Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 102

Thread: Antisemitism

  1. #1
    takeo
    Guest

    Antisemitism

    A grotesque choice

    Israel's repression of the Palestinian people is fuelling a resurgence of anti-semitism

    by Max Hastings

    IT is impossible to doubt that genuine anti-semitism -- racial antipathy towards Jews -- is resurgent in Europe and even, in some circles, becoming respectable. A few years ago, my wife and I found ourselves at a dinner party that included several Austrian guests. Mischievously, I asked a female member of the Vienna government sitting opposite me how her country was coping with the Nazi embarrassments of its president, Kurt Waldheim.

    She stiffened. "President Waldheim is a fine and good man, who has been grossly traduced by a conspiracy of Jews," she said severely. Her husband interjected: "My father always told me that most of the things the Jews say about the war are lies." Our English host added supportively: "Jews cause most of the trouble in the world, what?"

    At this point, the Hastingses departed without explanation. In the car, still shaking with rage, my wife said: "They weren't just pretending to be anti-semitic, were they? They were the real thing." It is rare to encounter such unashamed malevolence at a modern English dinner table, and thus all the more shocking when it happens.

    Before the second world war, such sentiments were commonplace, not least in the "Clubland Hero" thrillers of Buchan, Sapper and Dornford Yates. "Bolshevik Jews" were responsible for many of the villainous conspiracies frustrated by Richard Hannay, Bulldog Drummond and Jonah Mansell, before they gave the culprits a good flogging.

    It has often been observed that Hitler did the British ruling classes a favour by making anti-semitism no longer respectable. Yet as late as September 1944, a Foreign Office official named Arminius Dew minuted: "In my opinion, a disproportionate amount of the time of the Office is wasted on dealing with these wailing Jews." Only in April 1945, when the concentration camps were revealed to the world, did the historic sea change in sentiment take place.



    I WOULD suggest that the first stirrings of renewed animosity towards Jews in Europe emerged in the 70s. When I made this point to an Israeli acquaintance, he observed sourly: "Yeah, when the world stopped seeing us losers on trains to the death camps." For it is, of course, the issue of Israel that has provoked some change of sentiment.

    Many of the remarks that Jewish critics denounce as anti-semitic are, in reality, criticisms of Israel or its government. Five years ago, when I was editing the Evening Standard, the Board of Deputies of British Jews asked to send a delegation to my office to protest at our coverage of the Middle East. I refused, saying that I would meet at any time to discuss matters pertaining to British Jews, but that Israeli affairs were the province of the Israeli ambassador.

    A month or so later, I was lunching with Vere Rothermere, then chairman of the family newspaper company. "I had a visit on your account yesterday," he said with a quixotic grin. "From the Board of Deputies. They said you wouldn't see them. They say you are anti-semitic. They warned me that the Israeli Likud wants to organise a boycott of the Evening Standard."

    I asked how he had responded. "I told them that such a boycott would be a very good story for the Standard," said Lord Rothermere, which helps to explain why, as an editor, I held his family in such respect as proprietors.



    IN general, across the British media, managerial attitudes are less robust. Several proprietors are fervent Zionists, while rather more take the cynical view that the Middle East is an intractable issue of no more interest to their readers than Northern Ireland. Palestinians present an unsympathetic face to the western world. Given the ferocity with which some Jewish readers respond to criticism of Israel, many executives perceive sceptical coverage of Israel's excesses as more trouble than it is worth.

    In this country, only the Guardian and Independent deal thoroughly with what is taking place, and display real sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians. Elsewhere a lot of space is given to apologias for Israeli conduct, some of which reveal a contempt for Palestinian human rights that invites the most baleful of historical comparisons.

    It is a tribute to Israeli propaganda success that many commentators seem happy to regard as just a possible peace deal that would leave Israel in control of settlements and strategic roads in a Palestinian state. It is a measure of how far matters have gone that when Ariel Sharon announced the closure of some settlements in Gaza, it was hailed as a historic breakthrough.

    In the eyes of some of us, even the Oslo accords promised no realistic prospect of a viable Palestinian society. They represented the outer limit of what Israeli liberals believed they could sell to their own nation, but they offered the Palestinians no chance of economic, social or political lift-off because the terms denied any hope of self-respect.

    I reply to every reader's letter accusing me of anti-semitism because the issue seems so important. They make the cardinal error of identifying the Jewish people with the Israeli government, wilfully confusing anti-semitism and anti-Zionism. Often, they seem to demand that the behaviour of Israel should be judged by a special standard, that allows the likes of Sharon and Netanyahu a special quota of excesses, in compensation for past sufferings.
    For many years, Israelis in debating difficulties have played a decisive trump: "You have no right to criticise our actions, because of the Holocaust." Ruthless exploitation of the Holocaust card has been successful in deflecting much international criticism, especially from European democracies.

    Charges of anti-semitism are not infrequently levelled against the growing number of Jews who express dismay about the behaviour of the Israeli government; they are "self-hating Jews", who betray their own kin. Yet surely it is those who make such cruel allegations who bring shame upon themselves.

    Jewish genius through the centuries has been reflected in the highest intellectual standards. Attempts to equate anti-Zionism, or even criticism of Israeli policy, with anti-semitism reflect a pitiful intellectual sloth, an abandonment of reasoned attempts to justify Israeli actions in favour of moral blackmail. In the short run, such intimidation is not unsuccessful, especially in America. Yet in the long term, grave consequences may ensue. In much of the world, including Europe, a huge head of steam is building against Israeli behaviour.

    More than a few governments are cooperating less than wholeheartedly with America's war on terror because they are unwilling to be associated with what they see as an unholy alliance of the Sharon and Bush governments. One of Germany's most distinguished postwar leaders expressed to me a few months ago his frustration that, as a German, he is unable to vent his feelings about the wickedness of what is being done in Israel's name.

    I feel a commitment to the Jewish people, founded on awareness partly of their history, partly of their genius. Yet I see no reason why this should prevent me from asserting that the policies of Sharon and Netanyahu bring shame upon Israel.

    It is ironic that Israel's domestic critics -- former intelligence chiefs and serving fighter pilots -- have shown themselves much braver than overseas Jews. If Israel persists with its current policies, and Jewish lobbies around the world continue to express solidarity with repression of the Palestinians, then genuine anti-semitism is bound to increase. Herein lies the lobbyists' recklessness. By insisting that those who denounce the Israeli state's behaviour are enemies of the Jewish people, they seek to impose a grotesque choice.

    The Israeli government's behaviour to the Palestinians breeds a despair that finds its only outlet in terrorism. No one can ever criticise the Jewish diaspora for asserting Israel's right to exist. But the most important service the world's Jews can render to Israel today is to persuade its people that the only plausible result of their government's behaviour is a terrible loneliness in the world.

    Max Hastings is a former editor of the Daily Telegraph and the London Evening Standard

    comment@guardian.co.uk

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Givatayim, Israel
    Posts
    2,416
    Ahh, the stuff the guys from the Guardian come up with. If Jews are hated, it must be something they did, there's no way the haters can possibly be responsible for hating. Always blame the victims, its the safest way.

  3. #3
    takeo
    Guest
    perhaps you didn't read the article, it doesn't say or imply Jews are responsible for antisemitism, but it says the abuse of the victimhood-status does sustain antisemitism. Worldwar two and the Holocaust should not be abused for political reasons in the middle-Eastern conflict, by neither side.

  4. #4
    goliath
    Guest
    Always Dear Takeo , find something which it's bringing water to his mil.

    Media are telling to all the countries of the world and for years and years ,what the people must think about the Israeo/Pal conflict ,and THIS is refuelling a serious resurgence of anti-Semitism adding a new layer over the innumerable old one.
    Takeo Israel will never yield the way you hope.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Mil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    6,242
    Takeo, the Israeli/Pal conflict would not even make the evening news if Jews were not involved. There are much worse things happening in the world and especially in the Arab world that make this particular conflict pale in comparison. Anti-semitism is a direct creation of Europe and of European culture rather that of Israeli Jews.

    Of course one must concur with the author, including me, that Israeli government makes mistakes and sometimes very unpopular moves, however, which government doesn't? Hell Austria or Poland with much larger population and with no less problems get much less world attention then Israel. The horrible human rights violations in Latvia get almost zero attention and the conflict in Chechnya gets almost no visability. It really makes me laugh when the BBC makes Sharon alleged inditment for fraudelant election money front page news, an event which is basically an internal Israeli matter and not relevant to anything (there are thousands of such things happening all over the democratic world including France) and somewhere on some obsecure link mentions that president of Lithuania (an EU country!!!) gets impeached (a first such act in an EU history)!!!! Both of the latter events happened at the same time.

    Whatever Israel does is under the microscope and there are a few reasons for that:
    1. Israel is a JEWISH STATE or state full of Jews
    2. Anything that has to do with Jews (even the dumbest things) makes news
    3. Israel is a free country

    Europe is still living through its anti-semitic self otherwise Israel would never have the attention it currently recieves. Read the Guardian and see how many times there are news about France or Russia with 45 and 160 million population respectively and Israel with 6 million. I really doubt that there is less interesting things happening in Russia then in Israel. One Chechnya would make loud news stories every day. However, no one is interested in Russia but everyone is interested in ISRAEL for it being a JEWISH state. I really hope you understand this.
    Mil - stands for the countless MILlions of reasons not to work.

  6. #6
    KettleWhistle
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Mil
    I really hope you understand this.
    LOL

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Givatayim, Israel
    Posts
    2,416
    Quote Originally Posted by takeo
    perhaps you didn't read the article, it doesn't say or imply Jews are responsible for antisemitism, but it says the abuse of the victimhood-status does sustain antisemitism. Worldwar two and the Holocaust should not be abused for political reasons in the middle-Eastern conflict, by neither side.
    Actually no. Perhaps YOU didn't read the article, because it says, and I quote:

    it is, of course, the issue of Israel that has provoked some change of sentiment

    The general points this article makes are that:
    1) Israel's actions against the Palestinians legitimizes anti-Zionism
    2)Diaspora Jews too often confuse anti-Zionism for anti-Semitism and invoke Holocaust and since anti-Zionism is legitimate, such misrepresentation allows anti-Semitism to go mainstream as well.

    Now, these claims stand on a number of false assumptions:

    1)Anti-Zionism is not concerned as much with Israel's actions as it is with the fact of Israel's existence. Which, as noted by Martin Luther King in his famous essay, already constitutes anti-Semitism, as it implies that the Jews are the only nation in the world who has no right for independence. (Which naturally leads to the question often asked by the neo-Nazis- if a national expression of the nation is illegitimate, what does it say about this nation? Can you see my point now, Takeo?)

    2)The writer seems to suggest that anti-Zionism should only concern the Israeli Jews and never the Diaspora Jews. I can even quote:

    Five years ago, when I was editing the Evening Standard, the Board of Deputies of British Jews asked to send a delegation to my office to protest at our coverage of the Middle East. I refused, saying that I would meet at any time to discuss matters pertaining to British Jews, but that Israeli affairs were the province of the Israeli ambassador.

    In other words, "know your place, Jew". The British Jews should only be concerned with what happens in their own backyard. What he is saying here is that either the Jews specifically or subnational groups and diasporas in general should not be allowed to have a say in the host nation's politics. In both versions, it discriminates against the Jews (either just them or them AND other minorities), depriving them of the right to have an equal voice on all political issues in the country whose citizenship they hold.

    3)In reality, it is not that common for the Israelis to play the Holocaust card. The Holocaust poses a certain ideological problem for Zionism and for the Israeli mindset, and the Israelis are normally quite reluctant to portray themselves as victims.

    4)As it's been noted by Mil, when the journalists talk about how the Arab-Israeli conflict fuels anti-Semitism, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, as it is the media that keeps the magnifying glass over Israel 24/7/365. The scale of the Israeli-Palestinian violence is simply incomparable with any other conflict that occasionally makes front pages- whether it is Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Rwanda or Kosovo. Neither the number of casualties nor the size of the population involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is anywhere close to an average African civil war.

    5)Finally, anti-Zionism all too often uses methods and rhetorics of the good old anti-Semitism. It has become too convenient a disguise- and I see no reason why it should not be addressed as anti-Semitism whenever there are valid grounds for it.

  8. #8
    Luke90
    Guest
    I don't agree with the article, but it does show how both sides of the argument see the media as biased against them.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    6,842
    "For many years, Israelis in debating difficulties have played a decisive trump: "You have no right to criticise our actions, because of the Holocaust." Ruthless exploitation of the Holocaust card has been successful in deflecting much international criticism, especially from European democracies."

    Maybe so, but the opposite is also true ! Many critics of Israel also use the trump of accusing supporters of Israel that they have no better argument than the above. This achieves two objectives: Firstly it discredits supporters of Israel as intolerant people without credibility, and secondly it stifles debate before it even begins.

    The writer of this article betrays his bias by the sentence: "... Israelis in debating difficulties have played a decisive trump:.....". Instead of saying "Israelis", he should have said "Some Israelis". He may or may not have meant it but the effect of his sentence is to generalise that ALL Israelis use this trump card. That is just plainly untrue !

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    6,842
    "In this country, only the Guardian and Independent deal thoroughly with what is taking place, and display real sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians. Elsewhere a lot of space is given to apologias for Israeli conduct, some of which reveal a contempt for Palestinian human rights that invites the most baleful of historical comparisons."

    Both these papers are ardent uncritical supporters of the Palestinian cause. I don't think I have ever seen a single article in which they ever supported Israel ! The fact that the author makes the above statement betrays which way he himself is biased !

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    6,842
    Quote Originally Posted by Womble
    Ahh, the stuff the guys from the Guardian come up with. If Jews are hated, it must be something they did, there's no way the haters can possibly be responsible for hating. Always blame the victims, its the safest way.
    Very true !

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    6,842
    "Often, they seem to demand that the behaviour of Israel should be judged by a special standard, that allows the likes of Sharon and Netanyahu a special quota of excesses, in compensation for past sufferings."

    Unfortunately, the opposite is true ! Thanks to the strangle hold of the Arab nations on the UN General Assembly, Israel IS being judged by special standards. Unfortunately, these "special standards" DON'T favour Israel ! The extract below sums up the sorry state of affairs in the UN when it comes to the topic of Israel:

    Renowned international human rights expert Professor Anne Bayefsky submitted to the New York Times an op-ed about the highly selective -- and discriminatory -- agenda of the UN Human Rights Commission and various non-governmental organizations (NGOs). She included in her piece a description of what she termed the Commission's “strategy of diversion,” referring to the fact that 15% of the group's time and 30% of its country-specific resolutions have targeted Israel.

    I think that most reasonable people would wonder whether it is appropriate for Israel to be on the topic nearly one third of the time when there are much worse trouble spots, human rights violations and occupied countries in the world, such as:
    • Sudan
    • Chechnia
    • Tibet
    • Columbia
    • Congo
    • Other African trouble spots
    • Just about all the Arab countries (human rights violations)
    • The Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan
    • Sri Lanka
    • The insurgency in Aceh against Indonesia
    • The Ivory Coast
    • Many more, too numerous to list fully

    ......and Israel is on the topic 30% of the time.....???? Disgraceful !

  13. #13
    Luke90
    Guest
    Rightly or wrongly, Israel is much more significant in international politics than those other areas.

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    6,842
    Quote Originally Posted by Luke90
    Rightly or wrongly, Israel is much more significant in international politics than those other areas.
    Why ?

  15. #15
    Luke90
    Guest
    Well islamic terrorism is one of the major world issues at the moment and many islamic terrorists cite the situation as one of the main reasons for their actions.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. What is antisemitism?
    By NewsGuy in forum Israel F.A.Q.s
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-29-2002, 07:31 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •