The Patriotism of the American Jew

Why knowledge, education and historical fact are desperatedly needed today.

"My sympathies are with this brilliant race.Centuries ago its nationality was destroyed in Palestine. It was dispersed over the face of the globe. The laws of almost all nations have discrimminated against it; and yet it has shown such marvelous vitality that it has made for itself a proud place."

Samuel W McCall, House of Representatives on the abrogation of the Russian Treaty, December,1911 

Some 70 years ago my grandmother Jesse Abromson, wife of my maternal grandfather Ben Levy passed away. 

My mother Beverly Roseman Levy -their only child-went to clear out their home as my grandfather moved to live in our home. 

Among my grandmothers belongings was a book presented to, her father, my great grandfather Hyman Abromson in 1929, by the then standing Member of the House of Representatives George Huddleston, entitled: "The Patriotism of the American Jew"  by Samuel W McCall.

Samuel Walker McCall served twenty years (1893–1913) as a member of the United States House of Representatives, and he was elected to be the 47th Governor of Massachusetts, serving three one-year terms (1916–1919). 

Later in life he authored the book "The Patriotism of the American Jew" which was published in 1924.  This book explored the historical and ongoing contributions of Jews to American society and our Jewish strong sense of patriotism. 

The book, revolutionary for its time during the post WWI  "Isolationism Period", marked by a desire to avoid entanglement in European conflicts and a focus on domestic affairs, a national desire that significantly shaped American foreign policy throughout the 1920s and 1930s.

During this period of American history was an Anti-immigrant sentiment, partly fueled by post-WWI anti-European feelings and concerns about economic competition. This period gave rebirth to the largest and most widespread iteration of the Klu Klux Klan. Its revival was significantly influenced by D.W. Griffith's 1915 film "Birth of a Nation," which glorified the original Klan. 

This "second Klan" expanded beyond the South and gained millions of members nationwide, particularly in the Midwest. It broadened its targets to include not only African Americans but also Catholics, Jews, immigrants, and others perceived as threats to "100% Americanism." 

This version of the hate filled Klan wielded significant political power in some areas. Its influence "only" waned by the end of the 1920s due to internal strife, public exposure of its violence, and changing societal attitudes.

American isolationism in the post-WWI era also had a profound and often devastating impact on Jewish communities, particularly in the context of the rise of fascisim and rising antisemitism in Europe. 

This period was characterized by restrictive immigration policies, public xenophobia, and a reluctance to intervene in international affairs, all of which limited the ability of the United States to offer refuge and aid to Jews facing persecution.

In light of the "Wave of Isolationism", Samuel W. McCall argued in his book "The Patriotism of the American Jew" published in 1924. That Jewish Americans have consistently demonstrated their loyalty and commitment to the United States while also maintaining connections to their cultural and religious heritage, particularly their relationship with Israel. 

McCall writes of  the historical and ongoing contributions of Jewish individuals to American society and how Jews have consistently demonstrated their loyalty and commitment to the United States while also maintaining connections to their cultural and religious heritage, particularly their relationship with Israel. 

The book highlighted how Jews have been involved in American history since its founding, participating in the Revolutionary War and how Jewish Americans have actively participated in civic life, military service, and various social movements, contributing to the nation's progress and development. 

The book addresses the common misconception of dual loyalty, arguing that Jewish Americans' connection to Israel does not diminish their patriotism towards the United States. 

The book emphasized that the Jewish connection to Israel is rooted in cultural, historical, and religious ties, which are natural expressions of identity and heritage, not a conflict of loyalty. 

"The Patriotism of the American Jew" serves as a testament to the rich history of Jewish contributions to American society and challenges any notions of conflicting loyalties. 

Furthermore, It underscored the idea that one can be both a proud American while being deeply connected to our Jewish heritage and Israel.

William Shakespeare and Shylock

As a retired English teacher who once, some 50 odd years ago, wrote a dissertation regarding the antisemitism found in Shakespeares portrayal of Shylock in the Merchant of Venice. I wanted to clarify for those who skipped English Literature lessons.

I wish to re emphasize the effect of the reformation and the Catholic versus Protestant conflict of the era and how there were NO schools for the middle and lower classes so theatrical plays were just not plays at this period in History but were written to teach virtue and morality.

William Shakespeare was born in Stratford-upon-Avon in the year 1564, the exact date of his birth is unknown.

Shakespeare is often referred to as England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon" (referring to his birthplace on the River Avon) as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist
His father, John Shakespeare, was a successful glove-maker and alderman.
He married Anne Hathaway in 1582, and they had three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith.

Shakespeare began his career in London as an actor and playwright, rising to prominence in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. He was a founding member and shareholder of the Lord Chamberlain's Men (later renamed The King's Men under King James I), one of the most successful theatre companies of its time.

Shakespeare wrote approximately 38 plays, including comedies, tragedies, and histories.

Some of his most famous plays include:

• Tragedies: Hamlet, Macbeth, Othello, King Lear, Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar
• Comedies: A Midsummer Night's Dream, Much Ado About Nothing, Twelfth Night, The Merchant of Venice, As You Like It
• Histories: Richard III, Henry IV (Parts 1 & 2), Henry V

He also wrote numerous sonnets and narrative poems.

Shakespeare's works are renowned for their profound exploration of the human condition, their rich language, and their enduring relevance. He coined many words and phrases that are still in use today, significantly impacting the English language.
His plays are performed and studied more often than those of any other playwright in history, and his influence on literature, theatre, and culture is immense.

Shakespeare died on April 23, 1616, in Stratford-upon-Avon, at the age of 52, and was buried in Holy Trinity Church.

Regarding "Shylock"

As I mentioned in my previous post,(on Facebook). Readers or those who see the play, need to understand and comprehend the playwright and the time period (pre 1600) and place where it was written and for WHOM it was written.
Those who know and understand fully the History of Elizabetan era England, know that the period was deeply shapened by the religious upheavals of the Reformation.

Only those knowledgeable of the Era can fully understand the gest of the famous high dramaticly charged soliloquy by Shylock in Act 3 Scene 1, of "The Merchant of Venice". The speech is spoken in termnology that was intended for those of the lower class audience members to understand. Shakespeare was a genius in his ability to craft language that resonated with all levels of society.

While England was officially Protestant, under Elizabeth I, the memory of Catholicism was still fresh, and religious identity was intensely scrutinized.

Having been massacred, in 1290 in York, England and those who remained expelled. Jews were NOT officially readmitted until the 17th century.

This absence, from Christian English society, paradoxically, often fueled misconceptions and reinforced negative stereotypes inherited from centuries of European anti-Judaism, particularly from Christian theological perspectives that often demonized Jews as "Christ-killers" or figures of usury.

The play, therefore, operates within a society where anti-Jewish sentiment was very prevalent and largely unchallenged.

Shylock's soliloquy uses relatively straightforward, visceral language to articulate his humanity and his suffering:

"Hath not a Jew eyes? Hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions?" These are universal human attributes.

"Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is?" These are common human experiences.

"If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?" These are direct, undeniable physiological reactions.

This directness ensured that even the groundlings, those lower class uneducated Englishmen and women standing in the pit of the Globe, could grasp the fundamental assertion of shared humanity, even if their societal prejudices might still lead them to condemn Shylock.

While entertainment was certainly a goal, the function of theatre in Elizabethan England plays often served didactic purposes.
They explored moral dilemmas, showcased the consequences of various actions, and reinforced societal values (or, in some cases, subtly challenged them).

The Merchant of Venice can be seen as engaging with questions of justice, mercy, revenge, and the nature of prejudice.

The portrayal of Shylock as a Jewish moneylender, while undeniably problematic from a modern perspective, can be argued to have, perhaps unintentionally, revealed the hypocrisy and cruelty inherent in the treatment of outsiders, even as it played into existing stereotypes.

The "virtue" being taught in the play might have been Christian mercy, which is intentionally contrasted with the "Pound of Flesh" "vengeance" demanded by Shylock.
In his plays, Shakespeare masterfully wove together social commentary, historical context, and accessible language to create a powerful and enduring piece of theatre.

Therefore the "full gist" of Shylock's soliloquy truly does lie in understanding the specific cultural and religious landscape of Elizabethan England, and the function of theatre within that society.

The creation of the USA and the Jews

To begin with, one must note that the Jewish communities in colonial America and the early United States were small and primarily concentrated in port cities like; New York (New Amsterdam), Newport, Philadelphia, Charleston, and Savannah.

Several Jewish communities established synagogues (like Touro Synagogue in Newport, Mikveh Israel in Philadelphia, and Kahal Kadosh Beth Elohim in Charleston), which served not only as houses of worship but also as vital community centers, providing social and religious functions. 

These institutions atypically reinforced Jewish identity while also demonstrating their commitment to establishing permanent roots in the new nation.

Before the revolutionary period, the vast majority of Jewish communities were comprized largely of Sephardic Jews, many of the early arrivals were those who fled the Inquistion in Spain and Portugal. Many of these "wandering Jews"-a Nation of people who were refugees from their land, had previously fled to the Netherlands, Brazil, and the West Indies, followed only later by Ashkenazi Jews from Germany and England.

Early Jewish communities actively challenged discriminatory laws and practices that limited their rights, such as restrictions on voting or holding public office. 

Asser Levy in New Amsterdam (later New York) famously fought for the right of Jews to serve guard duty and be admitted as Burghers in the mid-17th century, setting an early precedent for equal rights.

Levy was the first Jew to "officially" own a house in North America.  As early as 1661, he purchased real estate in Fort Orange; he was also the earliest Jewish owner of real estate in New York City, his transactions there commencing in June 1662 with the purchase of land on South William Street. 

Within ten years of his arrival Levy had become a man of consequence, and when, in 1664, the wealthiest inhabitants were summoned to lend the city money for fortifications against the English, he was the only Jew among them: he lent the city 100 florins.

His Christian fellow citizens had in his honesty appears frequently from the court records. Property in litigation was put into his custody; he is named as executor in the wills of Christian merchants, and figures as both administrator and trustee in colonial records. His influence was not confined to New York; in the colonial records of Connecticut he appears as intervening to obtain the remission of a fine imposed upon a Jew there. The court remitted the fine with the comment that it did so "as a token of its respect to the said Mr. Asser Levy." 

As a distinct religious minority in a predominantly Protestant society, Jews often found themselves at the forefront of the fight for religious freedom. Their presence and their desire for equal rights pushed the Founding Fathers to articulate and implement broader principles of religious liberty than might otherwise have been the case.

Despite their small numbers, Jews played an active role in the economic life of the colonies as merchants and traders. 

They also largely supported the Patriot cause during the American Revolution particularly in demonstrating and advocating for the principles of religious liberty and in offering financial and logistical support to the Patriot cause.

Many Jews served in the Continental Army and local militias. While exact figures are hard to ascertain,it has been estimated that approximately 100 Jews fought in the Revolutionary War.

Some of the most noteable Jews during the Revolutionary War period: 

Perhaps the most famous Jewish contributor to the creation of the USA was, Haym Salomon who was a Polish-born Jewish financier and broker in Philadelphia. who ould count the first president, George Washington, among his friends. 

It documented that he loaned hundreds of thousands of dollars to the revolutionary cause – millions in today’s dollars.

 

It is also well documented that he would make private loans to prominent statesmen and historical figures like James Madison, Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe. Sources differ, saying he either charged them no interest or interest well below market rates.

He became a crucial financial agent for the Continental Congress during the Revolutionary War.

• He helped convert French loans into hard currency.
• He brokered large donations to the Patriot cause.
• He provided personal loans to prominent statesmen like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson (often without charging interest), helping them stay in public service.
• His efforts were vital in securing the funds needed to conduct the war and operate the government in its immediate aftermath. It's often said that he died penniless due to his extensive financial sacrifices for the cause.

Francis Salvador was an early and prominent Jewish Patriot. He was the first Jew elected to public office in the colonies (South Carolina Assembly) and is considered the first Jew to die fighting for American independence, killed in an ambush by Loyalists and Cherokee Indians in 1776.

Mordecai Sheftall was a prominent revolutionary leader from Savannah, Georgia, who served as the head of the local revolutionary committee and later as Deputy Commissary General for Federal troops, responsible for provisioning soldiers. He and his son were captured and imprisoned by the British.

Isaac Moses of Philadelphia, was a Jewish ship owner, who outfitted privateers to disrupt British shipping and engaged in blockade running to supply the Continental forces with vital provisions.

Let us take heed and hote those views of the "founding fathers":

John Adams:

 Adams often expressed high praise for the Jews and their historical impact, calling them "the most glorious nation that ever inhabited the earth" and acknowledging their profound influence on civilization. He even expressed proto-Zionist sentiments, hoping for the return of Jews to their homeland in Israel. However, it's also noted that Adams, like many Enlightenment thinkers, harbored the expectation that Jews would eventually assimilate or even "convert" to a more "liberal Unitarian Christian" perspective.

Thomas Jefferson:

Jefferson was a strong advocate for the "wall of separation between church and state," a principle that greatly benefited Jews by ensuring religious freedom. However, in private correspondence, Jefferson also expressed some belittling views of Judaism as a faith, accusing it of having a "degrading and injurious" understanding of God that "needed reformation." This highlights the distinction between their political ideals of religious liberty and their personal theological views.

Benjamin Franklin: 

While a fraudulent document (the "Franklin Prophecy") later attempted to portray him as anti-semite. Documented historical evidence suggests Franklin generally advocated for religious tolerance and inclusivity. It is documented that he donated to help Philadelphia's oldest formal Jewish congregation

The most famous "landmark statemen", and most powerful articulation of the nation's commitment to religious pluralism of the Founding Fathers' vision for religious freedom, was George Washington's Letter in response, to the "Hebrew Congregation" of the Touro Synagogue (1790) in Newport, Rhode Island.

Washington wrote:

"It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support."

He added, "May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid."

Washington's words moved beyond the European concept of "toleration" (which implied that a majority religion merely permitted others to exist) to a declaration of inherent natural rights for all citizens, regardless of their faith.

In conclusion : 

While no Jews signed the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, due to their small numbers and the nascent stage of full political integration, their active participation and the principles they embodied played a crucial role in shaping the American experiment. 

Their contributions, particularly in the realm of financial support and their insistence on full religious liberty, directly influenced the unique American framework that separated church and state and guaranteed freedoms that were revolutionary for their time. 

Their contributions, can be witnessed in the historical documentation the U.S. Founding Fathers, which were inspired and driven by the ideals of Enlightenment and practical considerations for forming a diverse nation. These consideratons laid the groundwork for unprecedented religious freedom for Jews in America. 

While some still held personal theological reservations about Judaism as a faith, their public pronouncements and the constitutional framework they established ensured that Jews would be treated as full citizens with equal rights, rather than merely "tolerated." 

This commitment to religious liberty was a radical and transformative aspect of the American founding.

Due Diligence relaying the truth

As I have frequently stated I so dislike those po-Israel people who in their rush to write they do not do "Due Diligence" and verify the truth of what they say or PUBLISH! 

Many of those I chastised for their mistakes think of me as an cantankerous old coot.

As a truthful historian one must relay truth, as a JOURNALIST, one must maintain journalist integrity-by doing "Due Diligence" which regretfully is a thing of the past.

By relaying incorrect or false information it merely plays into the arsenal of mendaciousl lies of the backers of the "Landless refugee decendants of the eunuchs of the Great Nachba".

In the latest email from David Lange -Israellycool he posted an article by Lloyd Masel:

"Why Nixon Helped Israel in 1973: A Promise To His Mother".

This incorrect and un documented assertion that President Nixon  aided Israel in 1973 primarily because of a promise to his mother is not supported by historical evidence. (Bovine Excrement)

Richard Nixon's personal sentiments and background are often discussed in relation to his presidency but here is ABSOLUTELY NO historical evidence to support this statement!

Historians and analyses of the Yom Kippur War and Nixon's foreign policy point , instead point out several key geopolitical and strategic motivations for the massive U.S. airlift of military supplies (known as Operation Nickel Grass) to Israel:

Cold War Proxy Conflict: 

The most significant factor was the Cold War. The Soviet Union was heavily arming and supporting Egypt and Syria. A decisive Arab victory, especially with Soviet backing, would have greatly enhanced Soviet influence in the Middle East and been a major strategic blow to the U.S. and its position against communism. Nixon and Kissinger saw the conflict as a proxy war between the superpowers.

Preventing Israel's Defeat (and Potential Nuclear Escalation): 

Israel suffered significant initial losses. There were credible fears that if the tide of the war didn't turn, Israel might face a catastrophic defeat, potentially even leading to a desperate use of its undeclared nuclear capabilities. Nixon was determined to prevent Israel's collapse.

Leverage for Peace Talks: 

Nixon and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger believed that an Israeli victory, or at least a strong negotiating position, would be necessary to bring about meaningful peace talks between Israel and the Arab states. They aimed to establish a new diplomatic order in the Middle East that would be favorable to U.S. interests.

Maintaining U.S. Credibility:

 As an ally, the U.S. had a vested interest in demonstrating its commitment to Israel. Abandoning Israel in its hour of need would have severely damaged U.S. credibility with allies worldwide.

Avoiding Another Geopolitical Disaster: 

The Nixon administration was still heavily dealing with the aftermath of Vietnam. They wanted to avoid another prolonged and costly military quagmire, but also to prevent a situation that could escalate directly into a U.S.-Soviet confrontation.

While Nixon's personal views on Jews and Israel have been complex and at times contradictory (with some evidence of anti-Semitic remarks in private), his decision-making during the Yom Kippur War was overwhelmingly driven by strategic national interests within the context of the Cold War. There is no widely accepted historical account that attributes his decision to a promise made to his mother.FACT!!

Lloyd Masel also stated in the article  "Prime Minister Golda Meir was in a state of shock." is not correct.

When I had made aliyah in 1974 I was fortunate to meet and speak with Golda and as I once contributed to Wikkipedia I wrote:

"In the days leading up to the Yom Kippur War, Israeli intelligence could not conclusively determine that an attack was imminent. However, on 5 October 1973, Meir received information that Syrian forces were massing on the Golan Heights. She was alarmed by the reports, and believed that the situation was similar to what preceded the Six-Day War. However, her advisers counseled her not to worry, saying they would have adequate notice before any war broke out. This made sense at the time; after the Six Day War, most in the Israeli intelligence community considered the Arabs unprepared to launch another attack.

Consequently, although the Knesset passed a resolution granting her power to demand a full-scale call-up of the military (instead of the typical cabinet decision), Meir did not mobilize Israel's forces early. Soon, though, the threat of war became very clear. Six hours before the outbreak of hostilities, Meir met with Minister of Defense Moshe Dayan and General David Elazar. While Dayan continued to argue that war was unlikely and favored calling up the air force and only two divisions, Elazar advocated full-scale army mobilization and the launch of a full-scale preemptive strike on Syrian forces. "

On October 6, Meir approved full-scale mobilizing but rejected a preemptive strike, citing concerns that Israel might be perceived as initiating hostilities, which would hurt Israel's access to crucial foreign aid and military support, in particular from the United States, in the resulting conflict. 

Take special not of this:

She made it a priority to inform Washington of her decision. U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger later confirmed Meir's assessment by stating that if Israel had launched a preemptive strike, Israel would not have received the backing of the United States." 

Lloyd Masel also blithely states: 

"Israel, with less than 200 tanks facing an enemy with 1400 tanks was totally ill-equipped to counter an onslaught of this magnitude."

As a historian and IDF veteran I wish to correct the article with the true facts!!!

In October 1973, at the outbreak of the Yom Kippur War, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) had a diverse tank inventory, primarily consisting of modernized Western-made tanks.

The main types of tanks in the IDF's possession were:

Centurion tanks (Sho't): 

These British-made main battle tanks were heavily modified by Israel, receiving a new powerpack (Continental AVDS-1790-2A diesel engine and Allison CD850-6 transmission) and a 105mm L7 gun. These upgraded versions were known as "Sho't Kal" (Alef, Bet, Gimel, Dalet sub-variants). The Sho't Meteor, an earlier upgrade with the original Rolls-Royce Meteor engine but also armed with the 105mm gun, also saw some combat. By the start of the war, 293 Centurion tanks were operational.

M48 Patton (Magach-3): 

These American-made tanks were upgraded by Israel, primarily by replacing their original 90mm gun with the 105mm L7 gun and receiving other improvements such as new engines and transmissions. These were known as "Magach-3."

M60/M60A1 Patton (Magach-6): 

Newer American-made tanks that were also in Israeli service, sometimes referred to as "Magach-6."

In terms of numbers, documented sources indicate that Israel had approximately 540 of the modified M48A3 (Magach-3) and M60A1 (Magach-6) tanks at the beginning of the war. 

For Centurions, 293 were operational. 

While older Sherman variants (M-50 and M-51, sometimes referred to as "Super Shermans") had largely been replaced in regular units, they were still used by reserve units on both the Sinai and Golan Heights fronts during the Yom Kippur War. TRUE DOCUMENTED FACTS!

An Iranian-American attorney Elica Le Bon speaks out.

Who is Elica Le Bon (الیکا‌ ل بن)?

Elica Le Bon is an Iranian-American attorney, artist, activist, and speaker. She was born and raised in London, UK, and later moved to Los Angeles to attend law school. She initially worked as a criminal defense attorney, but has since developed a second career in activism.

Le Bon is known for her advocacy surrounding human rights in Iran and the wider Middle East. She has gained a significant following on social media, using her platform to raise awareness about the Iranian people's struggles and to combat misinformation. She is particularly outspoken against the Iranian regime and radical Islam.

She has appeared on various news programs and podcasts, including Piers Morgan, Dr. Phil, MSNBC, Fox News, and News Nation. Her activism has led to her losing friends and having family members' lives put at risk due to her views. Despite this, she continues to speak out, stating she feels a "sense of responsibility" to defend Israel and fight against what she sees as a dangerous alliance between Islamist and leftist forces in the Western world.

Elica recently wrote:

"Let me tell you why I decided that yesterday's appearance on Piers Morgan, alongside Dave Smith, would be my last.

First, I had spent the past couple of months being so emotionally exhausted and above that, genuinely devastated by Dave Smith's online rhetoric. 

It's hard to describe how much his words have hurt me, alongside millions of Iranians, and millions of Jews and Middle Eastern people. 

He repeatedly downplayed the brutality and threat of the Islamic regime in Iran, insisting over and over again "Iran (the regime) is not the threat, the U.S. government is the threat."

The overwhelming majority of 90 million Iranians know this line very well. It is the same propaganda of "anti-western imperialism," used as a red herring, that convinced them to take to the streets in '79 and bring in the Ayatollahs. 

Following that mistake, they realized this line, this rhetoric, this propaganda was complicit in one of the biggest heists of our time. 

For the past 45 years, Iranian intellectuals--both inside and outside of Iran--have exhausted themselves to try and demonstrate to the world how this type of commentary is not just a red herring, but it leads to the collapse of society, as it did for us. 

Imagine how exhausting and painful it is to try and explain the contours of this to the world, only to have people who discovered the Middle East yesterday insist we don't understand it.

After #October7, not just Dave Smith, but many westerners who had no familiarity with the reality of this type of propaganda were thrust to the spotlight by regurgitating these same appealing lines, having no idea who manufactured this rhetoric and to what end.

Societies who have been touched by the finger of death, be it under socialist utopias or jihadist domination--Iranians, Israelis/Jews, Venezuelans, Cubans, Yemenis, Afghans, Syrians, Iraqis, Lebanese, Russians, Chinese, even many Gazans, and more--understand where these talking points begin and end.

That considered, what the post-October 7th discourse has revealed is that much of the untouched western world has become so indoctrinated by the disinformation of these bad actors--who they can't even begin to understand the inner workings of--that conversations become futile. 

These conversations become more about "winning" to those whose only investment is being right, which inevitably means losing for those whose investment is survival.

So when Piers' team reached out to me to join the conversation, I'll admit that I did actually ask to debate Dave Smith. The thing is, though, a part of me inside was screaming, "don't."

Don't do it. This man is not here to listen to you, he is here to talk over you. 

He is not here to understand Iran, and the sentiments of millions of Iranians who do not support his advocacy for "diplomacy deals" that have proved fatal to them (quite literally, by enriching the machinery used to massacre them), but to insist that his out-of-touch perspective of Iran, without knowing an iota of the long history that brought us here from the Iranian perspective, is truth.

The whole "anti-war" line has been used by the regime's lobbyists for decades, the same one Dave Smith insists on now. 

Even court documents revealed correspondence between the regime and its U.S. based lobbyists in pushing this co-ordinated propaganda effort--which they admitted to intentionally aiming at naive western anti-war activists as their "easiest targets"--to induce diplomacy deals that line their coffers with hundreds of billions. 

The only true anti-war perspective is the one of millions of Iranians who have for decades asked not to platform this regime to the point of an inevitable military confrontation. 

But how could outsiders who aren't listening know this?

I'll be honest, as soon as that conversation began, I was already defeated. As soon as the opening line was Pies reciting how much I think Dave Smith's talking points are garbage (I do, but that's obviously not how you start a fruitful conversation, that's how you egg on a cat fight) I knew I made the wrong decision.

I knew I would be taunted, pushed, and agitated, not just because I have to contend with somebody who possesses an illicit amount of confidence and arrogance despite standing on the outside of our collective sentiment, but because the conversation was clearly never intended to bring him, nor the world, closer to truth. 

This is why you should always listen to your gut instinct, and I'm disappointed in myself that I failed my instinct on this occasion.

At this point, coming closer to the truth will not happen through debates. Why? because it isn't facts people don't have, its context. Underneath the thin layer of easily accessible facts, there exists oceans of context that escape people who have never swam in our waters. 

Dave Smith well never, not for as long as he lives, know how much he has hurt us. 

These conversations will never bring the world closer to truth.

Truth will come to light, as it always does, but it will happen not by attacking the darkness, but through shining the light. 

Eventually, enough people will shine the light of truth until every corner of darkness is dispelled.

So even though I won't be engaging in these reality TV style debates, I will continue speaking where people are interested in listening, and that have a chance of moving the needle closer to truth. 

Until then, we may continue to face the abuse, attacks, hate, and ostracization from the masses lingering in the dark, but in the words of Ricky Gervais, "your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer."

John Adams the Zionist

As a historian I like to clarify some posts I have seen. Regarding President John Adams 

John Adams held a complex and generally respectful view of the Hebrews, as evident in his correspondence with Thomas Jefferson. 

While he, like many "enlightened" Christians of his era, saw Judaism as anachronistic and hoped for the conversion of Jews to Christianity, he also deeply venerated the ancient Hebrews and acknowledged their profound historical contributions.

Here are some key points from his letters to Jefferson regarding the Jews -"Hebrews" whom he labelled:

     "The most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth".

In an 1808 letter (not directly to Jefferson, but referenced in resources about their correspondence), Adams expressed strong admiration, stating:

"How is it possible [that Voltaire] should represent the Hebrews in such a contemptible light? They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited this Earth. The Romans and their Empire were but a Bauble in comparison of the Jews. They have given religion to three quarters of the Globe and have influenced the affairs of Mankind more, and more happily, than any other Nation ancient or modern." 

This quote of his highlights his profound respect for the historical impact of the Jews (Hebrews) , particularly in the realm of religion.

Adams viewed the Jews-"Hebrews" as having laid the foundation for Christianity: by enunciating monotheism. 

He saw Abraham as having given religion not only to the Hebrews but also to Christians and Muslims.

In a letter from February-March 1814, Adams mentions reading  Joseph Priestley's, "A Comparison of the Institutions of Moses with those of the Hindoos and other Ancient Nations"  published in 1799. He notes that Priestley: 

"proved the superiority of the Hebrews to the Hindoos, as they appear in the Gentoo Laws and Institutes of Menu." 

This suggests Adams agreed with the idea of the Jews (Hebrews) possessing a more advanced or significant institutional framework.

Adams believed that Jews deserved rights and protection under the law, seeing them as worthy of respect by virtue of their historic contributions and citizenship.

Remarkably, Adams later in life even expressed pro-Zionist views in later correspondence (after his presidency), stating in a letter (acknowledging a gift from Mordecai Manuel Noah) in 1819, 

"I really wish the Jews again in Judea an independent nation." 

The two most powerful active and enterprizing Nations that ever existed are now contending with Us. 

The two Nations to whom Mankind are under more obligations for the Progress of Science and Civilization, than to any others except that of the Jews / Hebrews. 

This consideration affects me more than the danger from either Bolingbroke's religious skepticism or that of Voltaire's.

I excepted the Jews "Hebrews",  I strongly disagreed with Bolingbroke's religious skepticism and his disparagement of the Bible and the Hebrews "in Spight of Bolingbroke,". Which is a direct reference to Henry St. John, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke (1678–1751), a prominent English politician, statesman, and philosopher of the Enlightenment era who was a leading figure among the English Deists. Deism, broadly speaking, believed in a God who created the universe but does not intervene in its daily workings (a "watchmaker God").

In his quote Adams believed Voltaire presented the Hebrews in a sordid "contemptible light".

Voltaire was vehemently against organized religion, especially what he saw as the irrationality and superstition of Christianity. Since Christianity was founded upon Judaism, he often attacked Judaism as a way to undermine Christianity:

“The Jews are an ignorant and barbarous people, who have long united the most sordid avarice with the most detestable superstition and the most invincible hatred for every people by whom they are tolerated and enriched.”  

Voltaire frequently employed common European antisemitic stereotypes of his time, particularly concerning avarice and usury, projecting negative aspects of emerging commercial society onto Jews.

Voltaire often expressed a deep-seated contempt beyond religious criticism, for the Jewish people as a distinct "race" or culture, believing them to be inherently flawed and unchangeable.

John Adams directly challenged the negative views propagated by Voltaire; 

"I will insist that the Hebrews have done more to civilize Men than any other Nation. If I were an Atheist and believed in blind eternal Fate, I should Still believe that Fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential Instrument for civilizing the Nations." 

If I were an Atheist of the other Sect, who believe or pretend to believe that all is ordered by Chance, I Should believe that Chance had ordered the Jews to preserve and propagate, to all Mankind the Doctrine of a Supreme intelligent wise, almighty Sovereign of the Universe, which I believe to be the great essential..."

His rationale, however, was partly driven by a hope that "once restored to an independent government and no longer persecuted they [the Jews] would soon wear away some of the asperities and peculiarities of their character and possibly in time become liberal Unitarian christians."

In summary, John Adams held the ancient Jews "Hebrews" in high esteem for their historical and religious contributions, considering them a foundational people for monotheistic traditions. While his views on contemporary Judaism were tinged with the common prejudices of his time (hoping for conversion), his admiration for their past achievements and his belief in their fundamental rights were notable.

Islam and Terrorism Facts

 As a historian and fact checker allow me relay some pertinent information to many who are uninformed of truth and facts.

First of all  The world's population is estimated to be over 8.2 billion as of mid-2025. Of this   Muslims make up approximately 24.1% of the global population, totaling an estimated 2 billion people.

As to Arab -Muslim extremism -mainly that which is aimed against Israel-we can readily see that there are many Muslims who do not support "terrorism". In fact, several Muslim-majority countries have established diplomatic relations with Israel, indicating a more moderate stance and a willingness to engage in peace and cooperation. These countries generally fall into two categories: those who signed peace treaties decades ago, and those who have normalized relations more recently through the Abraham Accords.

Countries with Established Peace Treaties:

• Egypt (1979): The first Arab nation to sign a peace treaty with Israel (Camp David Accords). They maintain full diplomatic relations and security cooperation.
• Jordan (1994): Signed a peace treaty with Israel, establishing diplomatic ties and cooperation on various issues, particularly water resources.

Countries that Normalized Relations through the Abraham Accords (starting in 2020): brokered by the United States, marked a significant shift in regional dynamics.

• United Arab Emirates (UAE): Has rapidly developed robust economic, technological, and tourism ties with Israel since normalization.
• Bahrain: Also a Gulf nation, Bahrain has established strong diplomatic and security relations with Israel.
• Morocco: Re-established full diplomatic relations with Israel, building on historical ties between Moroccan Jews and the kingdom.
• Sudan: While Sudan signed a normalization agreement, the process has faced some internal challenges due to political instability.

Other "Notable Mentions":

• Turkey: Though Turkey was the first Muslim-majority country to recognize Israel in 1949. Relations have fluctuated over the years but generally maintain a level of diplomatic and economic engagement.
• Azerbaijan: A secular, Muslim-majority country that has long maintained strong strategic and economic ties with Israel, particularly in energy and defense.
• Kosovo: A Muslim-majority country that established diplomatic relations with Israel in 2021.

It's important to note that the term "moderate" can be interpreted differently, and relations between these countries and Israel can still be influenced by regional events, particularly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, these nations have made the strategic decision to normalize or maintain ties with Israel.

The "Terrorism in Islam" phenomenon is not inherent to Islam itself, but rather a dangerous pathology rooted in the manipulation of religious doctrine by a fringe element for clear political and ideological objectives by a small, extremist minority like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, etc., There leaders twist religious texts and concepts to justify violence for political or ideological aims. Here are the major Global Jihadist Networks and their Affiliates:

Al-Qaeda (AQ): Ideology: Founded by Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda seeks to establish a global Islamic caliphate by overthrowing what it perceives as corrupt, Western-backed regimes in Muslim-majority countries and expelling Western influence from the Middle East. They prioritize attacks on the "far enemy" (the United States and its allies) to weaken their support for "near enemy" (local governments). Their ideology is rooted in a radical interpretation of Salafi-jihadism.

Area of Operation: Historically active globally, with core leadership largely diminished but strong affiliates in various regions.

Key Affiliates:

• Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP): Yemen-based, known for sophisticated bomb plots targeting aviation.
• Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM): Operates across North Africa and the Sahel region.
• Al-Shabaab: Somalia-based, seeks to overthrow the Somali government and establish a strict Islamic state.
• Jamaat Nusrat al-Islam wal Muslimeen (JNIM): A coalition of Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups primarily active in the Sahel (Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger).
• Al-Nusra Front (now Hayat Tahrir al-Sham - HTS): While HTS has somewhat distanced itself from overt Al-Qaeda ties and focused on local governance in Idlib, Syria, its origins are as Al-Qaeda's Syrian branch.

 Islamic State (IS), also known as ISIS/ISIL/Daesh:

Ideology: A successor to Al-Qaeda in Iraq, ISIS is even more extreme and brutal. It declared a "caliphate" in parts of Iraq and Syria in 2014, demanding allegiance from Muslims worldwide. Its ideology is characterized by extreme takfir (excommunication of other Muslims as infidels), sectarian violence (especially against Shias), and a literalist, apocalyptic interpretation of Islamic texts. They prioritize controlling territory and establishing governance.

Area of Operation: While its territorial caliphate in Iraq and Syria has been largely dismantled, it maintains active insurgencies and has a global network of affiliates.

Key Affiliates (Provinces - Wilayats):

• Islamic State - Khorasan Province (ISK or ISIS-K): Active in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and increasingly targeting Iran and Russia.
• Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP): Dominant in parts of Nigeria and the Lake Chad Basin, having eclipsed Boko Haram in some areas.
• Islamic State - Sinai Province: Active in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula.
• Other smaller affiliates/cells exist in various countries, including parts of Africa (e.g., Mozambique, Congo), Southeast Asia, and Europe.

Other Notable Groups (some with varying degrees of direct "terrorist" designation depending on the country):

Boko Haram: Nigeria-based, seeks to establish an Islamic state in Nigeria and reject Western education. While historically independent, a faction split off to become ISWAP.

The Taliban: Afghanistan-based. While it now controls Afghanistan and presents itself as a governing authority, it was a designated terrorist group and maintains strong ties with Al-Qaeda. Its ideology is based on a strict and often brutal interpretation of Islamic law.

Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP): The Pakistani Taliban, separate from the Afghan Taliban, aims to overthrow the Pakistani government and impose its version of Sharia law.

Hamas: A Palestinian Sunni-Islamist fundamentalist organization. It has both a political wing and an armed wing (Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades). Its stated goal is the liberation of Palestine and the establishment of an Islamic state. It is designated as a terrorist organization by many Western countries.

Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ): Another Palestinian Islamist militant group, even more hardline than Hamas, also committed to the destruction of Israel and the establishment of an Islamic state in Palestine. It is also widely designated as a terrorist organization.

Hezbollah: A Lebanese Shia Islamist political party and militant group. It is heavily backed by Iran. While it operates as a political party in Lebanon, its armed wing is designated as a terrorist organization by many countries due to its history of attacks and ongoing involvement in regional conflicts.

Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG): Philippines-based, a smaller, more fractured group with factions that have pledged allegiance to ISIS, known for kidnappings, bombings, and extortions in the southern Philippines.

It is worthwhile to note that the primary victims of "Islamist" terrorism are often other Muslims as has been seen in the bloody civil war in Syria and Iraq. These groups frequently target civilians in Muslim-majority countries, killing far more Muslims than non-Muslims, further underscoring their deviance from mainstream Islamic values.

Extreme Interpretation of Religious Texts (Quran and Hadith) by certain Imans contribute to their behavior as they utilize selective and decontextualized Readings.

Extremists often isolate specific verses (e.g., the "sword verses") from the Quran, ignoring the historical context of their revelation or other verses that promote peace, justice, and proportionality.  Extremists have redefined the term "jihad" as a perpetual, offensive holy war against anyone they deem an "enemy of Islam," including other Muslims who disagree with them. They claim it is an individual obligation (fard 'ayn) for every Muslim, bypassing legitimate religious or political authority, and use it to justify indiscriminate violence, including suicide bombings. 

Abrogation (Naskh): Some extremist interpretations claim that later "more militant" verses abrogate or override earlier, more peaceful ones, justifying offensive warfare. Mainstream Islamic scholarship largely rejects this broad application of abrogation.

Misinterpretation of Jihad: The concept of "jihad" (which literally means "struggle" or "exertion") is central. While mainstream Islam emphasizes the "greater jihad" as an internal spiritual struggle against sin and the "lesser jihad" as defensive warfare, extremists reinterpret it as a perpetual, offensive holy war against non-believers and "apostate" Muslims. They often claim it's an individual obligation (fard ayn) for all Muslims, rather than a collective one (fard kifaya) to be waged under legitimate authority.

Takfir (Excommunication):

This is the practice of declaring other Muslims as kafirs (disbelievers or infidels). Extremist groups use takfir to justify violence against those they deem not "true" Muslims, including mainstream Muslims, government officials, or even entire societies who do not adhere to their rigid interpretation of Islam. This act of excommunication then allows them to justify killing those Muslims, arguing they are no longer part of the Ummah (global Muslim community) and have forfeited their right to life under Islamic law. Thereby denying them the protections typically afforded within Islamic law.

The establishment of a Caliphate/Islamic State:

Many extremist groups believe in the necessity of establishing a global Islamic caliphate or a strict Islamic state governed by their interpretation of Sharia law. They see the current political order as illegitimate and strive to overthrow it through violent means.

Anti-Western and Anti-Modern Sentiments:

These groups often reject Western influence, democracy, and secularism, viewing them as corrupting forces against true Islam. They advocate for a return to what they perceive as the "pure" early Islamic society.

They often use grievances related to perceived Western aggression, occupation of Muslim lands, or support for "apostate" regimes to recruit and justify their actions.

Exclusivism and Intolerance:

Extremist ideologies are characterized by an intolerant and exclusivist worldview, believing that only their specific interpretation of Islam is correct and that all others are misguided or enemies of God. This can lead to hatred and violence against religious minorities, other Muslim sects, and anyone who doesn't conform to their narrow view.

Martyrdom (shahada-Istishhad):

Martyrdom (shahada) is highly revered in Islam, typically referring to dying while defending one's faith or community, or in pursuit of justice, often through conventional warfare or unjust persecution.

Extremist groups manipulate and glorify "martyrdom operations" (suicide attacks), promising immense rewards in the afterlife for those who die while committing acts of violence in their cause. This incentive plays a significant role in motivating individuals to carry out terrorist acts.

While extremists cloister their violence in religious rhetoric, their underlying motivations are often deeply political and ideological.

Establishment of a Global Caliphate/Islamic State: 

A primary goal for groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda is to overthrow existing governments (both Muslim and non-Muslim) and establish a global caliphate governed by their specific, rigid, and often brutal interpretation of Sharia law.

"Resistance" to Perceived Western Influence: 

Many groups are fueled by a narrative of resisting Western "aggression," "occupation," or "cultural imperialism" in Muslim lands. They exploit legitimate grievances (e.g., foreign policy issues, historical injustices) to recruit and justify their violence as a form of liberation or defense.

Overthrowing "Apostate" Regimes: 

They often target Muslim governments and leaders whom they deem illegitimate or "apostate" for not adhering to their extremist version of Islam, or for being allied with Western powers.

Socio-Political Discontent: Extremist ideologies can tap into feelings of marginalization, injustice, poverty, and lack of opportunity, especially among disenfranchised youth, offering a distorted sense of purpose, belonging, and power.

Power and Control:

 Ultimately, these groups seek to establish and wield power, imposing their will through fear and violence, rather than through religious devotion alone.