Dem
47
GOP
53
Anyone who follows the news is aware of the increase in antisemitic violence this year. The Anti-Defamation League recorded 9,354 such incidents in the United States in 2024, which was an increase of 5% over 2023, and says that the country is on pace for another 5% increase in 2025.
Among the high-profile stories this year are the attack on the home of Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) and the shooting of two Israeli embassy employees in Washington, DC. Over the weekend, there was another one, as a man named Mohamed Sabry Soliman attacked a group of demonstrators marching in support of Israeli hostages held by Hamas, using a homemade flamethrower and shouting "Free Palestine." He had apparently been planning the attack for over a year; he's now been arrested and charged with 12 counts of attempted murder. Thus far, none of the victims has died, though one is reported to be in critical condition.
We have a couple of observations to make, here. To start, here is Donald Trump's statement on the attack:
Yesterday's horrific attack in Boulder, Colorado, WILL NOT BE TOLERATED in the United States of America. He came in through Biden's ridiculous Open Border Policy, which has hurt our Country so badly. He must go out under "TRUMP" Policy. Acts of Terrorism will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law. This is yet another example of why we must keep our Borders SECURE, and deport Illegal, Anti-American Radicals from our Homeland. My heart goes out to the victims of this terrible tragedy, and the Great People of Boulder, Colorado!
And here is Stephen Miller's:
A terror attack was committed in Boulder, Colorado by an illegal alien. He was granted a tourist visa by the Biden Administration and then he illegally overstayed that visa. In response, the Biden Administration gave him a work permit.
Suicidal migration must be fully reversed.
The basic claim is true; the perpetrator of the crimes was an immigrant who overstayed his visa. However, one cannot help but notice that there is zero mention of Jews, antisemitism, or anything in that ballpark. It's all about immigrants and (tacitly) Muslims.
This is a little incongruous for an administration that claims to care so very much about antisemitism, such that it's at war with half a dozen universities right now, on that basis. Tyler Pager, of The New York Times, noticed the incongruity, and in a piece headlined "Trump Talks a Lot About Antisemitism, With a Notable Caveat," he observes:
Many Trump critics argue that the president seems more comfortable combating antisemitism when it dovetails with his broader political objectives—targeting elite universities, cracking down on immigration or fighting with political opponents—than when it involves physically protecting Jews.
That is the polite way to put it. One might even go so far as to say it's the "sanewashing" way to put it (it's borderline, we'd say). Our way of putting it, by contrast, goes something like this (and we've expressed this basic sentiment before): Trump doesn't give a damn about antisemitism; it's just useful cover for his real agenda, which is to stick it to the pointy-headed elite libs, and to undermine educational institutions (which are antithetical to absolutism/fascism).
We must admit, we are not sure if Miller gives a damn about antisemitism. On one hand, he's reportedly an observant Jew. On the other hand, he rarely, if ever, mentions the issue, as his clear focus is his dislike of brown people. Not to lean too much into the scripture today, but here, we cannot help but recall Leviticus 19:34: "The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself." Maybe they did not get to that part when Miller was in Hebrew school.
This brings us to our second observation. There's a fair chance that MIT will get to be the next school on the White House's sh** list, by virtue of the commencement address that President of the Class of 2025 Megha M. Vemuri gave. She submitted the text of her speech to the university, but then delivered a very different address in which she accused the school's leadership of tolerating and enabling a "genocide."
Meanwhile, here is the other side of that same basic equation. CNN entertainer Scott Jennings was on air, as he seems to be roughly 24 hours a day, and he agreed with Trump that what happened in Colorado is a terrorist attack, and that "this Free Palestine movement is nothing more than a domestic terror organization."
Allow us a brief non sequitur before we get to our observation. We're still working on the Joe Biden cancer/dementia piece(s). Note that is now plural; we have enough to say that there will now be a Part III and a Part IV, and possibly a Part V. We want to get it right (or, as right as we can), plus we need to catch up on time-sensitive news. However, one theme of the upcoming pieces (in fact, it's the very first portion of Part III) is that if a person is going to put their words out there, either in written or spoken form, it is our view that they have a responsibility to think about the pros and cons of doing so. What good will come of this? And what harm?
That brings us to today's (second) point. We have written, in the past, about the use of both "terrorist" and "genocide." In those postings, we discussed whether the use of those terms was accurate. Here, however, we raise a different issue: Is using them the right thing to do? Is the good done greater than the harm?
Consider the MIT speech. We've been thinking about it for 2 days, and we still cannot see what positive good Vemuri did. Sure, she can look in the mirror and be proud that she is brave, and that she spoke truth to power. But her actions will have no impact on MIT policy, and may bring retribution from the Trump administration. Meanwhile, some in the audience cheered, others (particularly Jewish and/or Israeli audience members) booed or got up and left. We speak with 100% confidence when we say she changed no hearts, and no minds.
With Jennings, it's even less ambiguous. He's not even pretending to serve some sort of greater good. He's paid to be the "heel" on the network, and to deliver right-wing talking points in the most outlandish manner possible. The more angry calls that CNN gets, the better. He's slurred so many different people and groups as "terrorists" that CNN might as well send an AI Jennings out there on nights like Monday, since they have plenty of footage to craft a "these damn terrorists" deepfake.
But while we struggle to understand what kind of good this emotionally charged, highly judgmental, one-side-is-pure-as-the-driven-snow-and-the-other-side-is-pure-evil language does, we can certainly grasp one very big downside. In a politically charged environment, like the one created by the current administration, such verbiage makes it much easier for things like a shooting of Israeli embassy employees, or the arrest of a Muslim grad student without due process, or an attack on a group of Jewish protesters to happen. And, by the way, the number of attacks on American Muslims was also up about 5% in 2024, and also numbered about 9,000 incidents, and is also on track to jump another 5% or so this year.
Having written this, we are going to get some very strongly worded messages. We are happy to receive critical feedback, and we do not hide (like some members of Congress), so we will even include a reminder that the e-mail address is comments@electoral-vote.com. Please keep it civil. (Z)