Wednesday, 29 July 2009

Norwegian diplomat posted cartoon showing Israeli PM "deadly intestinal gas"

"While we would like to think that the e-mail incident was just a mistake and that Mrs. Lilleng is no more anti-Israeli than anyone else in the Norwegian Foreign Department, these three shots from her now closed blog tell us otherwise." (Norway, Israel and the Jews blog)

"Olmert's flatulence: Certain foods counteract the production of Ehud Olmert's deadly intestinal gas, most notably U.S. dollars." (Carlos Latuff)

Background to this story:
Wiesenthal Center urges Norwegian FM to reprimand senior diplomat for antisemitic email

These drawings were posted by Norwegian diplomat Trine Lilleng on her blog and are by cartoonist Carlos Latuff. The idea that a European diplomat chose to post a drawing showing an Israeli P.M. destroying Gaza by breaking wind and defecating is appalling. Even more so because it is the work by Carlos Latuff who entered and won second prize in the 2006 viciously antisemitic Iranian Holocaust Cartoon Competition.

Close ups of drawings posted by the Norwegian diplomat on her now closed blog:

Latuff's explation : "Olmert's flatulence Certain foods counteract the production of Ehud Olmert's deadly intestinal gas, most notably U.S. dollars."
From her blog where just after showing so much compassion for the Palestinians and anger at Israel she writes about a "A Saudi Friday brunch on 77th floor" and about her deliciously glamorous abaya :

Tuesday, 28 July 2009

Wiesenthal Center urges Norwegian FM to reprimand senior diplomat for antisemitic email

"Here is a press release from the Wiesenthal Center, addressed as a letter to Norway’s Foreign Minister - Jonas Gahr Störe. As readers of this site will be fully aware of, Mr. Störe has previously denied that Trine Lilleng is still in Riyadh. When Haaretz found out that she actually has stayed on in Riyadh, Mr. Störe countered by denying ever having said that she was not. Shame on you, Mr. Störe." (Norway, Israel and the Jews blog)

E-mail sent through Ministry account condemns Israel with "outrageous rhetoric and imagery that clearly demeans and diminishes the victims of the Holocaust, and that helps spawn hatred of Jews and the Jewish state".

Just days after a speech at the Task Force for International Cooperation on Holocaust Education, Remembrance, and Research (ITF) where he called for more robust action against Holocaust denial and relativism, Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Störe was urged by the Simon Wiesenthal Center to put his words into action and publicly condemn an anti-Semitic, anti-Israel e-mail sent by a senior Norwegian diplomat. According to the Israeli paper, Ha’aretz, while serving as First Secretary in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Trine Lilleng sent an email through her official government account that juxtaposed "images of slain children said to have been killed in the Israeli attack on Hamas in Gaza, …with photos of Jewish Holocaust victims" with a text that said "I always wondered why they didn't learn anything from the horror during WWII. Now I see what they learnt."

The Center expressed concern that Ms. Lilleng has yet to be reprimanded and has reportedly been promoted.

In a letter to Minister Störe, who is also the current ITF Chair, Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Wiesenthal Center, Dr. Efraim Zuroff, the Center’s Israeli Director and Mark Weitzman, Director of the Center’s Task Force Against Hate and Terrorism, said, "It is just such outrageous rhetoric and imagery that clearly demeans and diminishes the victims of the Holocaust, and that helps spawn hatred of Jews and the Jewish state. It is a prime example of the kind of Holocaust relativization that you spoke out so strongly against at the ITF Plenary."

Center officials told Störe that, "it certainly behooves the head of the Ministry that she serves to publicly denounce her hate-spam and to take direct action to ensure that such behavior is not seen to be rewarded or to reflect Norway's official position on these issues."

This controversy comes on the heels of the controversial decision by Norway to celebrate the 150th birthday of Knut Hamsun, who in 1943, during the height of WWII and the Nazi Holocaust, met with Hitler and gave his Nobel Prize in Literature to Nazi Propaganda Minister Goebbels. Many considered this pro-Nazi collaborator as a traitor to his people and the Wiesenthal Center has protested what appears to be a whitewash of history.

Source: Simon Wiesenthal Center press release

Norway, Israel and the Jews blog has been following this affair:
- Støre’s Faustian pact: Trine Lilleng and the Saudi Prince
- Trine Lilleng still in Riyadh - possibly promoted
- Trine Lilleng - asset or liability for Jonas Gahr Støre?
- Five months since AJC Called on Norway to Repudiate Trine Lilleng for Nazi Analogy
- California professor uses Trine Lilleng’s photographs
- Diplomatic envoy Trine Lilleng

Monday, 27 July 2009

Christian European NGOs funding anti-Israeli "Breaking the Silence"

Source: NGO Monitor

Website: http://www.shovrimshtika.org/ : Breaking the Silence (Shovirm Shtika)

* Registered company in Israel, founded in 2004.

* Funders in 2008 include the European Union (€43,514), the British government (NIS 226,589), the New Israel Fund (NIF -- $68,833 in 2008), the Netherlands (€19,999) ["Sources say Verhagen reproached senior figures in the Dutch Foreign Ministry upon learning this and gave instructions to launch an internal investigation on the matter. It showed that the embassy in Israel gave Breaking the Silence 19,995 euros to help put together its 2009 report, which discusses Operation Cast Lead and was released earlier this month. Had this figure been five euros higher, it would have required approval from The Hague."], the Spanish government, Oxfam, Christian Aid, the Moriah Fund, ICCO (Dutch church group) and SIVMO (Dutch).

* In 2007, NIF granted Breaking the Silence (BtS) $70,976 for “[r]aising public awareness of the destructive consequences that serving in the occupied territories has on Israeli society” (p.15). In 2008, BtS also received €54,393 from the EU’s EIDHR program for “Personal Encounters with Former Israeli Combat Soldiers.”

* Breaking the Silence “collects testimonies of soldiers who served in the Occupied Territories during the Second Intifadah,” claiming that the “testimonies portray a…grim picture of questionable orders in many areas regarding Palestinian civilians [which] demonstrate the depth of corruption which is spreading in the Israeli military… Israeli society continues to turn a blind eye, and to deny that which happens in its name.”

* BtS conducts tours to Hebron and the South Hebron Hills to “witness first hand the dire situation.” Criticized by Israeli police officials for “antagoniz[ing]...settlers in the hope that the settlers will attack them.”

* The NGO was active in promoting “war crimes” charges against Israel after the Gaza fighting in January 2009.

Holland to reevaluate its funding of anti-Israel NGO

Sunday, 26 July 2009

Holland to reevaluate its funding of anti-Israel NGO

"Sources say Verhagen reproached senior figures in the Dutch Foreign Ministry upon learning this and gave instructions to launch an internal investigation on the matter. It showed that the embassy in Israel gave Breaking the Silence 19,995 euros to help put together its 2009 report, which discusses Operation Cast Lead and was released earlier this month. Had this figure been five euros higher, it would have required approval from The Hague."

These clever guys at the Dutch embassy in Israel ... choosing to give as much money as possible (19,995 euros) - short of the of 5 euros more (20,000 euros) which would have required government approval. Just for the great pleasure of demonizing Israel.

"Following protests by Israel, the Netherlands will reevaluate its funding of an organization that alleged that Israeli troops used Palestinians as human shields in Gaza. Acting on instructions from the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, the Israeli ambassador to the Netherlands, Harry Knei-Tal, met last week with the director-general of the Dutch Foreign Ministry and complained about the Dutch embassy's funding of Breaking the Silence.

The Israeli ambassador suggested that the Netherland's funding of the organization should be terminated. "The Dutch taxpayer's money could be better used to promote peace and human rights," a source quoted Knei-Tal as saying.

According to sources familiar with the situation, Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen [Dutch Foreign Minister deplores revived antisemitism in Europe] - considered one of Israel's staunchest supporters in the European Union - did not know that the embassy in Tel Aviv was funding Breaking the Silence. He learned about it after the organization's funding sources were published in an article in The Jerusalem Post [Europeans funding 'Breaking the Silence'].

Sources say Verhagen reproached senior figures in the Dutch Foreign Ministry upon learning this and gave instructions to launch an internal investigation on the matter. It showed that the embassy in Israel gave Breaking the Silence 19,995 euros to help put together its 2009 report, which discusses Operation Cast Lead and was released earlier this month. Had this figure been five euros higher, it would have required approval from The Hague.

The director-general of the Dutch Foreign Ministry told the Israeli ambassador that in light of the probe, funding for Breaking the Silence would be reevaluated because of the political sensitivities of the issues covered by the organization.

Breaking the Silence, which was founded by Israeli army veterans, has collected what it says are damning testimonies from soldiers who took part in the January offensive against Hamas in Gaza. The report contains almost 30 anonymous testimonies. An Israeli diplomat said that in the meeting last week, Knei-Tal said Israel was a democratic country and that such funds should go to places without democracy. Breaking the Silence was a legal and legitimate organization, he said, according to sources, but its funding by the Dutch was unreasonable "in light of the political sensitivities.""

Source : article byBarak Ravid in Haaretz

- Anti-Israel campaigning by Dutch Christian NGO and Oxfam
- Dutch government split on Israel ties

Friday, 24 July 2009

Nina Witoszek: Europe has learned little from history

"The contemporary dream of Europe is concerned with a continent which, according to progressive philosophers and sociologists like Habermas or Beck, ought to be maximally tolerant and open. It is a Europe which hates war and desires to leave its demonic history behind. But this Europe worried Kolakowski because it reminded him of Switzerland and Sweden. Both countries have become idols of modernity due to their tolerant pacifism and wealth, which covered lies, cowardice and collaboration with the devil. And both were completely unable to resist the totalitarian evil of the Nazi-regime. They waited for the Americans, Russians, British and Poles to do the dirty work for them."

Source: Norway, Israel and the Jews blog

When Nina Witoszek first arrived in Oslo, she was surprised at how much support the political left were willing to give the oppressive regime she had left behind in Poland. The poor woman was yet to learn exactly how deep the rabbit hole went. Now, years later, her insights and understanding makes her a key participant in debates on Norwegian society. Below, an unauthorised translation from Witoszek’s op-ed in today’s Aftenposten - Norway’s second largest daily:
_______________________

Protest: Why were the protests against the war in Gaza so much larger than the ones against the terror of Iran’s regime?

Europe has learned little from history
Nina Witoszek, professor and author

Leszek Kolakowski, an Oxford-philosopher and one of the wisest men on earth, used to say: "England is an island in Europe. Oxford is an island in England. All Souls College is an island in Oxford. And I am an island in All Souls." He died there on July 17, 81 years old.

For me he was less of an island and more of a lighthouse who has sent lifesaving light to those who are about to drown on the stormy seas of modernity. If Arne Næss was a philosopher behind the green bible of modernity, Kolakowski was the sharp anatomist of totalitarianism who revealed its fatal attraction. He started as a rabid Marxist at the university of Warsaw, but instead of dreaming about the final triumph of communism, he mercilessly analyzed its inevitable transformation from a beautiful vision to a bestial, de-civilizing project.

Expelled. After having been expelled from Poland for his "revisionism", he wrote The Main Current of Marxism (1972), the most brutal and brilliant detonation of Marxism in political philosophy. He was obsessed with the paradox of liberal society - its tendency to become its own enemy by tolerating forces which would destroy individual liberties.

The contemporary dream of Europe is concerned with a continent which, according to progressive philosophers and sociologists like Habermas or Beck, ought to be maximally tolerant and open. It is a Europe which hates war and desires to leave its demonic history behind.

But this Europe worried Kolakowski because it reminded him of Switzerland and Sweden. Both countries have become idols of modernity due to their tolerant pacifism and wealth, which covered lies, cowardice and collaboration with the devil. And both were completely unable to resist the totalitarian evil of the Nazi-regime. They waited for the Americans, Russians, British and Poles to do the dirty work for them.

This is then a Europe which has learned little from history and has become blind to the global advance of totalitarianism.

We saw how the war in Gaza last year led to violent demonstrations and hateful declarations against Israel. Six months later hundreds of demonstrators were killed or arrested in Teheran when they protested against the results of the Iranian presidential elections. There have hardly been any solidarity actions for the opposition to the newly elected totalitarian regime. Was this because the protests were discerned to be an internal Iranian affair?

Three explanations. I have three Kolakowski-inspired explanations for the tepid response of the European elites to Iran’s anti-authoritarian rebellion. One is that Europe’s progressive circles admire Islam a religion of poor underdogs, and Ahmadinejad is the king of the underdogs.

The other is that our pro-Islamic attitudes actually disguise an anti-Arabic (and anti-Persian) racism: maybe we expect nothing of "Muslim barbarians" in Palestine or Iran, while we demand from a besieged Israel a European tolerance for fanatical Islamists?

The third explanation is that our cultural elites might be continuing their romance with totalitarian leaders and movements. Maybe they do not cry out against Ahmadinejad because they perceive the Iranian rebellion against Imams as an expression of the bourgeois ideology of the middle classes? Maybe Ahmadinejad - the man who speaks openly of annihilating Israel - in fact is a beloved tyrant who has replaced Stalin or Hoxha?

What would Kolakowski have said? Today we need the clarifying light from his lonely island more than ever - but the light has gone out.
_______________________


Thursday, 23 July 2009

Gang of Barbarians retrial: did the Jews want their pound of flesh?

"The left-leaning daily Liberation buried a small story on page 13 with a headline, "Jewish organizations call for a new trial." "Only the maximum sentence for Fofana satisfies them..." the story reads. The implication was clear. While the rest of France wanted to put this story to rest, the Jews wanted their pound of flesh. This is France, and the French are polite. Nobody would ever say that face-to-face. But that is how it read between the lines."

Source: article by Brett Kline in JPost

"Rafy Abitbol was the only member of the family to attend the verdict in the Paris court last Friday evening that brought an end to the brutal trial for the torture and murder of his brother-in-law Ilan Halimi in February 2006. He left his wife and Halimi's other sister and their mother at the dinner table and headed over to the Palais de la Justice on the Ile de la Cité almost reluctantly, leaving the others to observe Shabbat, something he has never been keen on. Wearing a blue blazer and sitting motionless and expressionless in the plaintiffs' box, Abitbol listened as Youssouf Fofana, the leader of the gang who kidnapped and tortured Halimi, 23, was handed a life sentence with a mandatory 22 years to serve, the maximum sentence applicable under French law.

Fofana clapped his hands softly upon hearing the verdict, which had been expected. The gesture was noted by the press and public on hand for the first and only day that the trial had been opened to the public. But 25 other names and verdicts followed, ranging from 18 years to six months suspended sentences. Two people were acquitted. What must be explained is that in France, after three years already served, plus good behavior and other factors, a sentence of 18 years can mean nine years or less, and nine years can mean as little as 18 months.

This means that the superintendent of the building where Halimi was held captive and tortured will walk after perhaps five years and the girl used as bait will go free after only 18 months in prison. Eight people are being released now, including those who served their three years for not calling in a vicious kidnapping that led to a murder.

Obsessed with obtaining money by any means necessary, they might soon bump into Halimi's mother on the street as Ruth Halimi wanders through life, mourning her son. At his reburial in Jerusalem's Har Hamenuhot cemetery in 2007, a representative of the American Jewish community, speaking at the ceremony, said that Halimi had died a martyr for the Jewish people. The American Jew did not know what he was talking about. Halimi did not die a martyr; he died for nothing - a nice, good-looking ordinary Jewish guy from a modest Sephardi family of Moroccan and Tunisian origin, who liked Israel but was really crazy about the United States. The debate in his family was not about making aliya; it was about whether to head for New York or Miami.

WHAT THE press labeled the "Gang of Barbarians," picking up on Fofana's own glib words when he was arrested after fleeing to the Ivory Coast and being brought back to France, was really a loose association of marginal characters.

They ranged from small-time criminals with prison time under their belts to local tough guys and girls, many of black African and North African Arab backgrounds, but also Gallic French. Their spotty educations fit their general level of intelligence. Like many in France, they thought all Jews were rich, and like marginalized people everywhere, they hated the police. This was also not their first kidnapping.

As they hung out in the hallway and mostly abandoned basement of the building on Rue Prokofiev in Bagneux, a fairly nice working-class suburb just south of Paris, like the disenfranchised all over the world, they dreamed of how to get their hands on other people's money.

Fofana, a charismatic man who prayed in the local mosque regularly, and who had been doing shady deals with the building superintendent, Gilles Serrurier, 42, had the answer: kidnap a Jew and hold him for ransom. Using pretty, buxom, dark-haired 17-year-old Yalda, of Iranian origin, to visit Halimi's store as bait with the promise of sexual adventures, they got Halimi to Bagneux on January 21, 2006.

The rest is history: a brutal 24 days of cutting, burning and beating Halimi, who was tied up in the basement room that the superintendent had turned over to the gang after he was promised money. How much? Fofana offered him 1,500 euros, about $2,300. After the ransom deal went bad, Fofana and three or four other guys went especially berserk on Halimi, for one reason only - because he was Jewish. No one ever saw a penny.

The police, who had botched the case badly by telling the family to cut off contact with Fofana, found Halimi brutally beaten, bloody, with his head shaven, naked and staggering in a suburban railway station. He died on the way to the hospital, unable to utter a word.

The story, when it finally reached the French press, shocked the nation, but most Gallic French did not care for the accusations of anti-Semitism from the Jewish community. "This is not the extreme Right, nor the extreme Left, so how can it be anti-Semitic?" said one TV journalist, in an example of classic French inductive logic. "It's just a sick, violent story." [...]

What Jewish community officials had been hoping for happened. Justice Minister Michele Alliot-Marie has asked the high court in Paris to hold a new trial for 14 of the 25 defendants, because of the light sentences handed down last Friday. [...]

Abitbol [Gil Taieb, vice president of the Jewish Social Fund] had always thought that holding the trial in public would have changed something, would have made more French people interested in it. He looked around at the army of journalists in the courtroom and at the TV cameras lighting up the hall downstairs as lawyers gave statements, but the next day noted that the stories were short and focused on Fofana, with little on the short sentences for the accomplices. It was the facts, nothing but the facts.

"The jury reduced the sentences demanded by the prosecutor because I think they felt sorry for the defendants," said Prasquier. "They are young, not very intelligent and have faced tough circumstances in their lives. And I think the role of anti-Semitism in this was downplayed by the prosecutor. In a sense, these young people have become the victims of the French systems, the great losers. Their passive complicity was considered normal."

What that means is that while four or five guys did the actual beating and burning, everyone else played a role and knew what was going on, and said nothing, and the jurors decided that was less bad. Maybe they were afraid to talk, to call the police, afraid of repercussions in the projects or on the street, where nobody likes the police, anyway.

And the closed-door trial?
"The courts could have made this a learning experience for the French public," said Prasquier, "to learn about how evil anti-Semitism can get in modern France, to learn what it means for French values and what is going on in some of the suburbs."

Taieb was not so diplomatic. "This is an embarrassment for the French court system and for France, because it shows that collaboration is possible," he said. "These guys can participate in a brutal crime and get away with murder."

Prasquier and Taieb were present in court on Friday night, but most of the Jewish community was not, including the French Jewish radio stations and print outlets, which were totally absent. The obvious excuse would be Shabbat, but not everyone is observant. So how is it that the editors, who had made a big deal of the case before the verdict and are still doing so with daily interviews, were not present for the action, in front of the box full of defendants guilty of the most horrific act of anti-Semitism in France since World War II?

"Frankly, I don't understand where all the Jewish press was," said Taieb. "I know all the editors; they should have been there. This is not good. And the fact that the verdict fell on a Friday evening, on Shabbat... well, did the court plan this, so the family wouldn't show [up], or the press? It is hard to imagine this in France, but in Judaism we say there are no coincidences. I was very disappointed to see the hall and courtroom packed with the French press, and no French Jewish press." [...]

The press has not bothered going over the details. Radio, TV and print accounts gave factual accounts of the verdicts, quoted the prosecutor saying the sentences were correct and interviewed the defense attorneys and then Francis Szpiner, the Halimis' lawyer.

Since then, the story has once again exploded, following the Justice Ministry's decision to hold another trial. The decision almost appears to have come on cue. Defense lawyers say the trial was fair, prosecutors say the light sentences brought dishonor to the country, and on Monday the retrial was announced. [...]


"Certain Gallic French and Arabs felt strongly about this affair from the very beginning when Ilan was killed and have expressed their anger, but I believe you really have two different visions and ideals of France being formed around the trial, for the little people know about it," said Michael Sebban, an author and former public high school philosophy teacher in Saint Denis, a tough suburb north of Paris. Sebban, an Orthodox Jew, now divides his time between Paris-Bordeaux and Jerusalem.

"For most French, this is a reality show killing, and for the Jews, it is a tragedy," he said. "The French do not feel concerned on a personal level, while Jews feel like it was the boy next door. As if they were not living in the same country." [...]

Ih the hall of the courtroom, Myriam and a small group of friends appeared to be some of the very few Jews among the public, and they were looking around as if they were about to be attacked.

"I really feel uneasy here," she said, unwilling to give her last name. "They have killed so many Jews, they have killed..." Her jaw drops, and her friends offer only blank stares. One of them goes off and insults the defense lawyer, who was busy making statements in front of all the TV cameras. Instead of ignoring him, the lawyer, well-spoken and sure of himself, exploded in anger.

"Who the hell are you, what are you doing here?" he yelled right in the face of the short, swarthy young man, who was not expecting such a strong response, and who backed off, stammering. The cameramen loved it and moved in, filming every moment. "I am defending my clients and the French legal system, and you are calling me a jerk and an anti-Semite? You are an idiot. Get out of here," the lawyer yelled. The threat of violence was there, but the altercation had no value, except for the cameras, and the lawyer knew it. That night and the next day, the hallway clash between the lawyer and the not-too-bright, frustrated young Jewish guy was prominently featured on every TV report in France. It looked good.

The light sentences for the accomplices have been reported only in the written press, and only because the Jewish community has made statements saying that justice was not done. In other words, this was a Jewish affair, and only a Jewish affair.

The left-leaning daily Liberation buried a small story on page 13 with a headline, "Jewish organizations call for a new trial." "Only the maximum sentence for Fofana satisfies them..." the story reads. The implication was clear. While the rest of France wanted to put this story to rest, the Jews wanted their pound of flesh. This is France, and the French are polite. Nobody would ever say that face-to-face. But that is how it read between the lines. [...]

While a new trial may be good for justice for the Halimi family and good for the justice system in France, it might not be good for France's Jews, especially the young people living in touch-and-go areas. Have community leaders really thought of that?"

- Ilan Halimi's murderer sentenced to life in prison
- Trial of Ilan Halimi’s barbarian murderers opens in Paris
- The murder of Ilan Halimi in Paris three years ago
- Echoes in the beating of Rudy Haddad

Tuesday, 21 July 2009

New era as British hostility reaches crescendo

"In a country whose opinion formers still fulminate about the invasion of Iraq - sometimes portrayed as a venture inspired by Israel and Zionist neoconservatives in America - the Netanyahu government's hard line stance on Iran has got the alarm bells ringing again. Are we going to get sucked in to yet another war in the Middle East for the benefit of Israel, they ask."

It has been a terrible month for Israel's reputation in Great Britain. The government has announced a partial arms embargo in protest of Operation Cast Lead. The Charity War on Want has held a launch event for a new book entitled Israeli Apartheid: A Beginners Guide. The Guardian has featured commentaries promoting the apartheid analogy as well as accusing Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of using Nazi language to defend settlement policy. The BBC and other media outlets have given massive coverage to the recent Breaking the Silence report slamming the IDF for committing "war crimes." Barely a day goes by without a new front being opened against the Jewish state.

Those of us who follow such matters are always in danger of getting too close to our subject. But, given that the IDF is not involved in combat operations, I for one have never seen a period like it. On Friday, the Guardian ran two anti-Israel opinion pieces on one and the same day.

There's something in the air. The Israel-haters smell blood, and they're going in for the kill. It could be that we are on the threshold of a new era. But why now?

The simplest explanation is that the relentless, unremitting stream of anti-Israeli invective that has been pumped into the public mind in Britain over the last decade or so was always going to reach critical mass at some point. There is nothing particularly significant about the timing. The clock has been ticking for years. Israel's time has simply come.

Ultimately, the simple explanation may be the best explanation. But there are a number of other factors now at play which may have helped bring the situation to a head.

First, the election of Barack Obama is perceived by many British opinion formers as heralding a refreshing new approach to Israel from the United States. For linguistic and historical reasons, political change in America is keenly felt in Britain. Obama's comments calling for a freeze on the settlements have provided the pretext for a renewed assault on Israel in general using the American president's huge popularity as cover.

Second, the election of Netanyahu combined with the appointment of Avigdor Lieberman as foreign minister have offered new opportunities to make the attack personal. Even for Israel's most virulent detractors, it was not easy to mount a hate campaign against Ehud Olmert and Tzipi Livni. Netanyahu has been demonized in Britain for years. Lieberman is portrayed as little better than a skinhead. The wolves have been thrown fresh meat.

Third, Foreign Secretary David Miliband has recently recast the tone of British pronouncements on the Middle East and relations with the Islamic world in a way that serves the broader agenda of Israel's opponents. For example, in a speech in Oxford in May and reported in the Guardian, he spoke of abjuring distinctions between "moderates and extremists" - a line that, despite Foreign Office denials, was widely interpreted as potentially paving the way for talks with Hamas and other militant groups. He also referred to "ruined crusader castles," "lines drawn on maps by colonial powers" and to the failure "to establish two states in Palestine." Miliband cannot be held entirely responsible for the way his words are interpreted. But it is precisely in such guilty, post-colonial terms that Israel's opponents in Britain have always talked. To hear their own kind of language echoing back at them from the leading figure in the UK foreign policy establishment is likely to embolden them further.

Fourth, in a country whose opinion formers still fulminate about the invasion of Iraq - sometimes portrayed as a venture inspired by Israel and Zionist neoconservatives in America - the Netanyahu government's hard line stance on Iran has got the alarm bells ringing again. Are we going to get sucked in to yet another war in the Middle East for the benefit of Israel, they ask.

Fifth, Netanyahu's new emphasis on insisting that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a specifically Jewish state is pushing Israel's opponents against the wall and forcing them to declare themselves with greater clarity. Of course, this does not just apply to Britain. But as a country whose opinion forming classes rank among the most hostile to Israel in the Western world, the move has provoked a particularly hysterical reaction. Since the Palestinians have made it clear that they have no intention of recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, British opponents of Israel have been forced to choose between accepting that Palestinian rejectionism forms the real root cause of the conflict or themselves rejecting the Jewish character of Israel and the whole Zionist enterprise to boot.

Put all of these factors together and it becomes easier to understand why a situation which was awful to begin with has deteriorated so rapidly. The obvious question now is where next. With the partial arms embargo in mind, we should obviously be watching for an extension of formal sanctions. Outside the governmental sphere, it is a racing certainty that unions will renew efforts for trade and academic boycotts. Media hysteria will grow as each new assault on Israel's integrity helps legitimize and validate the next. For the Jews of Britain, the prospect of increasing anti-Semitism against this backdrop is all too real.

The darkness is closing in.

Source: article by Robin Shepherd in TJP

The writer is director of international affairs at the Henry Jackson Society in London. His book, A State Beyond the Pale: Europe's Problem with Israel, will be published in September.