Where are all the usual suspects?, Seth J. Frantzman

"The reaction to events in Iran has shown once again the double standards and hypocrisy of those in Europe and the West who jump at the slightest opportunity to protest Israel but remain stoic in the face of events in Iran. ... Yet in January, when Israel was embroiled in a war with Hamas, the anger directed at her in Europe was apoplectic."

Following the contested Iranian election, the green armbands of the opposition and pictures of bloodied and dying Iranian protesters were being held aloft by Iranians from Los Angeles to Paris. Noticeably absent from the international scene were Westerners, particularly students.

The reaction to events in Iran has shown once again the double standards and hypocrisy of those in Europe and the West who jump at the slightest opportunity to protest Israel but remain stoic in the face of events in Iran.

While many have compared the outpouring of anger in Iran to what presaged the 1979 revolution, there is one key difference; this time around, no Western students care. Before the shah fell from power, he often visited the capitals of major European and North American cities. Every time he did, tens of thousands of progressive students and human-rights activists poured out onto the streets calling him a fascist and protesting his visit. In one such protest on June 2, 1967 a German student, Benno Ohnesorg, was even killed. But now there is no such outpouring of emotion. Neither is there any interest from the UN or from Jimmy Carter.

Yet in January, when Israel was embroiled in a war with Hamas, the anger directed at her in Europe was apoplectic [photos of massive pro-Hamas rallies in Brussels, the capital of Europe]. When Israel fought a war against Hizbullah in 2006, Western students even proudly wore the symbol of Hizbullah, a clenched fist holding an AK-47.

So where were the Western students to hold aloft the green armbands of Iranian opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi? Why will Western students who call themselves progressives wear green for Hamas and Hizbullah - terrorist organizations that murder civilians - and not for Iranian dissidents?

Why have CNN and other major media been so coy when it comes to covering the outrages perpetrated by the regime in Iran? Describing the deaths of protesters, CNN never once, in the coverage I watched, mentioned who had killed them. It simply said they were "shot." But when Iranian dissidents in Washington were interviewed with "death to the dictator" placards, the CNN reporter challenged them, demanding to know if they were calling for "murder."

Murder? The only murder that has taken place so far is the murder of Iranian protesters. For members of my parent's generation, protesting the shah was one of the things you did as a sign you were a good person. It was up there with the civil rights movement. So where is this generation in its opposition to the modern shah of Iran, the ayatollahs and their lackey, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

The reason for the disconnect on Iran has strange roots. It was encapsulated in the support that Michel Foucault, a major figure in Western philosophy, gave the Islamic revolution. Foucault, angry at what he found to be a conservative Western attitude toward his homosexuality and feminism, came to support Iranian Islamism in the warped belief that it was the newest "revolutionary" idea. Even when women were smothered in chadors and gays were executed by the ayatollah, he didn't admit that he was wrong.

During the years of the second Bush administration, there was a belief among some on the extreme Left that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." Even the indefensible Ahmadinejad was rewarded by those choosing to see his evil through the lens of "realism," "interests" and "historical meddling by the West."

The BBC claimed that should Mousavi win the election, it would be "hard for Israel to ratchet up opposition to Iran" and CNN claimed that "Iran's main enemy, Israel," was watching the protests closely.

Those who oppose Israel therefore justify supporting Iran. This strange logic has led to support for Ahmadinejad's right to "free speech" by inviting him to Columbia University and supporting his "right" to speak at Durban II.

It is a disgrace that those who don keffiyehs as a fashion symbol in universities and fiercely protest Israeli actions in Gaza and Lebanon will not lift a finger in defense of democracy in Iran. It is a sad testimony to the warped logic of "human rights" that it was a cause célèbre to riot against the shah in the streets of Europe in 1978, but that no one can be called away from their coffee houses and belly dancing classes to raise their hands against the rigged election in Iran.

There are many in the West who are on the wrong side of history, and just as Iranians did not forgive the West for coddling the shah, neither will Iran's next generation forgive us for our silence on this momentous crackdown.

The writer is a PhD student in geography at the Hebrew University and runs the Terra Incognita Journal blog. sfrantzman@hotmail.com
Source: JPost

Al Haq: Europe funding anti-Israeli NGO

"Al Haq is a leader in the NGO "lawfare" and BDS movement (boycotts, divestment and sanctions) against Israel. The NGO’s funders include many European governments, NGOs, and international foundations, (Norway, Sweden, Ireland, Christian Aid, Diakonia, Ford Foundation, Open Society Institute)."

NGO Monitor: Al Haq-supported Lawfare in Canada

On July 8, 2008, the Bil’in Village Council, with the assistance of the Palestinian NGO "Al Haq", filed suit in Quebec against three Canadian corporations involved in construction projects in the town of Kiryat Sefer (Modi’in Ilit) in Israel. The village council and Al Haq claim that these corporations “are aiding, abetting, assisting and conspiring with Israel, the Occupying Power in the West Bank, in carrying out an illegal act” and acting in violation of the Geneva Conventions. A preliminary hearing on the lawsuit is scheduled for the end of June 2009. This case is one of a series initiated by Al Haq as part of its strategy to exploit Western courts for political goals ("lawfare"). Al Haq has also filed two suits (2006 and 2009) against British government officials to stop weapons sales to Israel. The 2006 suit was dismissed, and the 2009 suit is pending, but will likely be dismissed as well.

The Bil’in Village Council is also represented by Israeli attorney and political activist Michael Sfard. He is the legal advisor for the NGO known as Yesh Din, is on the legal team for Al-Haq’s Shawan Jabarin (see below), as well as for Peace Now and other groups.

.

Medical Aid for Palestine (MAP – no formal relationship with Medical Aid for Palestinians) is using its tax-exempt status to solicit donations to “finance[e] a legal fund to fight the court case.” MAP receives funding from CIDA (click "donations") and from the Quebec Secretariat for International Aid (click “donations”). The organization also signed the original Palestinian Civil Society call for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions against Israel in 2005 (#65). Additionally, Orna Ben-Naftali, an executive board member of B’Tselem, contributed an "Expert Report and Opinion" in support of the lawsuit.

.

Background on Al Haq:
Al Haq is a leader in the NGO "lawfare" and BDS movement (boycotts, divestment and sanctions) against Israel. The NGO’s funders include many European governments, NGOs, and international foundations, (Norway, Sweden, Ireland, Christian Aid, Diakonia, Ford Foundation, Open Society Institute).

.

Read the full NGO Monitor Report here

Swedish Christian NGO Diakonia's anti-Israeli activities

Only Non-Antisemites, Yves Pallade

"Well, during my time at the American Jewish Committee I was taught one important thing, namely that while there is antisemitism without Jews, there can be no antisemitism without antisemites."

Source: Joods Actueel

"In most discussions about antisemitism what is usually meant is conventional right-wing extremist hatred of Jews. Yet, inspired by the will to combat all manifestations of antisemitism, the OSCE has identified also other forms of Jew-hatred and respective groups of hate mongers.

As Professor Weisskirchen has rightly pointed out in an article a little while ago, "[w]e already have the tools in order to [implement the measures set out in the 2004 Berlin Declaration]. It is therefore time to make use of them more effectively."1 One such tool is the Working Definition of Antisemitism, which has been endorsed both by the EUMC, ODIHR and the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairman in Office on Combating Antisemitism. Since best practices are about sharing experience in using the existing tools, I would like hereinafter to introduce to you four individuals with strong connections to the academic field, whom one could use to exemplify the use of this Working Definition.

Since I am well-aware that the so-called "accusation of antisemitism" (Antisemitismusvorwurf) constitutes probably one of the most severe verdicts that one can pass on a human being, in particular on a German one – Eckart Jesse of the Hannah Arendt Institute in Dresden in his defence of Jürgen Möllemann at the time called it a "killer-argument" – and that it could moreover lead to unpleasant legal disputes of the kind that some of us in this room had to endure, I will refrain from presenting any antisemites to you today. Instead I will content myself with naming only non-antisemites, though academic ones to be sure.

Example no. 1: Ludwig Watzal
He works for the Federal Agency for Civic Education and also has a lectureship at the University of Bonn. What positions does he represent? In a piece on an Israeli media entrepreneur, entitled "Haim Saban, the media and Israel" that was broadcast by DeutschlandRadio Berlin2, Watzal sounded the following:

"The escapades of the so-called Holocaust industry are at any rate rather bizarre and an insult to the victims of National Socialist extermination policy. The actions of Saban have, however, nothing to do with conspiracy thinking, but they are evidence of how symbiotic the relationship between power and money is. Saban’s political desire is to obtain as much control as possible over the media. Peter Chernin, the president and head of the News Corporation, has made it clear that the Hollywood mogul has not become involved in Germany for purely financial considerations, but that he regards the country as the basis for something bigger."3

According to our colleague Juliane Wetzel from the Center for the Study of Antisemitism at the Technical University Berlin, who commented on this radio piece at the time, "he [Watzal] activates the typical clichés of Jewish capital and Jewish power". This perplexes me indeed: Wouldn’t it be presumptuous to qualify Watzal’s position as an antisemitic one, for he is after all an employee of Germany’s most important state institution for democratic education and moreover serves as one of the co-editors of Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, the academic supplement to the Bundestag’s own newspaper Das Parlament?

Example no 2: Norman Paech
He was formerly professor for Public Law at the University for Science and Politics in Hamburg. Let’s listen to what he has to say.

In an open letter to the German-Jewish professor Micha Brumlik in the context of a public debate on a book by the Canadian philosopher Ted Honderich, whom Brumlik had criticized for legitimising terrorism4, Paech writes: "Has it occurred to you that such an executivistic censure of thought could give a fresh boost to antisemitism, which, after all, clearly exists in our society?"5

Moreover, in an interview with the daily Die Tageszeitung6 on the occasion of the war in Lebanon last year Paech stated that Israel was waging "an illegal war of extermination against the militia and the population in Lebanon".7

I am trying hard to be convinced: Norman Paech could certainly not be antisemitic, for is he not currently Foreign Policy Spokesman of the parliamentary party of Die Linke in the Bundestag and moreover a member of the German delegation to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly?

Example No. 3: Klaus Holz
He is a professor of sociology and head of the Lutheran Foundation for Advanced Studies in Villigst.

Together with two colleagues he wrote a lengthy piece for the weekly Jungle World in which he claimed that Israel’s then Prime Minister Sharon was aiming at the "destruction of Palestinian civil society"8 and that Palestinian terrorism was exclusively an act of desperation and a result to Israeli "state terrorism"9. Holz and his co-authors stop short of drawing a direct analogy between Israel and Nazi Germany, instead comparing Israel’s policies to those of South Africa under the apartheid regime, while leaving it to others to infuse the "nazification" topos with a degree of legitimacy: The Israeli filmmaker Eyal Sivan is adduced, who had "declared that the comparison between Sharon and the Nazis was customary among Israeli pacifists…".10 The authors go on to argue that looked at through the "Auschwitz screen"11 that is distorting the perception of contemporary left-wing defenders of Israel, "Jews are only a metonymical figure, in which the murdered of yesterday are superimposed on the oppressors of today"12 and that "the banalisation of the events in the occupied territories in the name of the remembrance of Auschwitz deserves our outrage".13 They claim that the continuation of the occupation over decades could also "threaten the existence of the Palestinian population".14 Moreover, Holz and his co-authors do not see a historical nexus between Nazi Germany and current Palestinian antisemitism – which they refer to as "anti-Zionism".15

In his book "Die Gegenwart des Antisemitismus"16 Holz argues that "antisemitism among Muslim migrant groups" manifests itself "often only on the basis of their experience in the country of immigration. Its preconditions comprise their social, racist and religiously justified exclusion".17

To me it appears yet again presumptuous to even think of the possibility that Klaus Holz could harbour some antisemitic notions or that he could even downplay contemporary antisemitism or possibly associate it with Jewish or non-Jewish behaviour, for he has meanwhile become one of the most noted German academic experts on antisemitism and was not so long ago asked to address an academic symposium on antisemitism that had been organized by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz).18

Example No. 4: Alfred Grosser
He is a sociologist and political scientist, who taught at Science Po in Paris and was Research and Studies Director at the French National Foundation of Political Science. So what does he say?

In a 10-page article in the February 2007 issue of Germany’s most renowned foreign policy journal Internationale Politik19 Grosser expressed his non-understanding "that Jews nowadays despise others and claim the right to mercilessly pursue policies in the name of self-defence. Understanding for the suffering of others – does this basic value of Europe not hold all the more for Israel?"20

At a hearing on antisemitism here in the German Bundestag in 2004, similar to the one today, Grosser remarked the following:21

"It’s all about understanding the suffering of others. This understanding generally does not exist on the part of Jews."22

And in an interview with the Berliner Zeitung23 he said:

"Criticism of Israel and antisemtism have nothing to do with each other. It is rather Israel’s policies that promote antisemitism globally."24

Grosser – an antisemite? Isn’t this virtually inconceivable for he is not only a noted world-class academic and laureate of the Peace Price of German Book Trade but most importantly also a Jew or at least of Jewish descent – as he never gets tired to point out. Not to forget that he was invited as a guest expert to address a hearing at the Bundestag on no other issue than –antisemitism.

I would like to return to the Working Definition where I read about the following contemporary examples of antisemitism:

I quote from the definition:
"Making mendacious, dehumanising, demonising, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective – such as, especially but not exclusively the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions." Now I am fully confused, for doesn’t Ludwig Watzal’s portrayal of Haim Saban or Alfred Grosser’s characterization of Jews in general fall into this category?

I quote from the Definition:
"Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews" and "Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel." Maybe I am missing the point here, but is this not exactly what Alfred Grosser and Norman Paech are doing when blaming Israel, Jewish groups, individual Jews or even non-Jews for rising antisemitism? And isn’t Klaus Holz rationalising anti-Jewish hatred among Arab-Muslim immigrants when saying that it is a result of the discrimination suffered by them?

I quote again from the Definition:
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis." Is it my personal misperception that the term "war of extermination" that is used by Norman Paech to refer to Israeli demeanour is clearly linked to the kind of war conducted by the Nazis? Is it only my distorted impression that Klaus Holz – while not daring to draw a direct analogy between Israel und Nazi Germany – cites specifically an Israeli voice to provide such comparisons with discursive legitimacy?

I quote once more from the Definition:
"Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms … or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters during World War II …" Isn’t this actually what Klaus Holz does when he downplays the collaboration of the Arab national movement with Nazi Germany?

Now my question to you: Given that the aforementioned gentlemen cannot be antisemites due to their academic credentials, to their profession and to the particular group they belong to, what application can the current Working Definition still have? Is it really the case that the 56 participating states of the OSCE – after so many years of intensive discussion with the aim to clearly identify and to combat antisemitism – are so far off the track?

Well, during my time at the American Jewish Committee I was taught one important thing, namely that while there is antisemitism without Jews, there can be no antisemitism without antisemites."

1 Gert Weisskirchen: Combating Antisemitism ‘Best practices’ already exist – it is time to make use of them. In: Equal Voices, Issue 17, 2006
2 Deutschland Radio Berlin, 16 September 2004, Ludwig Watzal: Haim Saban, die Medien und Israel
3 "Die Eskapaden der so genannten Holocaust-Industrie sind jedenfalls ziemlich bizarr und eine Beleidigung für die Opfer der nationalsozialistischen Vernichtungspolitik. Die Aktionen Sabans haben aber nichts mit Verschwörungsdenken zu tun, sondern sie sind ein Beleg dafür, wie symbiotisch das Verhältnis von Macht und Geld ist. Sabans politisches Anliegen ist, eine möglichst große Kontrolle über die Medien zu erlangen. Dass sich der Hollywood-Mogul nicht nur aus finanziellen Erwägungen in Deutschland engagiert hat, sondern das Land als Basis für etwas größeres ansieht, hat Peter Chernin, Präsident und Leiter der News Corporation, deutlich gemacht."
4 Brief von Norman Paech an Micha Brumlik vom 29. Oktober 2003, zitiert nach http://www.steinbergrecherche.com/frpaech.htm#Doppelmoral
5 "Ist Ihnen einmal der Gedanke gekommen, dass eine derart exekutivische Gedankenzensur dem Antisemitismus, der in unserer Gesellschaft ja unleugbar besteht, neuen Auftrieb geben könnte?"
6 taz, 26.07.2006, "Deutsche Soldaten in Israel nicht denkbar". Der Völkerrechtler Norman Paech, für die Linkspartei im Bundestag: Vorgehen Israels im Libanon unverhältnismäßig, Interview mit Norman Paech
7 "Außerdem geht Israel derzeit mit einem unzulässigen Vernichtungskrieg gegen Milizen und Bevölkerung im Libanon vor."
8 "Die Militarisierung der israelischen Gesellschaft und die Zerschlagung der palästinensischen Zivilgesellschaft sind langfristige Ziele des Premierministers Ariel Sharon ..."
9 "Die israelische Besatzung ist der Ausdruck eines Staatsterrorismus, die palästinensische Gewalt ist eine Reaktion darauf."
10 "Der israelische Regisseur Eyal Sivan, der als Zeuge der Verteidigung während des Prozesses gegen Jolivet aufgerufen war, erklärte, dass der Vergleich Sharons mit den Nazis bei israelischen PazifistInnen gebräuchlich sei."
11 "Sichtblende Auschwitz"
12 "In diesem verworrenen Rollenspiel sind die Juden nur noch eine metonymische Figur, in der die Ermordeten von gestern die Unterdrücker von heute überlagern."
13 "Wenn Saramagos Worte Kritik verdienen, so verdient die Banalisierung der Geschehnisse in den besetzten Gebieten im Namen der Erinnerung an Auschwitz unsere Entrüstung."
14 "Wenn die Besatzungspolitik des Westjordanlandes und des Gazastreifens sich über Jahrzehnte fortsetzt, wäre nicht nur die Existenz der palästinensischen Bevölkerung bedroht, sondern auch die Demokratie in Israel und die internationale Akzeptanz des Staates."
15 "Der Antizionismus in der arabischen Welt und der vieler PalästinenserInnen wird mit dem traditionellen Antisemitismus der westlichen Welt, der die Shoah hervorbrachte, in eins gesetzt."
16 Klaus Holz: "Die Gegenwart des Antisemitismus. Islamistische, demokratische und antizionistische Judenfeindschaft. (Hamburger Edition, 2005, Hamburg) , S. 9
17 "Vielmehr manifestiert sich der Antisemitismus in Einwanderergruppen häufig erst aufgrund ihrer Erfahrungen im Einwandererland. Zu den Voraussetzungen gehört ihre soziale, rassistisch und religiös begründete Ausgrenzung."
18 Vgl. Klaus Holz: Neuer Antisemitismus? – Wandel und Kontinuität der Judenfeindschaft. In: Bundesministerium des Innern: Neuer Antisemitismus? Judenfeindschaft im politischen Extremismus und im öffentlichen Diskurs. Publikation der Vorträge des Symposiums des Bundesamtes für Verfassungsschutz am 5. Dezember 2005, http://www.verfassungsschutz.de/download/SHOW/symp_2005.pdf
19 Alfred Grosser: Warum ich Israel kritisiere. In: Internationale Politik, February 2007
20 "Ich verstehe nicht, dass Juden heute andere verachten und sich das Rechtnehmen, im Namen der Selbstverteidgung unbarmherzig Politik zu betreiben. Verständnis für die Leiden der anderen – gilt dieser Grundwert Europas nicht erst recht für Israel?"
21 Protokoll. Öffentliches Expertengespräch zur Umsetzung der Abschlusserklärung der Berliner Antisemitismuskonferenz vom April 2004, 22. November 2004, Deutscher Bundestag
22 "Wie ich schon einmal in der Dresdner Frauenkirche sagen durfte, es geht darum, das Leiden anderer zu verstehen. Dieses Verstehen ist auf jüdischer Seite im Allgemeinen nicht vorhanden." 23 Berliner Zeitung, 15 August 2006, "Israel Politik fördert den Antisemitismus". Der Publizist Alfred Grosser plädiert für eine Strategie der Versöhnung gegenüber den Arabern
24 "Kritik an Israel und Antisemitismus haben nichts miteinander zu tun. Es ist vielmehr Israels Politik, die den Antisemitismus in der Welt fördert."

Dutch Foreign Minister deplores revived antisemitism in Europe

"It is an excuse for terrorists, but also for youth to raise hell. Not only in the Netherlands, but in whole of Europe you see that. Calls to a new intifada and gassing of Jews. They're all dreadful slogans from which appears enormous hate. With on the one hand Islamophobia and on the other hand a revived antisemitism."

Maxime Verhagen, Dutch Foreign Minister, about using the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as an excuse for violence in Europe.

Source: Islam in Europe

By way of illustration:
The "Norway, Israel and the Jews" blog reporting on the latest incidents of anti-Jewish/Israel violence in Sweden:
- “Malmö is Gaza”
- Dagsavisen gilds the rose
- Demonstrators attack police in Malmö, Sweden
- Demonstration in Malmö, Sweden
- Nazis, anti-fascists, threaten tennis match

"We hoped that the embers of anti-Semitism were long since dead and cold", Mark Malloch-Brown

"This should be an utterly unnecessary conference. We hoped that the embers of anti-Semitism were long since dead and cold. Sadly they're not.

The response must not just address the Muslim-Jewish relationship. It's part of it, but only a part.

The broader issue is to again go back to the basics of this to remind people of the extraordinary role Jews play in so many countries around the world."

British Cabinet Minister Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, in an interview with the BBC, on The London Conference on Combatting Antisemitism, hosted by the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Antisemitism and the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 15 – 17 February 2009.

Source: EJP

- The London Declaration on Combating Antisemitism
--Antisemitism: silence is not an option (ICCA) .

Italian FM to attend London summit on combating anti-Semitism

"We’re meeting because anti-Semitism is on the rise. There must be a fight-back and we parliamentarians are willing to lead from the front. Jewish communities across the world should know that they are not alone." (MP John Mann)

Several government ministers, including Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, and more than 100 parliamentarians from nearly 40 countries, are expected to attend on Tuesday in London the first-time summit conference on combating anti-Semitism, hosted by Britain’s foreign ministry.

This two-day summit, organized by the Inter-parliamentary Coalition for Combating Anti-Semitism (ICCA), will take place ahead of the controversial UN Conference on Racism (‘Durban II’) in Geneva in April.

The attendees – largely not Jewish – will commit to coordinated, long-term action to tackle the escalating global threat of anti-Semitism.

This includes physical attacks such as that on the Chabad Jewish Community Centre in Mumbai, and race hatred and Holocaust denial distributed via the mainstream media and the Internet.

The London Conference comes in the wake of a significant increase in anti-Semitic attacks around the world.

MP John Mann, initiator of the summit and chairman of the UK’s Parliamentary Committee Against Anti-Semitism, said: "We’re meeting because anti-Semitism is on the rise. There must be a fight-back and we parliamentarians are willing to lead from the front. Jewish communities across the world should know that they are not alone".

Whether it is the UK’s Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism, the two comprehensive responses from the government and numerous policy changes, the UK has earned its role as the host of this historic conference.

The MPs will spend Monday in working groups in the House of Commons, discussing practical strategies on how to combat the resurgent threat of anti-Semitism around the world.

Best practice from across the globe, including Canada, Germany and the UK, will inform the London Declaration on Combating Anti-Semitism, to be announced at a press conference Tuesday afternoon in Lancaster House.

Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, a former EU Commissioner for justice, freedom and security, will be the guest of honour at Monday’s conference dinner, will speak out on the scope and impact of global anti-Semitism and call for multilateral and EU action on the issue.

Among the participants are MP Petra Pau, vice-president of the Bundestag, the German federal parliament, André Azoulay, counselor of King Mohammed VI of Morocco and Barbara Prammer, president of the Austrian National Council.

Source: article by Henri Stein in EJP

- Italian Foreign Minister "Israel's security is not negotiable"
- European Union has taken an unbalanced stance on Israel, says Franco Frattini
- European Commissioner Franco Frattini expresses regret at EU treatment of Israel

ADL survey finds anti-Semitic attitudes steady in Europe

Photo from Xatoo (an anti-Semitic, anti-capitalist, Portuguese blog) showing collusion between Jewish big money, royalty and politicians.

31 % of Europeans polled blame Jews for financial crisis

"A new survey of seven countries across Europe revealed that nearly half of the Europeans surveyed believe Jews are not loyal to their country and more than one-third believe they have “too much power” in business and finance.

The findings were released Tuesday by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in New York.

The study, "Attitudes Toward Jews in Seven European Countries", shows millions continue to believe the classical anti-Semitic canards that have persistently pursued Jews through the centuries.

The opinion survey of 3,500 adults – 500 in each of the seven European countries – Austria, France, Hungary, Poland, Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom – conducted from December 1, 2008 to January 13, 2009, found 31% of the respondents across Europe blame Jews in the financial industry for the current global economic crisis.

Overall, 40% of Europeans in the countries polled believe that Jews have too much power in the business world, with more than half of Hungarian, Spanish and Polish respondents agreeing with that statement.

"This poll confirms that anti-Semitism remains alive and well in the minds of many Europeans," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL’s national director.

"It is distressing that there seems to be no movement away from the constancy of anti-Semitic held views, with accusations about Jews of disloyalty, control and responsibility for the death of Jesus."

"In the wake of the global financial crisis, the strong belief of excessive Jewish influence on business and finance is especially worrisome," Foxman added.

"Clearly, age old anti-Semitic stereotypes die hard, particularly on a continent which is witnessing a surge in violent attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions following the war in Gaza."

A comparison with the 2007 survey indicates that over the past two years levels of anti-Semitism have remained steady in six of the seven countries tested.

The United Kingdom was the only country in which there was a marked decline, ADL said.

The percentage of those believing that Jews “have too much power in the business world” increased by 7% in Hungary, 6% in Poland and 5% in France.

ADL commissioned First International Resources to conduct the survey. Fielded in Europe by Taylor Nelson Sofres, it was conducted in the native language of each of the countries among the general population.

Country by country findings on anti-Semitic attitudes

In responding "probably true" to the statement, "Jews are more loyal to Israel than their own country," the 2009 survey found:
Austria – 47%, down from 54% in 2007
France – 38%, down from 39% in 2007
Germany – 53%, up from 51% in 2007
Hungary – 40%, down from 50% in 2007
Poland – 63%, up from 59% in 2007
Spain – 64%, up from 60% in 2007
The United Kingdom – 37%, down from 50% in 2007

In responding "probably true" to the statement, "Jews have too much power in the business world," the 2009 survey found:
Austria – 36%, down from 37% in 2007
France – 33%, up from 28% in 2007
Germany – 21%, unchanged from 2007
Hungary – 67%, up from 60% in 2007
Poland – 55%, up from 49% in 2007
Spain – 56%, up from 53% in 2007
The United Kingdom – 15%, down from 22% in 2007

In responding "probably true" to the statement "Jews have too much power in international financial markets," the 2009 survey found:
Austria – 37%, down from 43% in 2007
France – 27%, down from 28% in 2007
Germany – 22%, down from 25% in 2007
Hungary – 59%, down from 61% in 2007
Poland – 54%, unchanged from 2007
Spain – 74%, up from 68% in 2007
The United Kingdom – 15%, down from 21% in 2007

In responding "probably true" to the statement "Jews still talk too much about what happened to them in the Holocaust," the 2009 survey found:
Austria – 55%, up from 54% in 2007
France – 33%, down from 40 % in 2007
Germany – 45%, unchanged from 2007
Hungary – 56%, down from 58% from 2007
Poland – 55%, down from 58% in 2007
Spain – 42%, down from 46% in 2007
The United Kingdom – 20%, down from 28% in 2007"

Source: article by Maud Swinnen in EJP
ADL Survey in Seven European Countries Finds Anti-Semitic Attitudes Steady; 31 Percent Blame Jews for Financial Crisis

What is considered extremist in today's Germany?, Clemens Heni

The same confused thinking/hypocrisy obtains all over Europe. What is new is that this sort of attitude is being discussed openly and is no longer swept under the rug. No wonder European Parliament failed to denounce anti-Semitic attacks in Europe.

"Germany witnessed probably the biggest anti-Jewish rallies since 1945 during the Gaza war. Meanwhile research centers keep silent, refusing even to discuss such events with Jewish journalists, focusing instead on "Islamophobia." Why? Are Muslims threatened on German streets by Jewish gangsters screaming, "Death to all Muslims?""

"Recent events demonstrate the relationship of German political culture today to anti-Semitism.

On the one hand, one is not allowed to deny the Holocaust, as Catholic Bishop Richard Williamson found out. Chancellor Angela Merkel herself told the German pope in the Vatican that such an anti-Semite, member of the reactionary Pius X Brotherhood, could not be tolerated.

Just a few days later, Iranian government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham called the Holocaust "a big lie to settle a rootless regime in the heart of the Islamic world." That weekend, moreover, Iranian Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani was invited to join the International Security Conference in Munich, where he said on Friday there were "different views of the Holocaust. I will say: It did not happen."

Was there any outrage in the case of the Iranians as there was in that of Bishop Williamson?

German journalist Malte Lehming of the daily Tagesspiegel explained that Holocaust denial and genocidal hatred is not allowed if it derives from the Western world, like British Williamson. If Muslims do the same thing, nothing happens. This hypocrisy paradigm applies particularly - but not only - to today's Germany.

If Arabs, other Muslims and their German friends scream "Death to the Jews," or "Israel - children killer", that's fine. If two lonely guys stick an Israeli flag in a bedroom window on a street where such anti-Semites pass, the police react immediately and confiscate the flag. That's what happened in the city of Duisburg on January 10. In an interview with the Ruhr-Nachrichten newspaper, the head of the Verfassungsschutz (protection of the constitution) in the German Federal Land North Rhine-Westphalia, Hartmut Möller, accused a group of so-called "anti-Germans" of being a dangerous element, "extremists". Those particular anti-Germans are otherwise known as friends of Israel and the US.

Is it extremist to wave an Israeli flag in Germany today when more than 10,000 Palestinians and their friends shout "Death to the Jews" or similar slogans and burn an Israeli flag? According to a recent BBC poll, Germany holds the most negative views of Israel among Western countries surveyed, with 9 percent seeing the Jewish state as "mainly positive" and 65% as "mainly negative" (compared with 47% positive and 34% negative in the US.)

To discuss these frightening numbers, the B'nai B'rith of Berlin in cooperation with the American Jewish Committee Germany planned a panel discussion last Sunday on anti-Semitism and possible ways to fight it. The event did not materialize, firstly because Prof. Wolfgang Benz, director of the Berlin Center for Research on Anti-Semitism, refused to be on the same panel as well known German-Jewish journalist Henryk M. Broder. Broder had criticized a conference hold by the center last December in which "Islamophobia" was compared to historical anti-Semitism. A newsletter of the center in January called the criticism of its Islamophobia conference in Haaretz and The Jerusalem Post "a torrent of hatred."

In the end AJC chairwoman Deidre Berger also cancelled her participation in the panel.

Germany witnessed probably the biggest anti-Jewish rallies since 1945 during the Gaza war. Meanwhile research centers keep silent, refusing even to discuss such events with Jewish journalists, focusing instead on "Islamophobia." Why? Are Muslims threatened on German streets by Jewish gangsters screaming, "Death to all Muslims?"

The reality is the opposite, yet no one is listening. Scholars are to take a wait and see attitude as to whether Iran is really dangerous.

Germans (and Austrians) prefer to deal with dead Jews. In that, they are really experienced."

Source: TJP

The writer is a post-doctoral researcher at the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism at Yale University, and has just published his second book Anti-Semitism and Germany: Preliminary Studies of a 'Heartfelt Relationship' (in German).

End the Holocaust Memorials, by Daniel Schwammenthal

"Let's put an end to the shallow declarations of "Never Again," which have degenerated into denunciations against long-dead Nazis made from a safe historical distance. This is risk-free grandstanding, which German writer Johannes Gross summed up well: "The resistance to Hitler and his kind," he once wrote, "is getting stronger the more the Third Reich recedes into the past."

"End the Holocaust Memorials - The ceremonies have become a substitute for acting against modern fascists.

After yesterday's Holocaust Memorial Day, I have a request: Let it be the last one, at least outside the Jewish world.

Let's put an end to the shallow declarations of "Never Again," which have degenerated into denunciations against long-dead Nazis made from a safe historical distance. This is risk-free grandstanding, which German writer Johannes Gross summed up well: "The resistance to Hitler and his kind," he once wrote, "is getting stronger the more the Third Reich recedes into the past."

Holocaust Memorial Day has become an annual ritual in which Europeans promise moral clarity and courage the next time it's needed. Yet the list of post-Holocaust genocides is long: the killing fields of Cambodia, the slaughter of Tutsis in Rwanda, the murder of Christians and animists in southern Sudan and the continuing destruction of Muslims in Darfur. While the world yawns, the Islamists in Khartoum are busy with their second genocide.

Nor has the memorial day benefited Jews. Solemn declarations about the evils of the Holocaust have not ended Europe's booming trade with those dreaming of Israel's destruction, the mullahs in Tehran. The ceremonies deploring the West's inaction against the German fascists 60 years ago have become a substitute for action against modern fascists, predominantly Islamist.

Anti-Semitism -- and not only when disguised as anti-Zionism -- is in vogue again in Europe. To scant media attention, and even scanter government criticism, the shouts of "Death to Jews" have filled the streets of the Continent in recent weeks, as protestors, mostly Muslims, voice opposition to the war in Gaza [photos of anti-Israel rally held in Brussels, the capital of Europe, on January 11 - one placard reads "Gaza is worse than Auschwitz"]. Western trade unions and academics have intensified their calls for a boycott of Israel. In Italy, a trade union even called for boycotts of local stores owned by Jews.

The solemn speeches around Europe yesterday mourning those who died in the Holocaust hardly mentioned these developments. Citing the rise of anti-Semitism in Europe, the Central Council of Jews in Germany stayed away from yesterday's official ceremony in the German Parliament.

The United Nations also had a Holocaust memorial service yesterday. Yet just four months ago, the president of Iran was allowed to give an anti-Semitic speech at the General Assembly to enthusiastic applause from many delegations. Although talking about "Zionists," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's use of classic anti-Semitic canards about a Jewish plot for world domination made it clear whom he really was after.

Although they "are miniscule minority," he said, the Zionists "have been dominating an important portion of the financial and monetary centers as well as the political decision-making centers of some European countries and the U.S. in a deceitful, complex and furtive manner." And so on. The secretary general of the General Assembly, Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, embraced the Iranian after his hate speech.

That's the same d'Escoto Brockmann who is calling for a boycott of Israel. It's also the same man who was scheduled to open yesterday's U.N. Holocaust Memorial ceremony but backed down after Israel complained. It's easy to understand why he had wanted to be there: The more crocodile tears people like him spill for dead Jews the easier it is for them to demonize the living ones and avoid being tagged as anti-Semitic. In such hands, Holocaust memorials have become a cover to pound the Jewish state with greater moral authority.

In Europe, there were a few cancellations of yesterday's annual Holocaust Memorial Day events, along with comments suggesting that Jews are the new Nazis. In Barcelona, a city official told La Vanguardia that "marking the Jewish Holocaust while a Palestinian Holocaust is taking place is not right." People in Lulea, Sweden, said Israel's war in Gaza left them unable to mourn the six million dead Jews. "It feels uneasy to have a torchlight procession to remember the victims of the Holocaust at this time," Bo Nordin, a clergyman and spokesman for a local church, told Swedish National Radio. "We have been preoccupied and grief-stricken by the war in Gaza and it would just feel odd with a large ceremony about the Holocaust."

Trine Lilleng, a Norwegian diplomat -- stationed in Saudi Arabia no less -- spelled it out more directly in an email that found its way into the Jerusalem Post: "The grandchildren of Holocaust survivors from World War II are doing to the Palestinians exactly what was done to them by Nazi Germany," she is reported to have written.

The lessons of the Holocaust are straightforward enough but they haven't been learned, as yesterday's events show. Let's stop pretending otherwise and put an end to these phony ceremonies."

Source: article in the EJP
Daniel Schwammenthal is an editorial writer for The Wall Street Journal Europe. This editorial appeared first in the Wall Street Journal Europe.

EU parliament fails to denounce anti-Semitic attacks in Europe

Cyprus: anti-Semitism and suspected Iran arms shipment for Hamas

Arms smuggling and the Obama effect : although the ship, flying the Cypriot flag (of convenience), was carrying Iranian weapons in contravention of UN Security Council Resolution 1747, it was only stopped at Limassol as a gesture to the new U.S. administration, and apparently not because it was the right thing to do. In fact, Cyprus which is a State member of the European Union probably had no choice.

Diplomats: Cyprus stopped suspected Iran arms ship 'as gesture to U.S.' (Haaretz, 1/1/2009)

"The diplomats said that the government of Cyprus understands that the ship is "Cypriot for all intents and purposes" in terms of international law, because it is flying the Cypriot flag, and added there was no legal obligation to detain the vessel. "We could have let it sail on to Syria and disappear there," one diplomat said.

The officials did note, however, that detaining the ship was part of a decision to respond to an American request.

"This was an opportunity to show the new U.S. administration that we are interested in closer ties," one source said. "We stopped the ship as a gesture to the United States.""

Cyprus detained Iran arms ship en route to Syria (Haaretz, 2/2/2009)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jews in Cyprus witness spike in anti-Semitic acts (TJP, 2/2/2009)

"With the start of the IDF's Gaza offensive on December 27, the 350-family Jewish community of Cyprus has been targeted by hate crimes, according to the island's chief rabbi, Arie Zeev Raskin.

"Since [the] last day of Hanukka (December 29), we have been subjected to anti-Semitic offenses coming mainly from people of Muslim origin," Raskin wrote in an e-mail to benefactors of Cyprus's Jewish community sent out on Thursday.

Perhaps hardest hit has been Cyprus's Chabad house. On the last day of Hanukka, a car carrying a hanukkia on its roof and traveling around the country in celebration of the holiday had two of its windows broken.

In another incident, a hanukkia that had been placed in Limassol, the second-largest city in Cyprus, was "completely destroyed," according to Raskin

On January 25, 50 policemen surrounded the Chabad House, located in the capital city of Larnaca. They said that they had received reports that there was to be an attack on the building.
In addition to stone-throwings and on one occasion, the egging of Chabad House, verbal assaults have been mounted against the Jewish community by telephone. "We received phone calls in which people accused us of killing innocent people," Raskin said. "I tried to explain to them that we are a Jewish educational organization and that we have nothing to do with the Israeli government."

Raskin and members of the Jewish community have met with local security officials as well as Israelis to discuss the situation. "They have recommended us putting up heavy walls and doors, and security alarms," he said. "It's not something that makes us happy, but we have to take some kind of action."

In his e-mail message, Raskin appealed for donations to fund a more comprehensive security system for the Chabad House, which serves as the multi-purpose building for the entire Jewish community. "Due to this, meetings with security specialists, police and civil authorities were arranged, and plans for the enhancement of our security systems were drawn up," he wrote. "We find ourselves facing a different and totally unexpected horizon, which requires expenses that we were not ready for."

With the increase in violent attacks, Raskin expressed concern for what he sees as the ineffectiveness of the authorities in Larnaca. "The local authority doesn't recognize the situation we're in," he said. "They say, 'Don't worry, we're looking after you.'"

"Last Friday night we saw two suspicious-looking men standing in front of Chabad House. We called the police and it took them 40 minutes to come!" Raskin declared.

Raskin attributed the rise in anti-Semitism to a growth of the Muslim population in Cyprus. The Second Lebanon War in 2006 saw the arrival of more than 100,000 Lebanese refugees in Cyprus, Raskin said. "They used to be a closed society. Now they are opening up businesses and restaurants and becoming a major part of Cypriot society," he said.

Raskin and his family moved to the island in 2003 as emissaries of the Chabad movement. The Jewish community at the time was free of anti-Semitic attacks.

"When we came, everything was open," he said. "The gates to Chabad House were open and you could lie on the grass and take a nap."

The feelings of Cypriots toward the Jewish community have changed, he said. "You feel it in the street. The locals are not smiling at us like they used to," he said. (...)"

Europe Reimports Jew Hatred, by Daniel Schwammenthal

The mythical Arab Street now reaches deep into Paris, London, Berlin and Madrid.

"Give Giancarlo Desiderati credit for his unintellectual honesty. While most left-wing detractors of Israel claim their animosity toward the Jewish state has nothing to do with anti-Semitism, the head of a small Italian union, Flaica-Uniti-Cub, wasted no time with such sophism. Having long called for a boycott of Israeli goods, Mr. Desiderati last week made the logical next step. "Do not buy anything from businesses run by the Jewish community," his group's Web site urged Italians.

Jews around Europe are increasingly under attack since Israel decided two weeks ago to defend itself after years of rocket fire at its civilian population. There have been arson attempts on synagogues in Britain, Belgium and Germany. Police last week arrested Muslim protesters who wanted to enter the Jewish quarter in Antwerp. Several Danish schools with large Muslim student bodies say they won't enroll Jewish kids because they can't guarantee the children's safety. In France, a group of teenagers attacked a 14-year-old girl last week, calling her "dirty Jew" while kicking her.

At rallies in Germany and the Netherlands over the past two weeks, protesters shouted, "Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the Gas." In Amsterdam, Socialist lawmaker Harry van Bommel and Greta Duisenberg, widow of the first European Central Bank president, marched at the front of one such "peace" demonstration. They didn't join in the background chorus calling for another Holocaust. Instead, they chanted, "Intifada, Intifada, Free Palestine." Mr. Van Bommel later insisted this wasn't a call for Jewish blood but for "civil disobedience" -- a laughable defense given that terrorists during the last intifada murdered more than 1,000 Israelis.

Most of the anti-Jewish violence and protests in Europe come from immigrants. In what may have been a Freudian recognition of the changing face of Europe, CNN two weeks ago used footage of anti-Israeli protesters in London in a report about the growing anger in the "Arab and Muslim world." The mythical Arab Street now reaches deep into Paris, London, Berlin and Madrid.

After a burning car was rammed into a gate outside a synagogue in Toulouse last week, President Nicolas Sarkozy issued a statement that was as morally confused as his judgment of Israel's Gaza offensive. Mr. Sarkozy, who condemned both Hamas terror and Israel's attempt to stop it, also blurred the distinction between the victims and perpetrators of anti-Semitism in France.

His country "will not tolerate international tensions mutating into intercommunity violence," he warned, suggesting that the violence in France comes not only from French Muslims but Jews as well. Mr. Sarkozy's comments also suggest that the fighting in Gaza is the cause for attacks on Jews in France -- that is, that the Mideast conflict is fueling anti-Semitism in Europe. It is exactly the other way around.

The rage against the Jews that is exploding in Europe has been carefully nurtured; it is not spontaneous sympathy for fellow Muslims in Gaza. How else to explain the silence when Muslims in other conflicts, from Darfur to Chechnya, are being killed?

The depth of anti-Semitic propaganda in Palestinian and other Muslim societies is one of the most underreported facts about the Middle East. It is this anti-Semitism that predisposes Muslims in Europe to attack Jews and fuels the Mideast conflict. The hatred predates Israel's creation. To illustrate this point: The Palestinian leader during World War II, Hajj Amin al Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, conspired with Hitler to bring the Holocaust to Palestine. Luckily, the British stopped the German troops in Africa. The Mufti spent the war years in Berlin and was later indicted for war crimes but with the help of the Muslim Brotherhood escaped to Egypt. Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Hamas and other Islamists continue what the Mufti had helped to start: a blend of European anti-Semitism and Islam-inspired Jew hatred. The rejection of Israel's right to exist is what drives their attacks. The media, though, largely ignores Hamas's ideology and its crimes of hiding its leaders and weapons among its own civilian population, and demonizes Israel's attempt to protect its citizens.

Hamas and other Islamists are not even trying to hide their ideology. Just read the Hamas charter or check out Hamas TV, including children's programs, for a nauseating dose of murderous anti-Semitism. Last week, the French broadcasting authorities banned Hamas TV for inciting violence and hatred. Unfortunately, just like Hezbollah TV, which is also banned in Europe for its anti-Semitic and jihadi content, audiences here can still receive these programs due to Saudi Arabia's Arabsat and Egyptian satellite provider Nilesat.

The Islamist variation of Jew hatred is now being reimported to Europe. Muslims in Europe, watching Hamas and Hezbollah TV with their satellite dishes, are being fed the same diet of anti-Semitism and jihadi ideology that Palestinians and much of the Middle East consume.

This brings a unique challenge to the difficult integration of Muslims in Europe. When it comes to issues like Shariah law and terrorism, one can expect a true "clash of civilizations." There is no Western tradition that would justify "honor killings." Anti-Semitism, on the other hand, is not alien to Europe's culture -- to the contrary, the Continent once excelled at it and many still share the feeling.

A Pew study from September shows 25% of Germans and 20% of French are still affected by this virus. In Spain, 46% have unfavorable views of Jews. Is there really no connection between this statistic and the fact that the Spanish media and government are among Europe's most hostile toward the Jewish state? Is it just a coincidence that Europe's largest anti-Israel demonstration took place Sunday in Spain, with more than 100,000 protesters?

A 2006 study in the Journal of Conflict Resolution based on the survey in 10 European countries suggests otherwise. Yale University's Edward H. Kaplan and Charles A. Small found "that anti-Israel sentiment consistently predicts the probability that an individual is anti-Semitic, with the likelihood of measured anti-Semitism increasing with the extent of anti-Israel sentiment observed."

With little hope that the media coverage will become more balanced and the incitement of the growing Muslim community will abate, the Jews in Europe are facing uncertain times."

.

Source: EJP

Photo: "Israel my favorite terrorists", anti-Israel demonstration in Brussels, 31/12/2008

Daniel Schwammenthal edits the State of the Union column in the Wall Street Journal. This article appeared first in the Wall Street Journal Europe.

The anti-Israel hysteria, by Pilar Rahola

"Does Hamas have anything to do with freedom, or rather, doesn't it have everything to do with Islamism of a fascist tendency? Is freedom defended by training children to commit suicide attacks and by enslaving women? Is freedom defended by Iran, which supports Hamas financially? Does freedom belong to the terrorists of Hezbollah?"

"I understand that you want to wipe us off the map, just don't expect us to help you attain that goal. The fact that this old sentiment - the gist of a line uttered by a caustic Golda Meir to the Palestinian leadership - is so relevant these days, gives us a sense of the scope of the tragedy the Holy Land has been suffering through for so many decades.

.

In fact, this same idea - the need for continued efforts to curb the intended destruction of Israel - lies behind the dramatic military decision made by the Israeli government, one that has again made it an object of wrath for so many around the world.

.

As Prof. Joan B. Culla said recently, there can be multiple reactions to the Israel Defense Forces' military incursion in the Gaza Strip, and some of these are justifiably critical. But, given the fact that hysterical reactions abound, lacking any semblance of calm reflection, and based strictly on Manichaeanism and prejudice, there are some questions that must be asked.
.

Ari Shavit wrote recently in Haaretz ("A Just but Tragic War," January 1) that "Operation Cast Lead is a just campaign" and that it is also a "tragic campaign." I disagree with the term "just," because, as Golda Meir also said, "We don't want wars, even when we win." A military incursion that causes dozens of deaths can never be considered just, even if it is aimed at the destruction of the Hamas military machine. But can it be considered inevitable?

.

Some intellectuals, including Amos Oz, have already warned that the Gaza incursion will lead to a significant new wave of anti-Israel sentiment. But even the Israeli left has taken a very lukewarm position about the incursion. The decision to attack Hamas was made by an Israeli society suffering from fatigue, fed up of not being able to find a way out, or reason for hope. And fed up, too, of the knowledge that the other side is working tirelessly to destroy it.

.

Here they are, then, the questions, directed particularly to those carrying signs proclaiming their hatred of Israel through the streets of our cities - most of them the usual suspects, from the certain ones belonging to the radical left, always ready to raise their fist against Israel, to the various sectors of Islamism. It's curious, in fact, this obscene partnership.

.

Those who go into the streets claim to do so in favor of the freedom of Palestine. Well, where have they been all these years, as the fundamentalist phenomena that oppressed the Palestinians were on the rise? Does Hamas have anything to do with freedom, or rather, doesn't it have everything to do with Islamism of a fascist tendency? Is freedom defended by training children to commit suicide attacks and by enslaving women? Is freedom defended by Iran, which supports Hamas financially? Does freedom belong to the terrorists of Hezbollah?

.

Those who protest in the streets also say they do so out of solidarity. Well, solidarity with whom? With Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, who has been less critical of the incursion than any European carrying a sign? With the Palestinians who do not agree with having the financial aid sent to their people being used to build armies and prepare bomb attacks? Do they wonder what happens to these funds? Does solidarity with the Palestinians mean defending terrorism and excusing Hamas' aggressions? Is peace defended by boosting Palestinian leaders who do not believe in it?

.

It is true that the intolerant left lives better by being anti-Israel. And it is also true that, in the face of complex realities, the vociferous masses prefer the simplicity of the "good" and the "bad." But, beyond prejudice, facts are stubborn. Israel withdrew from Gaza, leaving intact the economic structures it had created. Hamas destroyed them all, and took advantage of the withdrawal to prepare an army of destruction. And hundreds of missiles later, it continues its preparations. The silence of this left, which is so loud today, has been very significant. What is happening in Gaza is tragic. But it did not start with the Israeli incursion. And to put all the blame on Israel is comfortable and simple, but useless. Because the main enemy of the Palestinian people comes from within."

.

Source: Haaretz

.

Pilar Rahola is a Spanish-Catalan journalist. She writes a regular column for the Barcelona paper La Vanguardia, where this article originally appeared in Spanish.

- Cross-eyed Europe. The Protocols of the Sages of Information, by Pilar Rahola (2003)

- Apology of evil, by Pilar Rahola

Israel is (always) wrong, stupid !, by Claude Moniquet

"No one is asking how Hamas was able to bring into Gaza "under absolute blockade" some tens of thousands of rockets and missiles or the components serving to manufacture them, arms, munitions, mines, rocket propelled grenades, anti-aircraft cannons, but… no food or medicine for the population."

"If you put aside the United States, the Czech Presidency of the European Union - which expressed the view on Saturday, January 3 that the Israeli operation was "defensive" and not "offensive" – as well as several politicians and media who are isolated and not in tune with the rest, Israel has been again, for the past dozen days or so, subjected to rapid fire criticisms, each more virulent than the others.

"Aggression", "a disproportionate response" leading (obviously) to a humanitarian crisis, and "massacre", are the words and the ideas that come up most often in print and in the mouths of commentators. Some will even go further and categorise as "cynical" or proofs of "mental cruelty" the warnings sent out (via flyers, the radio and even by telephone) to the inhabitants of buildings targeted for bombardment and enjoining their evacuation. It is perfectly clear that no one will make the effort to note that the Israeli Army is, without doubt, the only one in the world to operate in this manner. Just as no one will dwell too long on the fact that dozens of Palestinians from Gaza - including women and children who were victims of the bombardments - are presently being cared for in the hospital of Ashkelon, in … Israel.

No, it is easier to condemn Israel. Surely, it is customary, almost a Pavlovian reflex. Is Israel building a wall to defend itself against a wave of attacks that have caused hundreds of deaths since the start of this century ? It’s a crime. Is Israel practicing the "targeted elimination" of terrorists ? That’s assassination. Has Israel launched a massive offensive to force reason upon an organisation devoted to its destruction which has launched from its territory thousands of rockets and missiles since the evacuation of the Gaza Strip in 2005 ? That’s still worse !

This cheap sentimentalism would have it that Israel, a strong State, is always wrong and the Palestinians, a small and oppressed people, is right about everything. Such a position is very practical, since it avoids asking a lot of questions and having to deal with unpleasant realities. The good souls who have been marching in Europe for several days now under the flags of Hamas don't make an effort to read, for example, a document in which that organisation sets down in black and white that "Jihad [is] its path and death on God’s route is the most distinguished of their hopes" (article 8). The European diplomats who hasten to the bedside of this same terrorist organisation will certainly not read this passionate document in which the following is also stipulated: "The initiatives, the supposed peace solutions and the international conferences urged to settle the Palestinian question go against the profession of faith of the Islamic Resistance Movement" (article 13).

No one is asking how Hamas was able to bring into Gaza "under absolute blockade" some tens of thousands of rockets and missiles or the components serving to manufacture them, arms, munitions, mines, rocket propelled grenades, anti-aircraft cannons, but… no food or medicine for the population.

No one is asking what other State would have waited two and a half years and thousands of rockets before responding? France? Great Britain? Algeria? Russia?

No one is asking what has become of the 2,000 to 3,000 Palestinian Christians of the Gaza Strip. They are not interesting, since they have been trying to flee from the terror for months now - not the terror of Israel, alas, but that of the green fascists. They even dynamited the only Christian bookstore of the city before assassinating its owner (how about that? no demonstration on that occasion…).

No one is asking why the entourage of Mahmud Abbas put the blame for the conflict on Hamas and not on "the Zionist entity." It would be annoying in fact to recall, for example, that the terrorists of Hamas assassinated more than a hundred supporters of the elected President and members of Fatah when they took power in Gaza (how about that : there was no petition. When dozens of Palestinians were "executed" by their "brothers", that did not interest anyone. Strange, isn’t it ?)

No one is asking how a movement that spreads reports on women ready "to blow themselves up among the swine and monkeys" (broadcast on al-Aqsa, on December 30) and which encourages children to become martyrs can have the nerve to express indignation over their deaths. And no one makes us say what what we do not say: the death of a Palestinian child from Israeli bombs is a cause for suffering, but the real guilty party is Hamas, not Israel …

But all these questions (and plenty more) are in vain, uninteresting and rather stupid in the end. They in fact risk leading us to think that Hamas is a totalitarian and terrorist organisation which should be fought. And that is something we would absolutely not want to consider, right ? That is not the essential point. The essential fact is that Israel is wrong. When will you finally understand that ? Sleep on, you brave folk. The world is simple and the media create your dreams for you."

Source: ESISC (in pdf)

Durban II UN conference: Israel to be declared an enemy of humanity?

"Geneva-based UN Watch, the leading independent monitor of the United Nations human rights system, issued the following statement concerning Israel's announcement today that it will join Canada in staying away from the UN's "Durban II" conference on racism, to be held in Geneva in April 2009:

The latest draft of the Durban II declaration seeks to portray Israel as an enemy of humanity, using language lifted verbatim from the notorious 2001 Tehran declaration that led up to the original Durban debacle. The countries that maliciously introduced this hateful rhetoric, and those who responded with moral indifference, bear full responsibility for Israel’s understandable decision today. When the forces of intolerance turn human rights into a political weapon, everybody loses.

In establishing red lines, France, Britain, the Netherlands, Denmark and other democracies have promised to disengage from the Durban process if they are unable to remove the objectionable language—provisions that assault Israel as well as basic human rights principles. We expect them to act accordingly.

For more on the 2009 Durban Review Conference, see http://blog.unwatch.org/?cat=3"

Livni: Israel won't attend Durban II, by Tovah Lazaroff

Related:
- Girding Up for Durban II, by Leslie Susser
- UN Durban II Regional Meeting Confirms Worst Fears of Anti-Semitic and Anti-Democratic Agenda, Stand With Us
- Boycott Durban II, by Pascal Bruckner
- Durban II: The Red Lines Have Been Crossed, by Anne Bayefsky

Belgian PM Yves Leterme: "Israel is linked to the history of Europe"

Belgian Prime Minister Yves Leterme said "we must be wakeful for a new anti-semitism sometimes too easy trivilialized, and for a new anti-Zionism that is a hidden anti-Semitism that in reality has not accepted the existence of the state of Israel even 60 years after its foundation."

Speaking at a dinner Monday night organized in Brussels by the European Jewish Congress (EJC) and CCOJB, the umbrella representative body of Belgian Jewish organisations, to commemorate the 75th anniversary of 'Kristallnacht', the 1938 anti-Jewish pogroms and to promote tolerance throughout Europe, Leterme said unfortunately intolerance is a recurring phenomenon.

"Therefore the lessons of Kristallnacht must be learned again and again. Forgetting paves the way for troops of intolerance to march again."

"Promoting tolerance is one of the core business of education, especially on a continent that is more and more a multicultural and multi-religious society."

The Prime Minister recalled his reaction to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s statements before the United Nations General Assembly in September.

"It is the duty of the political leaders to systematically refuse statements that are outrageous or hateful. The anti-Semitic views expressed by the Iranian President are totally unacceptable and I condemn those vigorously," he said.

Europe cannot turn its back on Israel

He said Europe "cannot turn its back on Israel."

"Israel is linked to the history of Europe, for more than one reason. We cannot speak about the foundation of the Jewish State without mentioning the Holocaust. The dream of a new Eretz Yisrael was born in Europe in the hearts and minds of Theodor Herzl and his followers. Since many centuries, in many thousands of European Jewish households, Pesach, the Jewish feast of Easter, ends with the wish ‘Next Year in Jerusalem.’ "

Source: EJP

Israel and Europe: Is the media biased?, Chaim Herzog Institute conference

I could not resist posting the video of this conference which was attended by Andrés Ortega Klein, Columnist and Editorial Writer at the Spanish newspaper El País, after reading these articles by Eamonn McDonagh at Z-Word underlining El País' anti-Israeli biais:

Propaganda,
Divines,
Variations on the One State Solution,
José Manuel Sánchez Gordillo and Pseudo-Martyrdom,
Amnesia and El País,
and
Bigotry in Print. Crowds Chant Murder. Something's Changed, by Paul Berman in The Forward.

Nine months later, at El País and at most European newspapers, it's still anti-Israeli business as usual.

"Is The Media Biased? The coverage of Israel in Europe and of Europe in Israel"
The Fourth Europe-Israel Media Dialogue
The Chaim Herzog Institute for Media Politics and Society, Tel-Aviv University

Video broadcast of the event

(it is well worth watching in full)

17 February 2008 - 17:30 - Opening
Ambassador Ramiro Cibrian-Uzal, Head of the Delegation of the European Commission to the State of Israel
Prof. Raanan Rein, Vice Rector, Tel Aviv University
Prof. Yoram Peri, Head of the Chaim Herzog Institute for Media, Politics and Society, Tel Aviv University

Moderator:
Ms. Tallie Lipkin-Shahak, Ma'ariv, Galei - Tzahal

Participants:
Joren Mikkelsen, Editor-in Chief, Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten, Denmark
Andrés Ortega Klein, Columnist and Editorial Writer, El País, Spain
Raymond Whitaker, Foreign Editor, The Independent on Sunday, UK
David Landau, Editor, Haarez
Yaakov Ahimeir, Editor and Commentator, Channel 1, IBA
Sever Plocker, Chief Economic Editor, Yedioth Ahronoth

Egyptian-born Magdi Allam's book "Long Live Israel" now in French

Magdi Allam's biography "Viva Israele" (Long Live Israel - From the Ideology of Death to the Civilization of Life: My Story), has now been published in French. Will it come out in English too ?

The Egyptian-born Italian journalist is noted for his criticism of Islam and his articles on the relations between the West and the Islamic world. He converted from Islam to Roman Catholicism in 2008 (Pope Baptizes Prominent Italian Muslim)

Source: Haaretz: "Muslim, Italian and Zionist", by Saviona Man (2007)

"It's not every day that a Muslim intellectual puts his own head on the line to defend Israel's right to exist. But that is exactly what Magdi Allam, an Egyptian-born Italian writer and journalist, has been doing for years. He recently published a book whose name alone is enough to endanger his life: "Long Live Israel - From the Ideology of Death to the Civilization of Life: My Story."

Allam defends Israel even though Hamas condemned him to death in 2003, after he denounced the group's terror attacks. Because of this threat, the Italian government has provided him with round-the-clock bodyguards. But Allam is not afraid. He finds it hard to "live an armored life," but he tells Haaretz in an interview, "I'm willing to pay the price in order to continue to be who I am, to write and speak freely." Those who cut out tongues and slit throats will not subdue him, he writes in the book.

Allam, 55, is the assistant editor of Corriere della Sera and the 2006 Dan David Prize laureate. His new book, which immediately became a best-seller in Italy, is part of his consistent and uncompromising fight against extremist Islam and for Israel's right to exist. In addition, he is trying to convince people that "the culture of hatred and death that the West now attributes to Muslims is not embedded in Islam's DNA."

In "Long Live Israel", Allam directly links the denial of Israel's right to exist to the death cult being nurtured in fundamentalist Islamic circles, and refers to "the ethical erosion that has led to even the denial of the supreme value of the sanctity of life." Allam sees Israel as "an ethical parameter that separates between lovers of civilization and those who preach the ideology of death." The sanctity of life, he writes, "applies to everyone, or to no one." (...)

Allam was not always a defender of the Jewish state. "'Zionism' was a dirty word for me," he admits in his book. For years he considered Israel an aggressive, racist, colonialist, immoral entity, and he accepted the methods of the Palestinian struggle and its leader Yasser Arafat, "without criticizing the fact that Fatah adopted the path of terror extensively inside and outside Israel." After emigrating from Egypt to Italy in 1972, he even enlisted actively for the Palestinian cause, writing, lecturing and participating in demonstrations by the Italian left: "I also shouted 'Long live Palestine! Long live the Palestinian resistance!'" he writes in the book. "My passion for the Palestinian cause was strong, as was my enthusiasm for Arafat's personality."

In his new book he describes his long road from profound admiration for Arafat and "the prophet of pan-Arabism," Gamal Abdel Nasser, and strong support for the Palestinian cause, to his unreserved support for Israel. "I want to tell you about my slow and tortured path from the ideology of lies, tyranny, hatred, violence and death, to the culture of truth, freedom, love, peace and life, until it ripened into absolute certainly that defending the sanctity of life is more than ever in keeping with defending Israel's right to exist," he writes. At the end of this "slow and tortured path" he reached the conclusion that the Arab countries' refusal to recognize Israel during the 1950s and 1960s hurt the Palestinians, and that Arafat was a tyrant, a megalomaniac, corrupt and corrupting, and the worst disaster to befall them.

Regarding the present situation in Gaza, Allam says he never had any illusions about Hamas. "I thought it was a big mistake to allow a terror organization to participate in elections. Condoleezza Rice and Tony Blair deluded themselves in believing that Hamas' very participation in the government would turn the group into a pragmatic political power," he says. "Instead, it turned out that Hamas will never recognize Israel's right to exist, will not relinquish terror and will not honor international agreements signed by the Palestinian Authority. Hamas wants absolute rule in order to impose sharia and to revive the international Islamic caliphate. As it pushes for absolute rule, it does not hesitate to massacre its Palestinian brothers in Gaza. It will try to do the same thing in the West Bank."

Do you believe the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be solved before the "ideology of death" is uprooted - that even if Israel returns all the territories it occupied in 1967, it will continue to live by the sword?

"The Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza demonstrates that the problem is not the need to withdraw from territories occupied in preemptive wars, but rather the Arabs' lack of desire to recognize Israel's right to exist. Israel erred in 1967 when it accepted the formula of territory for peace, and thus placed its very existence up for public auction. Experience teaches that the right to life cannot and should not be a subject for negotiation and bargaining. No negotiations should be held with extremists and terrorists who deny Israel's right to exist." (...)

Regarding the question of the Islamization of Europe, Allam says, "Europe is already a bastion of Islamic extremism. Just look at attack on Mike's Place in Tel Aviv, which was carried out by British suicide bombers drafted by Hamas; the massacre by Islamists in Madrid and in London; the slitting of director Theo Van Gogh's throat in Amsterdam; and the dozens of Islamic terror attacks that were prevented in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium and Holland."

This bastion exists thanks to a widespread network of mosques, Koran schools, financial bodies and charitable institutions linked to the Muslim Brotherhood; Moroccan, Tunisian and Algerian Salfists; Saudi Wahabis; Al-Qaida jihadis and Pakistani groups. This multicultural Europe, which has trampled its values and betrayed its identity, is satisfied with reacting to the obvious terror, which is only the tip of the iceberg, but is afraid to deal with terror's ideological and organizational roots." (...)"

Oxfam anti-Israel campaigns taste bitter: the "Unattributable Gaza Update"

In July 2003, Oxfam Belgium produced this poster: "Israeli fruit tastes bitter. Say no to the occupation of Palestine. Don't buy any fruit from Israel." for which it eventually apologized, after an international campaign was successfully launched by the Simon Wiesenthal Centre (here and here). The poster still features prominently on the website of the Belgian-Palestinian Association, whose chairman is a former Oxfam Belgium head, Pierre Galand, who keeps the tradition very much alive.

Now Blue Truth has this story:
Oxfam's Unattributable Gaza Update

""Unattributable Gaza Update": that is the actual title of periodic e-mail alerts sent out from Oxfam International, the UK-based NGO. The subtitle states "This document is for your information only – do not attribute to Oxfam International – check and confirm all figures before reporting." One of the e-mails that I received was signed by 'Mohammed Ali' Abu Najela "Advocacy and Media Researcher, Oxfam GB, Gaza Strip - Occupied Palestinian Territories" and the other was signed by Michael Bailey "Advocacy and Media Manager, Jerusalem Office".

The e-mail contains various statistics regarding reports of food and fuel delivery, electric power supplies, personnel movement, and incidents of rocket fire between Hamas and Israel. Interestingly, despite the significant amount of humanitarian aid supplied by Israel, none of the aid reported in Oxfam's e-mail is listed as coming from Israel-sources are UNRWA, WHO, "commercial" and "conveyor belt" (presumably unloaded at one of the crossings).

Given the curious disclaimers in the e-mail, I sent my own e-mails to Oxfam asking why they send out information that they don't want to be attributed to them. I received a response from one Elizabeth Stevens, Oxfam America Humanitarian Communications Officer:

"I think you received an update that we sent to a specific distribution list. The sources for the information for these updates are thought to be reliable, but as most of the observations aren't our own, we can't say with absolute certainty that they are true. We included the caveat because we don't want anyone on the list to pass the information on without taking further measures to verify it. It is important that people intervening in any volatile conflict situation be able to keep track of the ever-changing landscape; however, not all information collected under these conditions can be verified quickly or easily. We want to be sure the readers on our list get what they need to do their jobs and that they also understand the limitations of the fact-gathering."

Now comes the interesting part: now that I have made this inquiry, I am now on the "specific distribution list" for more of these Unattributable Updates! Last I checked, I don't need this information to do MY job. So why does Oxfam think I should receive these? Given the history of deliberate misinformation and media manipulation by Palestinians and their advocates, this could be just another way that Palestinians use NGOs as part of their propaganda war. Certainly it's not like information, especially unattributable information, would ever circulate around the Internet!

Unfortunately, this is not really a humorous matter. The al-Durah affair was used by Palestinians to inflame tensions and inspire heinous acts of terrorism against Israeli civilians. The so-called "Jenin massacre", the Hezbollah photo frauds unquestioningly disseminated by Reuters, and the Gaza beach incident in which the deaths of civilians from a Palestinian land mine were blamed on an Israeli attack-- all were prominently used against Israel while the "corrections", if ever acknowledged at all, were made very quietly. Just 2 months ago, there was a miracle that occurred in Gaza that received remarkably little press coverage-- a Palestinian who had died, allegedly because he was denied access to Israel for medical care according to the press release from Physicians for Human Rights in a story given prominent play on the BBC, was resurrected the next day, though I don't think the BBC felt that his resurrection was unusual enough to publicize. What if I suggested that Oxfam and other NGOs knowingly manipulate their reports to deliberately harm Israel? What if I suggested that Oxfam and other NGOs knowingly employed Hamas terrorists on the ground in Gaza; or that they were required to pay a percentage of their funds (donated by well-meaning citizens in Europe and the US) to Hamas to help fund Gazan rocket factories; or that they knowingly collaborated in allowing Hamas to limit the distribution of aid to its own loyalists? These observations aren't my own, so I can't say with absolute certainty that they are true. (...)"

Special Report: "Pierre Galand (Belgium) Using Political NGOs to Promote Demonization & Anti-Semitism in the UN & EU" (NGO Monitor, 2004).