8 | MARCH 25 • 2021 

PURELY COMMENTARY

MOSES OR PHARAOH 
continued from page 5
PROGRESSIVE 
continued from page 6

ing for something that will 
excite them and give them a 
reason to keep living. These 
youngsters are not failures 
and they are not fools. They 
are actually very bright and 
very honest with themselves 
and cannot pursue a goal that 
doesn’t seem worthwhile.
This transition period we 
are in can be long and pain-
ful. The struggle between 
Pharaoh and Moses happens 
within each of us, but it 
also has social, national and 
international ramifications. 
The Bible describes the time 
of hesitation whether to go 
Pharaoh’s way or Moses’ way 
as the 10 plagues of Egypt. 
But in the end, the ego, 
namely Pharaoh, surrenders.
Now we are approaching 
that point of choice on the 
global level. We can choose 
to experience the plagues, as 
well, or we can choose Moses’ 
way before the plagues land 
on us.
We know that in the end, 
Moses will win, and we will 
build a united society, where 
people care for one another. 
Therefore, the sooner we 
head in this direction, the 
faster we will achieve this 
blissful state. In the process, 
we will avoid Egypt’s afflic-
tions.
Now is our time to make 
a choice which way to go, 
toward the land of Egypt, and 
suffer, or toward the land of 
Israel, the land of unity and 
love. 

Michael Laitman is a Ph.D. in philos-

ophy and Kabbalah, M.S. in medical 

bio-cybernetics, and founder and 

president of Bnei Baruch Kabbalah 

Education & Research Institute. 

accepted colonialisms, 
Erakat dismissed 
the Jewish national 
liberation movement 
as imperialistic. Rather 
than fulfilling millennia-
long Jewish desires to 
return to their indigenous 
homeland, Zionism 
repeats the “colonial 
denial of peoples’ 
sovereignty beginning 
in the 15th century and 
the conquistadores’ 
exploration and conquest of 
the Americas.”
 Despite massive 
historical and archeological 
evidence substantiating 
and complementing Jewish 
biblical claims to Israel, 
she asserted that this 
Jewish “biblical right” is 
merely a “stand-in with an 
indigeneity.”
That Zionism “is 
predicated on the removal 
of Palestinians” also 
appeared on Erakat’s rap 
sheet against Israel. She 
did not explain how then 
some 600,000 Arabs in the 
League of Nations Palestine 
Mandate, created in 1922 
for the establishment of 
a Jewish national home, 
grew to about 1.2 million 
at Israel’s independence in 
1947. Furthermore, Israel’s 
own Arab citizenry today 
numbers almost 2 million, 
in addition to more than 
4.7 million Arabs in the 
Palestinian-ruled territories.

HOLOCAUST 
COMPARISON
Not even the Holocaust was 
sacred for Erakat, who rela-
tivized the Nazi genocide of 
6 million innocent Jews by 
comparing it with the nakba, 

the “catastrophe” that was 
the establishment of mod-
ern-day Israel. According to 
Palestinian myths, during 
its 1948 independence war, 
the Jews ethnically cleansed 
perhaps 750,000 Arabs 
from what became Israeli 
territory. In reality, most 
of these anti-Israel Arabs 
fled combat zones, often 
under directives from Arab 
authorities who wanted to 
destroy Israel without wor-
rying about Arab civilian 
casualties.
Without explaining how 
the flight of a relatively 
small number of Arabs 
equals the systematic 
extermination of European 
Jewry, she declared that the 
Holocaust and nakba should 
be Arab-Jewish “traumas 
that we hold together.”
Hill attempted to 
substantiate Erakat’s 
demonization of Israel 
by stating that “to be 
Palestinian in the State of 
Israel means that I am less 
likely to get a high-quality 
education.” 
Yet, Israeli Christian 
Arabs are more likely than 
Jews to qualify for university 
admission — a fact that 
disproves his simplistic 

analysis. His Dr. Martin 
Luther King Jr.-like appeal 
that “our Jewish brothers 
and sisters can’t get free 
until everyone is free” will 
surely fall on the deaf ears 
of Israeli Jews (who Dr. 
King, a Zionist, supported) 
who reject the charge that 
Israel holds Palestinians in 
bondage.
Plitnick, despite his 
self-description “as a 
Jew,” likewise will win 
little Jewish sympathy with 
his statement that, given 
the “crimes that Israel has 
committed,” it “has become 
a victimizer and that is very 
hard for people to accept.” 
A lie is a lie, no matter who 
tells it.
The panelists, each with 
long records of anti-Israel 
activism that, in the cases of 
Erakat and Hill, frequently 
spill over into antisemitism, 
have established their 
reputations by recycling 
anti-Israel propaganda as 
fact. That Erakat and Hill 
are professors in good 
standing and represent 
commonly held views 
on Israel epitomizes 
the intellectual and 
moral decadence of the 
contemporary university. 
They should be recognized 
as the toxic purveyors of lies 
that they are. 

Andrew E. Harrod is a Campus 

Watch Fellow, freelance researcher 

and writer who holds a Ph.D. from 

the Fletcher School of Law and 

Diplomacy at Tufts University, and 

a J.D. from George Washington 

University Law School. He is a fellow 

with the Lawfare Project. Follow him 

on Twitter at @AEHarrod.