Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is not an antisemite. But Jews should not be blamed for believing he is. There have been too many accusations hurled at the Democratic presidential candidate to expect the Jewish community to thoroughly investigate each one.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

But for those Jews whose interests align with RFK in other areas, such as regulatory capture, health freedom, and the fight against big tech-government collusion and corruption, determining the accuracy of such a serious allegation is obligatory. Many have taken the time to dig deeper into RFK's seemingly distasteful comparisons to the Holocaust, his support for Sirhan Sirhan's parole, his bizarre association with Louis Farrakhan, his praise of Roger Waters, and his latest alleged assertion that Jews were largely spared from the "ethnically-targeted" COVID-19 virus.

As is usually the case, this kind of investigation reveals far more substance than reported by the mainstream media. Ultimately, the characterization of Robert Kennedy as an antisemite lacks merit. He is, to be clear, guilty of a lack of sensitivity and subtlety, but has no masked tendencies or malicious intent when it comes to the Jews. In fact, he has been their ardent champion.

Yet Jews on both the left and right are convinced of the contrary. Take, for instance, the case of Sirhan Sirhan, the Palestinian convicted of murdering RFK's father because of the latter's pro-Israel politics. At least, this is the CIA's official version of events. RFK, however, insists that Sirhan is innocent, a belief that distresses Zionist Jews who, troublingly and uncharacteristically, view this through the lens of identity politics. Sirhan is an anti-Zionist. RFK supports him. Ergo, RFK must be an anti-Zionist. But RFK, an attorney himself, approaches his father's murder from the facts in question, consistent with his data-based iconoclasm in other areas, such as his challenging the conventional narrative that JFK was murdered by a communist sympathizer. RFK has long maintained that, in fact, Lee Harvey Oswald was a CIA operative, a position now becoming more prevalent since documents surrounding the assassination have been declassified.

Similarly, RFK has dived deep into the ballistic evidence surrounding his father's murder and wrote a compelling article in 2021 for the San Francisco Chronicle laying out the facts of the case hidden by the CIA, which reveal that Sirhan could not have pulled the trigger that ended RFK Sr.'s life. Sirhan may have abhorrent views about the Jewish state, but RFK's defense of him has nothing to do with those views. His defense is based on the principled belief that someone should not be convicted of a crime they did not commit.

RFK's inclination to question institutional truths and accepted verdicts have relegated him, in certain aspects, to the fringe of society and, as a result, he has ended up rubbing elbows with others on the fringe as well. Some of these figures, like RFK himself, do not deserve to be there. Others, like Louis Farrakhan and Roger Waters, have firmly earned their place. Kennedy immediately disavowed both when becoming aware of their flagrant Jew hatred.

But why did RFK meet with Farrakhan in the first place? As one member of the Jewish community remarked, "You have to be living under a rock to not know the Nation of Islam is antisemitic." Here is where the background substance would be narrative-busting for an agenda-driven, nuance-lacking, cherry-picking media. RFK admits that he did have a vague idea that Farrakhan was a dishonorable character, though not to the extent he's since been made aware of. But he had answered a call from the Nation of Islam to speak at an event because he was driven by the prime interest and professional focus of communicating the dangers associated with a certain type of flu vaccine that is disproportionately administered in Black communities to children. RFK's decision to attend the event was motivated by the immediate necessity to protect a population. When pressed by Jewish activist Dov Hikind in a recent interview on whether he would do it again, RFK spoke honestly and vulnerably, saying that while he would certainly not take pictures with Farrakhan nor form any relationship with NOI members, he could not say for certain whether he would reject the invitation without further consideration.

What is clear from RFK's answer is that he speaks from the heart and is not trying to buy votes by telling the public what they want to hear. He struggles with the tortuous task of hierarchizing conflicting values in morally ambiguous situations. And while a popular figure such as RFK should not be associating on the public stage with hate mongers like Farrakhan, the larger issue, and subtle choices he has to make in such a difficult situation, are lost on his detractors. If what is at stake here really is the physical health of a minority sub-group, and a Nation of Islam executive asked RFK to enlighten hundreds of thousands in the community in order to mitigate harm to its youth, wouldn't it be just as morally irresponsible for RFK to reject the opportunity to do so? Good doctors don't choose which lives to save based on the patient's worthiness in their eyes, because their oath is to preserve life, regardless of the individual.

Most recently, at an informal press event in Manhattan, RFK cited a study as proof of concept of the danger of bioweapons and the possibility of sinister actors using them to ethnically target opposition groups. Our scientific technology is already so sophisticated, argued RFK, that we can detect how certain viruses disparately affect populations. He pointed to a Cleveland Clinic NIH study that showed how COVID-19 was, for example, less harmful to the Chinese and Ashkenazi Jews, among other groups, due to ACE-2 receptors and TMPRSS2. Do any of us doubt that totalitarian governments would not weaponize such findings?

Critics of RFK pointed out that the paper he cited was from 2020, early on in the pandemic, and that the paper itself admits that because it didn't actually look at which groups ended up getting COVID, its findings cannot be confirmed without further studies. In retrospect, says RFK, he regrets referencing the study at all.

But the media spun these innocent, off-the-record comments into a conspiratorial assertion that COVID-19 was deliberately targeted to spare the Jews. Although the media clearly got this wrong, the question remains: Why did RFK feel the need to mention Jews at all? There were many more groups less impacted by the virus that the study referenced, including Latinos, the Finnish, the Amish, and South Asians. It is understandable that he listed the Chinese, given that the virus originated in China. But why single out the Jews? Was this a Freudian slip? A window into his unconscious mind? It could be coincidental, but that begs the question: Why always the Jews?

The reality is that RFK did not just mention the Jews. But the clip that circulated in the media was edited to show only the part of the conversation in which RFK cites Ashkenazi Jews and the Chinese. Perhaps, under the pressure of that specific moment, to illustrate his point, mentioning Jews was the easiest, most obvious grab for RFK because, unfortunately, defaulting to Jews is an age-old allowable pattern in society. None of us have the refined awareness to monitor each ripple of our human frailties. RFK, part of the collective mind, falls back on quick, often unconsidered analogies in the flow of communication. It is pragmatic, though often not the best choice, which he has since acknowledged. When there's too much information available, it becomes overwhelming and impossible to sort, so we often resort to what is most relevant. It's as if someone named Jackie spelled out her name and said, "J – as in 'Jew.'" When hundreds of words are flooding through our head, a heuristic must choose one out of the deluge.

This possibility could also account for RFK's previous comparisons to the Holocaust. It's understandable that Jews would have a visceral defensive reaction to such comparisons. But there has to be an ability to distinguish between errant use of language related to the Holocaust and a disguised antisemitic motive, which is absent in the case of RFK. Further digging into RFK's invocation of Anne Frank, for example, unearths its scandalous decontextualization by the legacy media and activist groups. Though his wording was, once again, far from perfect, the point he was making is prescient: In a time of widespread surveillance comprised of biomedical technology, contact tracing, digital currencies, and social credit systems, none of us will be able to escape should our governments come looking for us. If the Holocaust happened today, said RFK, Anne Frank could not have gone into hiding, which is what makes this particular period in history so alarming. Is this statement antisemitic? No.

Recently, RFK was invited to participate in a session with the Zionist Organization of America, where its President, Mort Klein, confronted RFK with tough questions regarding each incident of alleged antisemitism. RFK's transparency was admirable. His explanations cleared the deck of any legitimacy to his detractors' claims. But Jews who are concerned primarily about antisemitism have never truly taken the time to listen to his explanations, deciding instead that there are simply too many off-color, idiosyncratic slip-ups that would serve to nullify him.

But in the case of RFK, it is imperative that we avoid participating in the grave sin of lashon harah, (the spreading of false rumors) and inaccurately mislabeling what RFK stands for. Those who are critical of him must bring the same type of critical thinking as they do with reporting and coverage of Israel to other issues. They must not be ready to fall in line and succumb to media hype because doing so means sacrificing one of the few vital allies we currently have in the Democratic party. RFK's unwavering commitment to Israel as a Jewish state is sincere and integral to his political values. His knowledge of Jewish history and peoplehood is impressive. He has condemned congressional members of his party as antisemites and has decried the Soviet-influenced anti-Zionism within his camp. He disapproves of Biden's carrot-and-stick threats to Israel, opposes the Iran deal, and supports Israel's every move to defend itself against its existential enemies, which he acknowledges includes the Palestinian Authority (PA). He believes the Israeli Defense Forces to be the most ethical army in the world and understands the long history of Palestinian rejectionism and the incredible concessions that Israeli leaders, both on the left and the right, have offered in exchange for peace. He maintains that Israel is held to an unfair double standard not expected of any other nation and recognizes that "from the river to the sea" is an antisemitic dog whistle and thus an illegitimate basis for conversation. While he would prefer some degree of land for peace, he recognizes this is an idealistic pipe dream as long as Palestinian leadership denies Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, targets civilians with rockets, and pays its people to murder innocent Jews. And he says confidently, despite the furious backlash from his party, that a Palestinian state has never existed and, in fact, the very name "Palestine" is an imperialist invention of the Roman Empire meant to punish its Jewish inhabitants.

Since he made the courageous choice to step out of the prevailing orthodoxy on particularly controversial issues and forge his path, the mainstream media, democratic establishment, special interest groups, and corporate stakeholders have been determined to censure, malign, and misrepresent RFK at every turn. Now, as a presidential candidate, RFK poses a similar type of threat to the political class that Trump posed. Despite amassing great wealth and being born into the elite class, he has willingly chosen to be an outsider by shining a light on the unholy, totalitarian convergence between the federal government and big tech, big pharma, and the nonprofit sector. No matter the attacks on him, his courage does not appear to be corruptible. He is a man of virtue who is not afraid to question the consensus and push the envelope to arrive at the hidden truth.

Still, RFK must be more thoughtful when it comes to these issues because language matters. There is no comparison to an event like the Holocaust because the mere juxtaposition invalidates the depth of the suffering perpetrated and demeans innocent victims. RFK's unconditional support of the Jewish people is trivialized in the face of such reckless comparisons.

And with regard to speaking at a Nation of Islam event, one hopes that should another invitation be extended to him RFK would send someone in his stead if for no other reason than this: Now that he is running for President, he is more than a message. He is a symbol. He cannot afford to be naïve and overlook a person's unseemly characteristics or a group's long history with antisemitism or bigotry because he aligns with them on certain issues. This is a matter of refinement and tact.

RFK must tap into his inner mensch if he wants to have a chance to reverse the knee-jerk resistance from the Jewish community. Likewise, it's time for the Jewish community to look closely at the full scope of RFK.

Karys Rhea is the associate producer of "American Thought Leaders" at The Epoch Times. She also works with the Jewish Leadership Project and Baste Records.

Daniella Bloom is the National Ambassador of JEXIT (Jews Exiting the Democrats Party). She is also a licensed psychotherapist, author, keynote speaker, and mother of three.

This article was first published by the Jewish Journal.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Who is RFK Jr.? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

After news broke that former President Donald Trump carelessly dined with both Ye and avowed holocaust denier Nick Fuentes at Mar-A-Lago, Ben Shapiro, who has been outspoken about his support for Ron DeSantis should the Florida governor run for president in 2024, was quick to voice his disgust. "A good way not to accidentally dine with a vile racist and antisemite you don't know is not to dine with a vile racist and antisemite you do know," Shapiro posted, setting off a back-and-forth Twitter squabble between the defamed rapper and Daily Wire executives that had me reaching for the popcorn.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

No doubt, Trump's meeting deserves public condemnation. But it's unfortunate that Shapiro can see the splinter in Trump's eye and not the log in his own. Shapiro coming down on Trump for associating with antisemites rings hypocritical in the face of his absence to do just that as his colleague, Candace Owens, continues to prattle on regularly about Ye being her "friend." Waving Owen's defense of an antisemite, presumably because of a shared, mutual interest says much more about Shapiro's character than Trump's dinner says about him.

According to a recent article by Dennis Prager, Owen's former boss, Owens is wrongly being smeared as an antisemite. Prager provides a laundry list of evidence that points to her allegiance with the Jewish people and her support of the Jewish state. But that woman who Prager stands behind has been nowhere to be found this past month. And after Ye's embrace of Fuentes, Dennis should ask himself some tough questions about her. That Shapiro and Prager refuse to publicly identify the brute that she has become on this issue not only has former supporters wondering if they are suffering from a mercenary conflict of interest but if they, like the ADL's Jonathan Greenblatt and other establishment Jewish leaders, have become so comfortable in their untouchable elite status, that they are now detached from the harsh realities of hatred their fellow Jews face every day on the streets of New York and Los Angeles.

If Shapiro and Prager honestly respected Ms. Owens, they would hold her to a higher standard, the standard that both the Daily Wire and Prager U profess to hold all people to. And certainly, the standard that Shapiro is currently holding Trump to. And no, this does not mean firing her, but it does mean straightening out their priorities by taking her to task for her concrete thinking and moral failings. What a fantastic exercise in free speech that would be, would it not?

Pointing out Trump's unacceptable behavior has little appeal when it is clearly a self-serving attack. The arrows should be slung at Shapiro for continuing to overlook Owen's trivialization of antisemitism and shuffling it under the counter, thereby making room for Jew-hatred at the conservative table. From Karl Marx to the Catholic church and Luther's Protestantism, antisemitism has been embedded in the fabric of western society for thousands of years. Jewish conservatives need to remember that once they start excusing those who downgrade antisemitism, they've opened the door for their supposed allies to become the very white nationalists or extreme Christians that the left characterizes them as. There has to be a line they will not cross.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Trivializing antisemitism based on politics appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

As terror attacks rip through the Jewish state of Israel, claiming the lives of over a dozen innocent civilians in the last three weeks, one thing is clear: Israel's political decision makers are failing its people. The government's incompetency in addressing last summer's riots in Lod and other Arab-Israeli towns, its refusal to confront the radical mosques proliferating in small villages in the West Bank and Israel's northern triangle, its disregard for the tens or possibly hundreds of thousands of illegal Israeli firearms that land in the hands of Arabs, and turning a blind eye to the tens of thousands of Palestinians who continue to cross through the border fence daily, have together set the stage for us to arrive at this painful point.

Israel's current parliament is a gutless disgrace of leadership, but the former government shares the blame for putting Israel's imminent homeland security crisis on the backburner. Though former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu paid lip service to the predicament of 400,000 illegal weapons, the vast majority of which are circulating in Arab communities, he did little to counter the problem. In recent years, there's been a surge in violence on Arab streets, where residents are killing each other at alarming rates. It is not difficult to spot the connection between the thin presence of law enforcement in these areas due to an unwillingness of authorities to undertake the daunting task of confiscating illegal weapons and last May's riots during the war in Gaza, in which the vulnerable country saw an unprecedented vigilante response unleashed by its Arab citizens across the cities of Lod, Ramle, Jaffa, Haifa and Acre.

At the same time, Netanyahu looked askance as the Negev Bedouin population was being infiltrated by ISIS from the Sinai border. Yet, security forces were apparently taken by surprise, when, on March 22, an Israeli citizen from the Bedouin community of Hura who was publicly outspoken about his support of ISIS and had spent four years in prison for attempting to join the terrorist outfit, went on a murderous rampage and killed four civilians. The flagrant truth is that a good portion of the Israeli-Arab citizenry has sympathy or allegiance for the Muslim Brotherhood and other fundamentalist Islamist factions. They are not merely preaching in mosques throughout the West Bank, but in Israel proper as well. There are roughly 1.8 million Arabs in Israel, the majority decent, law-abiding citizens, but even if a low estimate of 10% has been radicalized, that is 180,000 existential ticking bombs that Israel should be confronting. And while no celebrations have taken place in Israel praising the recent terror attacks – unlike in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories – a civil war is not unimaginable in the near future.

Then there are those tens of thousands of Palestinians who have been crossing the border from the West Bank, many to work illegally in Israel. Israel's security apparatus and intelligence agencies are well aware of these crossover entry points, yet they continue to allow the breach. Enter Diaa hamarsheh and Ra'ad Fathi Hazem: two Palestinian terrorists in their twenties from the West Bank who trespassed into Israel unlawfully and carried out deadly shooting attacks on March 29 and April 7, respectively, killing eight people, including two Ukrainian nationals.

Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has been held hostage by his own coalition, unable to take dramatic action because the left-wing Arab Ra'am party would dissolve the government. It should be obvious that forming an alliance with an Arab party like Ra'am restricts the government's freedom to look after the interests of state security. It appears as if Israel's authorities are just now reacting decisively, announcing this week that they will address the gaps in the security barrier and will construct 25 more miles of barrier along the Green Line. But with such coalition constraints, what can this government truly achieve? How uncompromising and thorough can it be in its determination to protect national security given the political alliances in place? With the imminent possibility that this government will collapse, one can only hope the next coalition will prioritize the safety of their citizens.

The ruling coalition has also been reluctant to act because it is scared of inflaming an uprising in the West Bank. To be sure, the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), which is a unit of the Defense Ministry, the administrative arm of the government in the West Bank, plays a substantial role in this and adds an important dimension to this story. COGAT has deliberately ignored illegal Arab building of West Bank roads and schools, digging of wells, and development of olive fields and vineyards. COGAT's ambiguous relationship to the issues of security in the West Bank is sadly motivated by a left-wing ideology that does not believe Judea and Samara should be a part of Israel to begin with. Consequently, its officials choose not to enforce their laws and much that is set forth in the Oslo Accords, a mutually agreed-upon treaty between the Palestinians and Israelis, which prohibits Palestinians from building in Area C. Yet Palestinians have since erected thousands of illegal structures and have grabbed large swaths of agricultural land in this region, quadrupling its Arab population in the process. They have done so under a synchronized initiative called the "Fayyad Plan," which aims to unilaterally seize as much territory as possible in Area C in order to create facts on the ground.

COGAT'S laissez-faire attitude to what amounts to an egregious and blatant infringement of the Accords is the same laxity reflected in the behavior of the ruling coalition, who have chosen to remain ambiguous in an effort to appease the Palestinian Authority rather than put focus on an inflexible policy of national security. The refusal to take a clear-cut stand and assume a principled position toward the security of Israel's population has now landed the country in a terrible mess of heartbreaking proportions. Israeli society is overrun with enemies who wish nothing less than to inflict a second Holocaust on half of the world's Jews and could not care less if their fellow Muslims die as collateral damage.

The complexity and density of Israeli politics create internal structural problems and convenient political alliances that undermine the ability to operate effectively and defend its citizenry. It is time we acknowledge that leadership in Israel is suffering from a Biden complex, afraid of international opprobrium and seeking to appease all sides. It is simply not possible to have adequate security while avoiding the essential issues. Someone always ends up trapped in the middle and paying the price. In this case, it is tragically the innocent civilians of Israel.

Karys Rhea is a writer and researcher living in Brooklyn. You can follow her on Twitter @RheaKarys.

The post Israel's leadership is suffering from a Biden complex appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.