Acknowledging the Obvious: My Elder of Ziyon Weekly Column


The Elder was kind enough to publish my latest Sunday column entitled, simply, Betrayal.

Here is a snippet:

The progressive-left, and the grassroots / netroots of the Democratic Party, has betrayed its Jewish constituency through its acceptance of anti-Semitic anti-Zionism, and the BDS movement, as part of its larger coalition.

This betrayal is a symptom of the undermining of progressive-left values due to the ascendancy of the multicultural ideal over that of universal human rights within the heart of the western progressive movement and of the Democratic Party in the United States and the West, more generally.

The undermining of universal human rights as a core value within the progressive movement led also to the betrayal of women, the betrayal of Gay people, and the betrayal of Christians throughout Islamic regions of dominance, particularly in the Middle East and Africa, but also in Europe.

This is, of course, my central thesis and one that I need to continue to flesh out.

In any case, many thanks to the Elder of Ziyon and I hope that you guys will go over there and read the rest.


Michael Lumish is the editor of Israel Thrives.

Check Also

Yes, truly, Israel is not Canada- Opinion

We, like you, treasure democracy, humaneness, justice, and civil and human rights. We are not …


  1. Leon Poddebsky

    The self-styled “progressive/liberal/leftist people” “of Jewish background” are emerging as the modern secular equivalent of the ancient Paul of Tarsus and his followers; and their influence, like Paul’s, is toxic for the Jewish People.

  2. There is a case to build on account oh human rights issues being hijacked by specific interest groups. Obviously, the attractiveness within the larger ethical gambit of “rights” pertaining to humans is based on the universality in terms of “application”. In this case, one needs to argue whether the rights of the targeted Jews/Zionists are any different to those who claim that the same Jews/Zionists are in breach of the intended and “properly” interpreted notions advanced.

    Where extrapolated and perversed, the space allocated by “indulgence” by the opposite camp is void . Thus, this approach of fundamentals is a tenuous one, often leading to dead ends. Their strategy is precisely not to allow the development of counter-argument, the establishment of a monologue whereby one, the attacking side, the “originator” of the claim, may occupy singularly the platform.

    This is NOT to say that we, for instance, cannot embrace the notion of “human rights” for fear of dismissal out of hand.It only means that, by approaching the issues from a fundamental stance we delay, if not frustrate into oblivion, the main issues, all, actually, intimately related to, you guessed, human rights.

    Unfortunately, concrete evidence has been gathered in historical terms. These historical data cries to be revealed in such a fashion as to eliminate any tactic of divergence by farcical ethical demagogy.

    Considering that the general audience is not inclined to purist academic ex catedra pronouncements,our job is far more mundane, as much as I find myself more often paining for a little “sophisticated” palaver.
    Otherwise the “GEWALT!!!” insert of , I suppose, a concerned Michael pix at the top, fits EVERYTHING he has made himself known for…..

    • Yup.

      “Their strategy is precisely not to allow the development of counter-argument, the establishment of a monologue whereby one, the attacking side, the “originator” of the claim, may occupy singularly the platform.”

      Which is precisely why pro-Israel speakers are shouted down on American university campuses.

      And then they call the shouting down, itself, “free speech.”

  3. I guess , all I wanted to say was: Let’s use to buggeries that adorable SELF EVIDENT!

  4. Liked….I shall look to balance on Elders of Ziyon.

  5. Michael, let’s call it ” rhetorical perversity”.
    Now, the job we hve is to put together tactics which will counteract effectively the farcical game of obfuscating the truth.
    The mistaken conceit of the academic administrators, for instance, is that the campus would have to reflect the dynamics of “society” at a level decisive in terms of the “idea enterprise” in a manner not just realistic, but as a place of leadership, of “intellectual creativity”. Within this context, we, dedicated Zionists may NOT expect “reasonable” minds to automatically be on our side. I was brought up by my Mother in particular to consider any , the slightest, gesture of disagreement with my persona as an expression of antisemitism. My Father’s profile taught me that Jews are capable of detracting from their traditional “functions”,. Thus, we are now encountering the kinds of Michael Lumish, Shirlee Finn as well as the NIF type, all of us part of the same tribe.As about “reasonable” mitzrim, they reckon that they are …reasonable by allowing almost any form of criticism of the traditional Jew to be aired. Their majestic cover is called “democracy”. Can we really oppose it !!!