Questions that we have a right, and a duty, to ask Hakeem Jeffries
By: Hugh Fitzgerald
Information on Hakeem Jeffries and his strange defense of his uncle Leonard (and of Louis Farrakhan) can be found here.
Democrats like Wasserman Schultz and Gottheimer pointed out that Jeffries tackled hate against all groups, and was a strong defender of the Jewish people.
Wasserman Schultz tweeted, “As native Nyers, Leader@RepJeffriesand I became fast, dear friends. I saw how he embodied the Jewish values of tikkun olam (repairing the world) and gemilut hassadim (giving love and kindness.) While others foment antisemitism, Hakeem Jeffries always leads in the face of hate.”…
Well, then, if Hakeem Jeffries “always leads in the face of hate,” he should have no trouble in now deploring his previous defense of the hate-filled Leonard Jeffries and Louis Farrakhan.
Assurances by Jewish colleagues that Hakeem Jeffries deplores hate and supports Israel is not enough. He needs to do only one thing: to distance himself from his defense of two antisemites, his uncle Leonard Jeffries and Louis Farrakhan, and instead to denounce their views and apologize for ever having defended them in such an unseemly manner (claiming a “media lynching”)and with such conspiratorial language about a “ruling elite.”
Jeffries should not enroll his Jewish colleagues to defend him by assuring the world that he has stood up for Israel. He hasn’t been accused of being anti-Israel. He has only been accused of having defended Leonard Jeffries, who claims Jews were behind the African slave trade — they weren’t — and Jeffries compared Jews to “dogs,” and said, “Russian Jewry had a particular control over the movies, and their financial partners, the Mafia, put together a financial system of destruction of black people.” Will Hakeem Jeffries denounce his uncle’s conspiratorial views of Jews, and his anti-white racism?
Hakeem Jeffries is being asked to explain his current views of his past defense of both his uncle Leonard Jeffries and Louis Farrakhan, for their antisemitic and anti-white views. His earlier defense was outrageous: he described a “media lynching” and “character assassination” of his uncle, as if his uncle had been an innocent victim of those who had criticized him both for his anti-Jewish rants and for his anti-white racism.
And that was not all. According to Leonard Jeffries’ melanin theory, greater skin pigmentation makes black people inherently superior to white people. Whites are the “ice people” who are violent and cruel, while blacks are “sun people” who are compassionate and peaceful. Just imagine the nonstop national outcry that would result if a white politician were discovered to have defended a relative who insisted that black people were inherently inferior to whites, that blacks were “violent and cruel,” while whites are naturally “compassionate and peaceful,” and when the matter was brought to his attention that politician said nothing. That politician would have no future in politics, much less be elected as House Minority Leader.
We don’t want to be assured by Hakeem Jeffries’ Jewish colleagues that he is a supporter of Israel, a good colleague and all-round swell guy who believes in tikkun olam — “repairing the world” — and jokes about Jerusalem being a borough of New York. None of that is relevant to the matter at hand.
Here are the questions that we have a right, and a duty, to ask Hakeem Jeffries:
Representative Jeffries, do you believe you were correct in defending your uncle Leonard Jeffries, who was accused of both antisemitic and anti-white views? What did you think of his referring to Jews as “dogs” and accusing them of controlling the slave trade? And what are your thoughts on his remark that “Russian Jewry had a particular control over the movies, and their financial partners, the Mafia, put together a financial system of destruction of black people”? Do you think that those who criticized your uncle for these views were guilty of a “media lynching” and “character assassination”?
Do you regret having refused to criticize your uncle’s belief that whites, as “ice people,” are naturally “violent and cruel” and blacks naturally “compassionate and peaceful”? Will you denounce him now for holding such racist beliefs? Do you still think he was the victim of “character assassination” and a “media lynching”?
Finally, what do you now think of your defense of Louis Farrakhan? Do you still think there was no justice to the charge about Farrakhan’s antisemitism? Do you think it was only a “media elite” — we know whom you meant – that was out to get Farrakhan for speaking truthfully about the malignant power of Jews? Let’s clear the air.
We’ll wait right here for your answers. Please take your time.