. There is no way any comparison can be made to the suffering of african americans and the suffering of jews – sorry, the jews don’t and never have had the market on human suffering. That fiction has given some jews the feeling they are entitled to insert themselves into the political lives of african amercans, from their choice of representatives and leaders to who they might show solidarity with. They say ‘do it like this, not like that’. Insisting that the african american jump through rings of fire and never offend the zionist state and what it has done in the past and continues to do to palestinians, who are more brothers and sisters than jews could ever be.

Leave a Reply