Thanks for being a subscriber.
Sorry, your subscription does not include this content.
Please contact your publisher to upgrade your subscription.
Commentary
Robinson: Sorting anti-Zionism from antisemitism
In the wake of ongoing hostilities in the Middle East, a pastor friend asked me to describe the difference between antisemitism and anti-Zionism. As an engaged Jew with twenty years of involvement in our local synagogue, the pastor thought I might be helpful.
Our conversation can be summarized in one question: Can someone be anti-Zionist without being an antisemite? Absolutely, I said, while acknowledging that this is a contested topic within the Jewish community and beyond.
First, a few definitions. Antisemitism is discrimination against or hatred of Jewish people just for being Jewish. It’s been called the oldest hatred. Antisemitism led to genocide during the Holocaust, an event that remains deeply traumatic 80 years later.
Zionism is a political movement, formally launched in the 1890s, to create a Jewish homeland in the Holy Land. This movement succeeded with the founding of the modern state of Israel in 1948.
At that time — when the horrors of the Holocaust were top-of-mind — one of the strongest arguments in favor of Israel was that Jews needed a homeland for safety and self-determination.
Anti-Zionists (some Jews prefer non-Zionists) offer several critiques of Israel as a Jewish state.
The occupation. The first and primary critique focuses on the occupation of Palestinian lands by Israelis and the oppression of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, who have limited freedom and autonomy. Anti-Zionists see Israelis as colonizers. Zionists disagree, viewing the state of Israel as a return to the ancestral lands of the Jews.
Which lands are we talking about? Some anti-Zionists focus on the boundaries created in 1948 with the founding of Israel. Palestinians call this moment the nakba, or catastrophe. Others emphasize Israeli control (occupation) over territories captured in the 1967 war. Many Israeli Jews, especially the religious nationalist settlers, view these territories as legitimately part of Israel. Anti-Zionists do not.
Another layer of complexity: Many pro-Israel diaspora Jews want these Jewish settlements curtailed and that land incorporated into a future Palestinian state.
The risks of religious nationalism. The second critique emphasizes the value of separating church from state. Official national religions lead inevitably to discrimination of religious minorities, fundamentalism, and religious nationalism. We experienced this during the Inquisition; we see it today in Iran, Saudi Arabia, India and other countries.
With the rise of the ultra-religious, ultra-nationalist right wing, which currently leads the government, this is also happening in Israel, where 21% of the citizens are Arab Muslims, Christians, and other religions. Israel is an ever-more religiously intolerant country, even for less-observant Jewish citizens.
The safe haven isn’t safe. This is critique number three. As noted above, Israel was designed to be a safe place for the Jewish community. Nonetheless, many Israeli Jews have bunkers or “safe rooms” in their homes where their children sleep at night. They experience rocket attacks and, in past years, suicide bombings. They are required to serve in the military, putting themselves and their children in harm’s way.
In the diaspora, none of this is true. As American Jews, we face real antisemitic threats — readers will remember the Pittsburgh synagogue massacre — but these threats rarely rise to the level of violence experienced by Israeli Jews. It’s worth noting that, a few generations after the Holocaust, roughly 25,000 Israelis live in Germany. They cite a variety of reasons, but one reason is that they feel safer there.
To be clear, some anti-Zionists are also antisemites who wish harm on Jews just because we are Jews. This is a fact.
On the other hand, there are many “pro-semitic” Jewish people who embrace their identity as Jews yet are non-Zionists. Indeed, they may oppose Israeli policies because of their Jewish beliefs, such as welcoming the stranger and respecting all human life.
In this moment of passionate debate, it’s important to acknowledge the complexity of the situation while honoring the humanity of everyone involved. Let’s not automatically label all critics of Israel as antisemites. Let us also address the persistent and increasing threat of antisemitism.
Andy Robinson serves on the board of Beth Jacob Synagogue in Montpelier. This piece represents his personal perspective. It does not represent the view of the board or the congregation, whose members hold a very diverse mix of opinions on this complex topic.
Commentary
McClaughry: Climate change menace
As the 2024 legislative session approaches, it’s a good time to comprehend the breadth, depth and likely costs of the multiyear campaign to make Vermont the world’s splendid example of bold action to defeat the menace of climate change.
In 2011, Gov. Peter Shumlin decreed Vermont would get 90% of its energy from renewable sources by 2050. Curiously, the Legislature never acted to establish this requirement. Why not? Several years ago, a Senate bill included a ratification of Shumlin’s decree, but it was quietly jettisoned when it occurred to senators that achieving that goal might require billions of taxpayer dollars, which might be poorly received by taxpayers.
Nonetheless, the Democratic Legislature has embarked on a campaign to put the state on the path to reach that goal by 2050 (when none of today’s legislators are likely to still be in office).
The straightforward method for achieving the Shumlin-decreed goal was imposing a carbon tax to make fossil fuels unaffordable. Numerous bills were introduced to levy a carbon tax but the word “tax” set off alarm bells. The climate activists then switched to decreeing energy mandates that the utilities and the fuel dealers would have to meet, with the ultimate costs landing on consumers with no fingerprints that legislators would have to explain.
In 2015, the Legislature enacted Act 59, to create a more stringent Renewable Energy Standard. This measure mandated that electric utilities get 75% of their electricity from “qualified renewables” by 2032, 10% of it from Vermont generation. Now we learn from a Dec. 14 WCAX report that negotiations are nearing completion to amend the RES to require utilities to get 100% of their energy from renewables by 2030, with 20% from Vermont sources.
Vermont utilities are probably not happy about this, but they have one major consolation: the Public Utility Commission, created in 1886 to protect consumers and businesses from higher prices set by monopolies, will cheerfully approve all rate increases sought by utilities forced to buy higher cost, intermittent wind and solar electricity. We know that because Anthony Roisman, the anti-nuclear warrior who chairs the PUC, told us three years ago that Vermont was facing a “Pearl Harbor moment” requiring a “wartime effort” to cope with the growing menace of climate change.
Already proceeding on the climate activists’ agenda is the Clean Heat Standard, enacted over Governor Scott’s veto last spring. In 2025, the PUC will present to the Legislature its final plan for requiring dealers of fuel oil, propane, natural gas and kerosene to buy PUC credits, the cost of which will be passed along to heating fuel consumers.
The motor fuel sector is the largest contributor to Vermont’s carbon dioxide emissions. This was to be dealt with by a multistate Transportation and Climate Initiative. This scheme, like the Clean Heat Standard, would lay a tax on motor fuel at terminals in New York and Massachusetts where most Vermont motor fuel dealers load their product. Vermont motorists would absorb the cost.
Happily, the TCI collapsed in 2021 when the final two supporting governors bailed out. But the Vermont Climate Council is seeking an appropriation next year to hire consultants to explain how Vermont can install its own, disguised, motor fuel tax.
The council also has dozens more recommendations in its action agenda. Few if any of them are in Governor Scott’s agenda, but with super majorities in both House and Senate, the Democratic legislators and their vast Energy Action Network may be able to push through many more costly schemes to defeat the menace of climate change.
How popular are these climate change-fighting programs? In November, Campaign for Vermont scientifically polled Vermonters on a number of emerging issues. With regard to combating climate change, it found 63% of respondents opposed any new tax on home heating fuels, and 57.6% weren’t willing to pay any more at all to finance such a program. On increasing the motor fuel tax, 70.6% opposed and 62.9% weren’t willing to pay any more for it. Are our Democratic legislators listening? (The Republican legislators obviously are. Not a one supports this ambitious agenda.)
Earlier this month, governments met at the Conference of Parties (COP28) in Dubai and, while not agreeing to cut the use of carbon-based fuels, voted to promote a tripling of renewable energy by 2030. Despite all the supportive speeches, no one believes that any more than a handful of the 190+ governments involved will actually achieve that goal or even try all that hard.
But the legislative majority in Montpelier seems to think Vermonters will rejoice at their enactment of a similar agenda, even though it will have no detectable effect on the Earth’s future climate.
John McClaughry writes for the Ethan Allen Institute.
Editorials
Editorial: The Grinch
We’re naming that storm The Grinch.
It messed around with the holidays, but for creating a lot of anxiety and being meddlesome, The Grinch wasn’t unable to ruin much of anything.
That’s a good thing. A very fortunate circumstance, given the potential for destruction.
Consider that according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, on average, one inch of rain is the equivalent of 13 inches of snow. (Although this ratio can vary from 2 inches for sleet to nearly 50 inches for very dry, powdery snow under certain conditions that were not present this week.) Depending upon whom you rely for weather statistics (we are going with the National Weather Service), most of Vermont received about 2.5 inches of rain in the 24-hour period between 8 p.m. Dec. 17 and Dec. 18. That would have been nearly 30-plus inches of snow, or more. While that would have guaranteed a White Christmas, digging out from a snowstorm of that magnitude in the days leading up to a major holiday would have felt downright Grinch-like.
Granted, no one wants to be pumping out basements, or scrambling to fix driveways (and some roads) before temperatures dip below freezing again. The storm provided its challenges, for sure.
Across central Vermont, there also was a psychological factor. The heavy rain — even before it turned to flood stage — was triggering anxiety for many, and probably some Post Traumatic Stress Disorder for many who just got back on their feet following the July storm. (We recognize that there are still families and individuals whose homes sustained such significant damage in the summer storm that they have had to relocate or find other suitable living arrangements for these winter months.)
When it became obvious Monday afternoon that the region was going to hit another flood stage — there was nowhere for the rain and melting snow pack to go — anxiety worsened. We would urge folks who are feeling that trauma and anxiety to be sure to reach out for help and get some proper counseling and care.
Broadcasters on Tuesday morning were using euphemisms like “dodging the bullet.” These weather events are never insignificant. They have a cost, and are not just part of an occasional news cycle. They are serious and scary, even if they do not provide to be catastrophic. We appreciate the governor and his staff coordinating news conferences (during the flooding on Monday and on Tuesday afternoon after floodwaters had receded out of danger zones). Between COVID and weather events, Gov. Phil Scott has perfected his role as commander in care. His legacy probably will not be rooted in his politics but rather in being available in crises (too many of them, frankly) and getting help to Vermonters in need. In some ways, that is better leadership than any political party could afford. (He has spent so much time at podiums, he has not had to actively campaign for governor for three terms now.)
The forecast for the rest of the week (and through the Christmas portion of the holiday season) looks far less Grinch-like. Once the rivers, streams, brooks and creeks get down to more seasonal water levels, we can breathe more easily. But as the last four consecutive Mondays have shown us, weather is fickle and tricky. If you recall, we had a very wet and volatile summer and fall. There is no reason to believe that the precipitation trend is going to turn off at the spigot. We are in a weather pattern that is going to continue to be disruptive at times. And while lots of snow is good for ski areas (especially now that their snowpack got wiped out in a 24-hour period) and other outdoor recreationists, plowing, shoveling, canceled school and missing work can be stressful in many other ways, mostly financial. Mother Nature does not seem to want to keep a balance. We have now seen three major weather events in almost a year. On Dec. 23, 2022, we saw a period of unseasonably warm temperatures give way to high winds and heavy rains that toppled trees and caused flooding, quickly followed by a change in temperature that went from around 60 degrees to minus 10. Then, in early July (and extending for weeks of heavy rains), there was widespread flooding that devastated Barre and Montpelier, as well as other communities across Vermont. It’s only been a few weeks that things have felt “normal.”
It will happen again. The Grinch will be back, almost as if this happens every year now.
In the meantime, we must continue to lift each other up, and provide support through the holiday season. Since many downtowns were spared further trauma (particularly the Granite and Capital cities), let’s show our continued investment in community and finish holiday shopping in local stores that were just fearing for their livelihood again.
Shop local. Feel fortunate. Count blessings. And show the kindness that makes our hearts grow four times every day. But especially on these hard days that are coming far too frequently.
