From Wakanda to Israel: a Zionist Pan-Africanist’s takeaway from “Black Panther”

Marvel’s newest superhero flick, “Black Panther” is breaking box office records, and for good reason. The revolutionary production of this movie aside, the film is an archetypal goldmine (or should I say “Vibranium mine”), chock full of explicit and implicit messages and symbolism that speak to the historical and lived experiences of, not only African peoples, but all persecuted and/or post-colonial nations pursuing auto-emancipation.

As an Israeli of a Caribbean background, an unapologetic Zionist and Pan-Africanist, I couldn’t help but appreciate this meaningful cinematic expression of internal conflicts that appear to be unique and highly relevant to the Jewish and African Diasporic experiences. A unique likeness, that both Binyamin Ze’ev Herzl (the father of modern Zionism) and Edward Wilmot Blyden (the father of Pan-Africanism) identified as sources for mutual inspiration in what may be the first and best case of meaningful intersectionality, which lead to revolutionary social movements. There are many aspects of this film that warrant in depth analysis and articulation, but four main points (detailed below) stood out to me as particularly relating to the shared African and Jewish experience with colonialism and slavery (at the hands of both European supremacists and Arab supremacists).

Early map of Wakanda (in blue) from the Marvel Comics Atlas Volume 1

First things first, however, much respect to the creators of the Black Panther character and universe, Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. Two Jews who utilized their artistic talent to express a quintessentially Jewish response to a world full of pain, oppression, and tyranny; to highlight the clash between good and evil, and give us heroes to inspire us in our individual and collective struggles. In the era of the civil rights movement, when Africa and African life was popularly viewed as inferior, they dared create a fictional African country untainted by colonialism, rich in super-natural resources (Vibranium), and a technological/military/political powerhouse. A narrative, that in the age of sh*thole gate, BLM, and the Libyan slave trade couldn’t be more relevant. A story, Director Ryan Coogler, was able to adapt to cinema with ease.

Wakanda’s internal ideological debate: isolationism vs interventionism. Upon the main character T’Challa’s coronation as the Black Panther (the title and superpower endowedon Wakanda’s hereditary monarchs), T’Challa is faced with the dilemma of defining Wakanda’s relationship with the international community. He inherited a Wakanda that managed to become a technological powerhouse and socially stable/thriving state on account of its isolationist policies; yet segments of the leadership (including T’Challa himself) feel morally obligated to share their success/freedom with the rest of Africa and the world. Being a tiny country with a bustling economy and high tech resources, yet paranoid from existential threats, the parallels with the reborn Jewish state are obvious.

Killmonger vs T’Challa’s vision for Tikkun Olam (repairing the world). A product of the African Diasporic experience, T’Challa’s Oakland born and raised principal nemesis in the movie, Erik Killmonger, is a Pan-African reflection of the European colonialism that oppresses his community. Like the European supremacists, Killmonger sees all Africans as defined (and united) by their appearance. Blaming Wakanda for not saving his community, Killmonger wants to use Wakanda’s resources to colonize the world, but this time for the benefit of indigenous Africans and other traditionally oppressed peoples. Conversely, T’Challa is fundamentally committed to his tribe (to his nation-state), yet he has universal aspirations to help solve the ills of the humanity. Not by force, but through leading by example. Rome vs Jerusalem. Uniformity vs Unity.




The complimentary relationship between spirituality and technology. Wakandan society is a powerful expression of progress guided (not stunted) by tradition. The responsibility to one’s ancestral culture and the ability to change reality with spiritual experience and/or technological advancement is an inspiring vision for all post-colonial indigenous societies and is fundamental to Torah Judaism’s prescription for a healthy Hebrew nation. Both Africans and Jews (African Jews included) have been historically denied their right to practice their indigenous faith and culture, which throughout their respective histories in the diaspora were generally depicted as primitive and even barbaric.

Wakanda: the Pan-African Zion, aligns with Achad Ha’Am and Rav Kook‘s vision for a spiritual revival that both provides former exiles with a life of substantive meaning while propelling us forward.

The temptation of radicalism. As demonstrated by the reaction of many of the characters in the film, it’s hard not to sympathize with and/or be drawn to Killmonger’s emotional rhetoric. It’s always easier to paint our complex reality in black and white. To prescribe simple solutions to complex problems. On the level of first or formative principles (good and evil, right and wrong), simplification is vital, but when it’s dogmatically applied to all contexts void of nuance it becomes dangerous. T’Challa identifies the destructive ends this approach would produce, and like Ze’ev Jabotinsky and Malcolm X (post Nation of Islam), in the movie he seeks to bring about a revolution for his people in a way that emphasizes the value of all of humanity.

By the same token, there have been times when both the Pan-Africanist and Zionist movements have ethically faltered in pursuing their goals (a topic for another piece), but none of this changes the fact that if the arc of the moral universe bends towards justice (as MLK famously said), the story of kidnapped and exiled Africans and Jews (African Jews included) must not end in tragedy, but triumph. That each of us can be a superhero in realizing the dreams of our ancestors and right the wrongs of history. To be free peoples, in our indigenous homelands.

As Malcolm X once put it, “Pan Africanism will do for the people of African descent all over the world, the same that Zionism has done for Jews all over the world.” The Zionist movement has revolutionized Jewish existence. It successfully restored some of history’s first victims of European colonialism and enslavement (at the hands of the Romans) to sovereignty in their indigenous homeland, revived the dying language of a dying people, helped bring the British Empire to its knees, and returned millions of exiles to their ancestral lands. Most importantly it restored Jewish pride in Jewishness. That for the first time in 2000 years a generation of Hebrews will be raised to know they have a home, that they are active participants in the world. As the father of Pan-Africanism, Edward Wilmot Blyden insightfully highlighted in his essay, “The Jewish Question,” Zionism successfully awakened the Jewish people from indifference to their persecution to an active sense of national responsibility, and this was precisely the effect he sought for Pan-Africanism to have on the African Diaspora. Likewise, Wakanda, as depicted in the “Black Panther” film, embodies the vision of Blyden and his Pan-Africanist descendants; a symbol from which Africans throughout the world can derive pride and strength.

The moral and physical struggle between T’Challa and Killmonger certainly exemplifies many of the similarities between Zionism and Pan-Africanism as indigenous rights’ movements; as does this quote from Killmonger during the movie that immediately brought to my mind images from both Masada and Igbo Landing:

Bury me in the ocean with my ancestors who jumped from ships, cause they knew death was better than bondage.”

Looking forward to Black Panther round two!

African American members of the “Black Panther Party” (coincidentally founded a few months after Stan Lee created the superhero) lining up to defend their community (top photo).
Hebrew soldiers of the IDF lining up to defend the Jewish State (bottom photo).

Published first in the Times of Israel.

Pompeo’s Entry Into the State Department May Be Seismic

Now that Rex Tillerson is on his way out and CIA Director Mike Pompeo set to replace him, it appears that President Trump may beginning to put together a core team for foreign policy that not only reflects Trump’s views but totes a particular ideological line.

Three aspects surrounding the Mike Pompeo appointment to the State Department should make it clear that this is no ordinary appointment.

Focus on China

Mike Pompeo has said numerous times that Russia, while a geopolitical concern is not really the main threat to the USA.  In Pompeo’s mind China is far dangerous to the USA in the long run and this threat must be tackled before it’s too late.

Pompeo may stand for protection of intellecutual property, says Jim Cramer from CNBC.

Standing with Israel

Mike Pompeo is known to be fierce critic of the Iran deal as well as a hawk when it comes to Israel.  This may be the first truly pro-Israel Secretary of State.  After 70 years of Arabists in the State Department, a real shift o Israel may finally be at thand.

Cleaning Out the Swamp

It seems one of the biggest reason Trump want Mike Pompeo is to clean out the State Department.  It may seem like a tall order, especially since the Deep State has been embedded in there since the early 20th century, but Pompeo is clearly has been given cart blanche to drain Foggy Bottom of its swamp creatures.

In conclusion, Pompeo’s appointment to Secretary of State presents a rare opportunity to entrust the position to someone whose ideology may finally gut the department and replace it with people aligned with America’s intrest.

FORGET RUSSIA, WHAT ABOUT QATAR?

Is Mueller colluding with the Muslim Brotherhood’s 9/11 backers?

There hasn’t been a sudden explosion of paranoia and fear about Russia like this since Sputnik.

In the ‘12 election debates, Obama had breezily dismissed Romney’s suggestion that Russia was the leading geopolitical threat. “You said Russia. Not al Qaeda. You said Russia,” he sneered. “And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”

Obama was nearly right.

Russia is a serious geopolitical threat, but despite Putin’s imperial ambitions and the malicious actions of a regime run by former KGB operatives, it falls far behind the threat posed by the People’s Republic of China. The Cold War is over and Russia lost. That may be of small comfort to Ukraine or Georgia, and the other former subject nations of the Soviet Union that it threatens, but it’s no real threat to us.

China isn’t our leading geopolitical foe either.

Obama mentioned Al Qaeda in his attack on Romney. The Islamic terrorist group was already largely irrelevant. But the terror kingdom behind it is more dangerously relevant than ever.

According to the intelligence community, Abdullah bin Khalid al-Thani, a member of the Qatari royal family, its former interior minister and minister of Islamic affairs, was an Al Qaeda sympathizer who had harbored Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. When the FBI arrived in Qatar to arrest him, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks was transported away on a special Qatari government jet with blacked out windows.

And there have been suspicions over the years that Qataris played a larger role in 9/11.

But Qatar these days is far more of a threat than it was on 9/11. Its close ties to terror have made it a pariah nation in the region even as its support for Islamic theocracy crosses all factional lines.

It’s the main patron of the Muslim Brotherhood, an international Jihadist network, and has close ties to Iran. It spreads terrorist propaganda through Al Jazeera while subverting friendly governments. It seeks to influence American policy through think tanks like Brookings while spying on Americans.

Russia’s backing for the Shiite axis in Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen has been destabilizing, but not nearly as destabilizing as Qatar’s backing for the Islamist militias that wrecked Syria, Yemen, Libya, Egypt and much of the region. Qatar’s Iranian allies may be the final winners of the Arab Spring’s humanitarian catastrophe, but it was Qatari propaganda and weapons that kickstarted the region’s unholy wars.

While Qatar’s Al Jazeera terror network undermined governments, the terror kingdom shipped massive amounts of weapons to its Islamic terrorist allies. The Obama administration colluded with Qatar’s arms shipments to terrorists by instructing NATO forces not to interdict these shipments which later ended up in the hands of Jihadists in Libya and Mali. Qatar bought weapons from the genocidal Muslim Brotherhood regime in Sudan, whose leader is wanted by the ICC for crimes against humanity, and shipped them to Jihadists in Syria through the terror state of Turkey.

Secretary of State John Kerry even winked at Qatar’s funding of Hamas, another genocidal Muslim Brotherhood regime. This is the sort of serious collusion that we should be discussing.

But while Qatar funds terrorists, its massive propaganda operation also attempts to influence Americans. The terror kingdom acquired Current TV from Al Gore for $500 million. But the terror network failed to attract viewers. Al Jazeera America was sued for fraud by Gore, and its female and Jewish employees began coming forward with accusations of sexism and anti-Semitism.

But while Al Jazeera America failed, Al Jazeera remains the world’s most influential hostile state propaganda service, far more so than Russia’s RT. And it hasn’t given up on influencing Americans.

Al Jazeera recently boasted of having sent in an operative to secretly record pro-Israel activists. The terror network dispatched letters to pro-Israel groups and it’s believed by some that their existence is being used to pressure figures in the Jewish community into playing along with Qatar’s public relations effort. If Russia were similarly spying on and blackmailing Americans, there would be outrage.

Unfortunately, Qatar has burrowed deeply into the media and the political infrastructure of the left.

Al Jazeera is not the only vector for Qatari propaganda. The Brookings Institution, one of the most influential think tanks in the country, is subservient to Qatar. “[T]there was a no-go zone when it came to criticizing the Qatari government,” a Brookings Doha Center fellow revealed.

And then there’s The Intercept. The pro-terror site funded by a Persian billionaire has become notorious for its distribution of Qatari propaganda. The site, whose leading figure is Hamas apologist Glenn Greenwald, is a perfect forum for publishing smears, innuendo and even hacked documents. The Intercept frequently features attacks on the UAE, a Qatari rival, and Americans friendly to it, such as Jared Kushner, so that its contents appears to curiously echo those of Qatar’s PR and Al Jazeera.

Qatar’s influence operations took an ominous turn when Elliott Broidy, a top Trump donor, had his emails hacked by individuals he alleges were Qatari agents. The leaked emails play into Qatar’s conflict with the UAE. The emails have predictably popped up on Al Jazeera and Broidy had previously been targeted by The Intercept for a panel at which Steve Bannon had criticized Qatar.

“We have reason to believe this hack was sponsored and carried out by registered and unregistered agents of Qatar seeking to punish Mr Broidy for his strong opposition to state-sponsored terrorism,” Broidy’s spokesman said.

These two incidents of alleged Qatari espionage against Americans in order to influence our foreign policy raise serious questions. Yet the same media that obsessively searches for Russian bots on Reddit and Facebook seems entirely disinterested in discussing the subject. Skeptics of Russian influence have been told to put country ahead of party, but when will the left finally put country ahead of Qatar?

Perversely, instead of investigating the role of Qatar in influencing American elections, Mueller is reportedly taking the Qatari propaganda at face value and directing his investigation accordingly.

President Trump has been critical of Qatar. If Mueller uses Qatari opposition research to undermine a sitting president on behalf of a terror state, he will actually doing what Trump has been accused of.

Mueller had been accused of covering for the Muslim Brotherhood’s activities in America before. But now he risks being guilty of colluding with the Brotherhood’s Qatari backers to bring down an anti-Qatari president for the terror state that shielded the mastermind of the September 11 attacks.

There could be no greater act of treason than that.

Qatar’s domestic influence operation is far deeper and more dangerous than anything waged by Russia. Al Jazeera is infinitely more sophisticated than RT. The influence enjoyed by Qatar through Brookings has no Russian parallel. Its narrative on Yemen, Libya, Gaza, Burma and Egypt is the only story you will see in the media. The media in the United States hardly ever runs stories critical of Qatar anymore.

But if the latest allegations are true, Qatar’s terror backing and fake news operations have been supplemented by a domestic spying and blackmail operation against Americans.

And that cannot be tolerated.

Qatar is tiny compared to Russia. It’s a slave state of 200,000 masters and large numbers of foreign workers, many of them worked to death and treated little better than slaves. But yet it’s enormously wealthy and beneath its façade of moderation, it seeks to export Islamic supremacism around the world.

When we talk about Al Qaeda or Hamas, when you hear about the Arab Spring or the civil war in Yemen, when mention is made of the illegal invasion of Libya, the fighting in Syria, the real topic is Qatar.

Americans who collude with Russia should be held accountable. So should those who collude with Qatar.

And often they are one and the same.

Qatar, like Russia, is an ally of Iran. Like Russia, it arms and trains Islamic terror groups, seeks to undermine America, Israel and the West, and represents a major geopolitical threat.

Islamic terrorism is our leading geopolitical enemy. Its distribution and diversity makes it more difficult to pin down than the linkage between Communism and the Soviet Union. But the closest thing to the USSR of Islamic terror today is Qatar. When Democrats demand to know what Republicans are ready to do about Russia, Republicans should ask them what they are willing to do about Qatar?

Originally published on FrontPageMag.

 

THE LEFT’S FAKE ANTI-SEMITISM AND ITS REAL ANTI-SEMITISM

Fake outrage and real crimes.

After weeks of outrage at the close ties between top Democrats and Louis Farrakhan, the leader of an anti-Semitic hate group, the media finally condemned anti-Semitism by a top political official.

President Trump and OMB Director Mick Mulvaney had referred to outgoing NEC Director Gary Cohn as a “globalist.” And “globalist,” according to Think Progress, the Huffington Post, Salon and Vox, is an “anti-Semitic slur.”  Those are the same media outlets that had no problem using “globalist” as a slur when targeting Trump. HuffPo had published a piece tarring him as “Trump: The Globalist Plutocrat” and Vox had described Trump going to Davos, “the world’s biggest party for globalist elites.”

Both Trump and Mulvaney were praising Cohn and minimizing a globalist-nationalist split. That’s why President Trump said, “He may be a globalist, but I still like him. He’s seriously globalist, there’s no question, but you know what, in his own way he’s also a nationalist because he loves our country.”

And why Mulvaney wrote that, “I never expected that the coworker I would work closest, and best, with at the White House would be a “globalist.” Gary Cohn is one of the smartest people I’ve ever worked with. Having the chance to collaborate with him will remain one of the highlights of my career in public service.”

Can’t you just spot the “anti-Semitic dogwhistles”?

There are some in the alt-right who use “globalist” as an anti-Semitic slur, just as there were those on the left who used neo-conservative as an anti-Semitic slur. But that’s not what those terms mean.

When Stephen Miller, a Jewish Trump adviser, told CNN’s Jim Acosta, a Cuban-American, that he was suffering from a “cosmopolitan bias,” Politico accused Miller of using an “anti-Semitic dog whistle.” While “cosmopolitan” was an anti-Semitic euphemism in the USSR, Miller isn’t a Russian Communist, he’s a Jewish conservative.

But a congressional Democrat recently did use an anti-Semitic dogwhistle.

Rep. Danny Davis defended his ties to Farrakhan, the anti-Semitic leader of the Nation of Islam, by arguing, “The world is so much bigger than Farrakhan and the Jewish question and his position on that.”

About the only people who think there’s a “Jewish question” these days are anti-Semites. When Hitler and Marx weighed in on the Jewish question, it was to denounce the Jews. Unlike “globalist,” when the term is used by the alt-right today, (shortened to JQ), its meaning is unambiguously hostile.

But the national media chose to ignore Rep. Davis’ remarks. It embargoed the story, just as it embargoed the recent release of a photo of Obama and Farrakhan and the controversy over Women’s March leaders’ ties to Farrakhan. And Farrakhan, who once praised Hitler, has been venting a stream of anti-Semitic invective at the “Satanic” Jews because he knows that the national media won’t touch him.

The controversy over Obama, Davis, Keith Ellison, Linda Sarsour and Tamika Mallory has played out in the Jewish and conservative media. But no one in the mainstream media is willing to ask why Obama, the No. 2 man at the DNC, the Congressional Black Caucus and the next generation of intersectional feminist leaders are comfortable hanging out with a racist who suggested that Jews use pot to make black men gay. But the  media will only discuss anti-Semitism is when it serves its political agenda.

ThinkProgress had the chutzpah to accuse President Trump of using an “anti-Semitic dogwhistle” when the lefty advocacy site had been forced to clean house over actual anti-Semitic dog whistles. The uproar over the use of “Israel firsters” by the site led its editor-in-chief to denounce the “terrible, anti-Semitic language”. But Salon, which also denounced Trump’s “globalist” remark, had published pieces defending TP’s anti-Semitic language while smearing the lefty group’s Jewish critics. Some of the same culprits are now targeting Bari Weiss at the New York Times for her willingness to call out anti-Semitism on the left.

But while its personnel were using anti-Semitic dog whistles, TP accused Sarah Palin of using an “anti-Semitic term” when she defended herself against false accusations of being responsible for the Arizona shooting by accusing the media of a “blood libel”. The accusation that Palin was being anti-Semitic made as much sense as Politico suggesting that Stephen Miller was using Soviet anti-Semitic slurs against CNN.




But the left is happy to invent fake anti-Semitism while refusing to address its own real anti-Semitism.

It will pretend that Mulvaney, Trump and Miller are using anti-Semitic language, but it won’t speak up when a member of the Congressional Black Caucus talks about a Hitler-lover and the “Jewish question”.

The left doesn’t just use anti-Semitism as a political weapon while refusing to renounce it. It will even deploy accusations of anti-Semitism as a political weapon in support of anti-Semites like George Soros.

The same media outlets that won’t talk about the genocidal threats by Iran’s regime and by its terror proxies in Gaza, have been accusing the critics of Soros, a billionaire lefty donor, of anti-Semitism. Soros, a former Nazi collaborator, had called his wartime activities “the most exciting time of my life.”

Soros described growing up in a “Jewish, anti-Semitic home” with a mother whom he called, a “typical Jewish anti-Semite” who hated his first wife because she was “too Jewish.”

After he compared Israeli Jews to Nazis at an event honoring a Holocaust survivor, Elie Wiesel had declared, “I heard what happened. If I’d been there—and you can quote me—I would have walked out.” That same year, Soros had blamed the Jewish State for a “resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe”.

And Soros’ J Street, an anti-Israel group, is still mulling whether to stop endorsing Rep. Danny Davis. That’s their version of the Jewish Question. How much anti-Semitism by a progressive ally is too much?

The left treats anti-Semitism as another identity politics counter to be tossed in whenever convenient. It wants to be racist while accusing Republicans of racism. It wants to assault women while accusing Republicans of sexism. And it wants to be anti-Semitic while accusing Republicans of anti-Semitism.

Even while it appropriates anti-Semitism, treating it like another microaggression, triggered by terms like “globalist”, “cosmopolitan” or “blood libel” that have some anti-Semitic associations, but not in the context where they are presently being used, the left ignores what anti-Semitism actually is.

Anti-Semitism is not just another of the many intersectional expressions of bigotry as the left sees it. That misguided view of anti-Semitism makes it too easy to dismiss it as part of a bundle of attitudes that progressives don’t share. Emphasizing “globalist” and “cosmopolitan” appropriates anti-Semitism and reduces it to the worldview of people who don’t think about the planet the way that progressives do.

But anti-Semitism is ubiquitous. It’s not just a general phenomenon, but a specific one. It can pop up in any political worldview. It’s a black hole that curves ideologies and religions around its event horizon.

Appropriating anti-Semitism as a partisan political weapon lends cover to internal anti-Semitism within a political movement by externalizing it. The media can spot anti-Semitism in a random Trump quip, but not in the affinity of a former president, the second-in-command at the DNC and numerous members of Congress for Louis Farrakhan, a racist who praised Hitler and accuses Jews of running the country.

When Islamic terrorists kill Jews, when campus BDS thugs intimidate Jewish students, when their own party pals around with an anti-Semitic racist, they’re nowhere to be found. The left traffics in classic anti-Semitic stereotypes, supports rabid bigots and aids anti-Semitic regimes, but the moment they hear a whistle from the other side of the fence, they come barking as loudly as they can.

It’s bad enough that the left aids anti-Semitism from Berkeley to Tehran. It’s even worse when it appropriates anti-Semitism as a political weapon even while it remains an anti-Semitic movement.

Originally published in FrontPageMag.