Anti-Semitism in Europe Is Getting Worse. By Cathy Young. Real Clear Politics, November 16, 2013.
Young:
Is
hostility toward Israel linked to hostility toward Jews? A report on
anti-Semitism in Europe, released on November 8—the day before the anniversary
of the Kristallnacht pogrom that marked the start of the Nazi war on Jews 75
years ago—addresses this contentious question. While Israel’s supporters have
long warned of a new strain of anti-Semitism camouflaged in pro-Palestinian
advocacy and opposition to Israeli policies, Israel’s critics complain that
charges of anti-Jewish bigotry are used to silence dissent. Yet the latest study, “Discrimination and Hate Crime Against Jews in EU Member States,”
strongly suggests that “the new anti-Semitism” is not a propagandist myth but a
depressing reality.
The
evidence is especially compelling since it comes from a neutral source: the
European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). The agency surveyed nearly
6,000 self-identified Jews in eight European Union countries (Belgium, France,
Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Sweden and the United Kingdom). While the
online survey, publicized through Jewish community organizations and media
outlets, did not have a random sample of respondents, it was designed with
expert input to be as representative as possible.
A few
findings:
*
Two-thirds of respondents said that anti-Semitism was a serious problem in
their country; three out of four felt it had worsened in the past five years.
* One
in four said they had personally experienced anti-Jewish harassment in the past
twelve months; while this included verbal attacks on the Internet, almost one
in five had been harassed in person.
*
During the same period, three percent said they had been targets of
anti-Semitic vandalism; four percent reported hate-motivated physical assaults
or threats.
*
Nearly half worried about anti-Jewish harassment or violence; two-thirds of
those with school-age children or grandchildren were concerned that the
children might experience such harassment at school or on the way to school.
* Close
to a quarter said they sometimes refrained from visiting Jewish events or sites
out of safety concerns. Nearly two out of five usually avoided public displays
of Jewish identity such as wearing a Star of David.
*
Almost one in three had considered emigrating because they did not feel safe as
Jews.
Even if
the self-selected the pool of respondents was skewed toward those affected by
or strongly concerned about anti-Semitism, these are still disturbing results.
The
survey also reveals some interesting—and not entirely surprising—facts about
the face of anti-Jewish bigotry in 21st Century Europe. Most of those who
reported anti-Semitic harassment identified the culprit or culprits as having
either “Muslim extremist views” (27 percent) or left-wing political views (22
percent); only 19 percent said it came from someone with right-wing beliefs.
This
tendency is even stronger for anti-Semitic hate speech, from Holocaust denial
to claims that the Jews “exploit Holocaust victimhood” or have too much power.
(The exceptions are Latvia and Hungary, where anti-Semitism is more likely to
be of the traditional far-right variety.) Among Western European Jews who
reported encountering such slurs in the past year, 57 percent had seen or heard
them from left-wingers; 54 percent, from Muslim extremists; 37 percent, from
right-wingers; 18 percent, from Christian extremists. Moreover, the most common
anti-Jewish comment reported in the survey was that Israelis act “like Nazis”
toward the Palestinians—rhetoric European institutions have repeatedly
condemned as anti-Semitic.
Of
course criticism of Israeli policies does not equal anti-Semitism: All states
are fallible, and the state of Israel is locked in an excruciatingly complex
conflict with the Palestinians in which there is very real suffering on both
sides. Yet the Israelis-as-Nazis metaphor is a stark illustration of how far
such criticism has gone beyond the pale. Such analogies do not get thrown at
states with far worse human rights records, such as China or Russia; even South
Africa’s racist apartheid regime, however reviled, was not routinely attacked
as Nazi-like. The Israelis are singled out for this comparison precisely as
Jews—the primary targets of Nazi genocide—who have supposedly traded places
with their murderers. If this is not anti-Semitism, what is?
Yet
such parallels are creeping into mainstream left-wing discourse, even in the
United States. The new book, Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel by Max Blumenthal, heavily promoted by The Nation—the leading magazine of the
American left—features such chapter titles as “The Concentration Camp” and “The
Night of Broken Glass.” (Even Nation columnist Eric Alterman, himself a vocal
critic of Israel, has slammed Goliath
for, among other things, the “implicit equation of Israel with Nazis.”)
There
are even more striking examples of the fusion between Israel-bashing and
Jew-bashing. A 2011 tract called The
Wandering Who? by Israeli-born British musician and self-styled “self-hating
Jew” Gilad Atzmon not only asserts that Israel is “far worse than Nazi Germany”
but suggests that historical anti-Semitism in Europe must have been the Jews’
fault. Atzmon brags about getting suspended from school as a child for asking
the teacher how she knew that Jews didn’t really murder Christian babies for
ritual use of their blood. He also blames American Jews in the 1930s for
provoking Hitler by calling for a boycott of German goods.
While
some anti-Zionist leftists and pro-Palestinian activists denounced Atzmon’s book, it received a disturbing amount of praise—including a blurb from
University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer, co-author of the
controversial book The Israel Lobby and
U.S. Foreign Policy. A major British newspaper, The Guardian, carried The
Wandering Who? in its online bookshop before pulling it in response to
criticism.
In this
toxic climate, the lines between “new” and “old” anti-Semitism keep getting
more and more blurred. Last year, veteran Norwegian academic Johan Galtung, the
founder of “peace studies” and a distinguished professor at the University of
Hawaii, came under fire for some eyebrow-raising statements. Among other
things, Galtung had described the Protocols
of the Elders of Zion, a 1903 hoax “documenting” a Jewish world domination
plot, as a useful tool for understanding the modern world; he had also made
outlandish claims about Jewish control of the American media, apparently drawn
from neo-Nazi guru William Luther Pierce.
Sympathy
for the Palestinians, who are seen as Third World victims of pro-Western
colonialists, has led many on the left to condone anti-Jewish attitudes
presumably driven by anger at Israeli oppression. Take Alterman, the anti-Goliath polemicist, who in a recent
blogpost writes that he himself has often been attacked and tarred with the
anti-Semitism brush by Israel sympathizers. I am one of those polemicists, and
I regretfully admit that in a 2005 column I made some inappropriate comments about
Jewish self-hatred. Yet there remains the fact that Alterman has written off
anti-Jewish violence by young Arab immigrants in France as a backlash against
the Israeli occupation of the West Bank (rather than real anti-Semitism) and
defended a British Muslim group’s decision to boycott a Holocaust remembrance
event. Whatever the motive, such excuses effectively amount to enabling
anti-Semitism. And as long as such enabling continues, the problem will keep
getting worse.
People Thought the Industrial Revolution Was Servile Too. By Walter Russell Mead. Via Meadia, November 16, 2013.
The Demise of Pax Americana. By Caroline Glick. Townhall.com, November 15, 2013. Also at the Jerusalem Post.
Iran Negotiations Coming to a Head? By Walter Russell Mead. Via Meadia, November 9, 2013.
Glick:
What
happened in Geneva last week was the most significant international event since
the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The collapse of the Soviet Union
signaled the rise of the United States as the sole global superpower. The
developments in the six-party nuclear talks with Iran in Geneva last week
signaled the end of American world leadership.
Global
leadership is based on two things – power and credibility. The United States
remains the most powerful actor in the world. But last week, American
credibility was shattered.
Secretary
of State John Kerry spent the first part of last week lying to Israeli and Gulf
Arab leaders and threatening the Israeli people. He lied to Prime Minister
Binyamin Netanyahu and the Saudis about the content of the deal US and European
negotiators had achieved with the Iranians.
Kerry
told them that in exchange for Iran temporarily freezing its nuclear weapons
development program, the US and its allies would free up no more than $5
billion in Iranian funds seized and frozen in foreign banks.
Kerry
threatened the Israeli people with terrorism and murder – and so invited both –
if Israel fails to accept his demands for territorial surrender to PLO
terrorists that reject Israel’s right to exist.
Kerry’s
threats were laced with bigoted innuendo.
He
claimed that Israelis are too wealthy to understand their own interests. If you
don’t wise up and do what I say, he intoned, the Europeans will take away your
money while the Palestinians kill you. Oh, and aside from that, your presence
in the historic heartland of Jewish civilization from Jerusalem to Alon Moreh
is illegitimate.
It is
hard to separate the rise in terrorist activity since Kerry’s remarks last week
from his remarks.
What
greater carte blanche for murder could the Palestinians have received than the
legitimization of their crimes by the chief diplomat of Israel’s closest ally?
Certainly, Kerry’s negotiating partner Catherine Ashton couldn’t have received
a clearer signal to ratchet up her economic boycott of Jewish Israeli businesses
than Kerry’s blackmail message, given just two days before the 75th anniversary
of Kristallnacht.
Kerry’s
threats were so obscene and unprecedented that Israeli officials broke with
tradition and disagreed with him openly and directly, while he was still in the
country. Normally supportive leftist commentators have begun reporting Kerry’s
history of anti-Israel advocacy, including his 2009 letter of support for
pro-Hamas activists organizing flotillas to Gaza in breach of international and
American law.
As for
Kerry’s lies to the US’s chief Middle Eastern allies, it was the British and
the French who informed the Israelis and the Saudis that far from limiting
sanctions relief to a few billion dollars in frozen funds, the draft agreement
involved ending sanctions on Iran’s oil and gas sector, and on other
industries.
In
other words, the draft agreement exposed Washington’s willingness to
effectively end economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for Iran’s
agreement to cosmetic concessions that will not slow down its nuclear weapons
program.
Both
the US’s position, and the fact that Kerry lied about that position to the US’s
chief allies, ended what was left of American credibility in the Middle East.
That credibility was already tattered by US fecklessness in Syria and support
for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
True,
in the end, Kerry was unable to close the deal he rushed off to Geneva to sign
last Friday.
Of
course, it wasn’t Iran that rejected the American surrender. And it wasn’t
America that scuttled the proposal. It was France. Unable to hide behind
American power and recognizing its national interest in preventing Iran from
emerging as a nuclear armed power in the Middle East, France vetoed a deal that
paved the way a nuclear Iran.
Kerry’s
failure to reach the hoped-for deal represented a huge blow to America, and a
double victory for Iran. The simple fact that Washington was willing to sign
the deal – and lie about it to its closest allies – caused the US to lose its
credibility in the Middle East. Even without the deal, the US paid the price of
appeasing Iran and surrendering leadership of the free world to France and
Israel.
Just by
getting the Americans to commit themselves to reducing sanctions while Iran
continues its march to a nuclear weapon, Iran destroyed any remaining
possibility of doing any serious non-military damage to Iran’s plans for
nuclear weaponry. At the same time, the Americans boosted Iranian credibility,
endorsed Iranian power, and belittled Israel and Saudi Arabia – Iran’s chief
challengers in the Middle East. Thus, Iran ended Pax Americana in the Middle
East, removing the greatest obstacle in its path to regional hegemony. And it
did so without having to make the slightest concession to the Great Satan.
As
Walter Russell Mead wrote last week, it was fear of losing Pax Americana that
made all previous US administrations balk at reaching an accord with Iran. As
he put it, “Past administrations have generally concluded that the price Iran
wants for a different relationship with the United States is unsustainably
high. Essentially, to get a deal with Iran we would have to sell out all of our
other allies. That’s not only a moral problem. Throwing over old allies like
that would reduce the confidence that America’s allies all over the world have
in our support.”
The
Obama administration just paid that unsustainably high price, and didn’t even
get a different relationship with Iran.
Most
analyses of what happened in Geneva last week have centered on what the failure
of the talks means for the future of Obama’s foreign policy.
Certainly
Obama, now universally reviled by America’s allies in the Middle East, will be
diplomatically weakened. This diplomatic weakness may not make much difference
to Obama’s foreign policy, because appeasement and retreat do not require
diplomatic strength.
But the
real story of what happened last week is far more significant than the future
of Obama’s foreign policy. Last week it was America that lost credibility, not
Obama. It was America that squandered the essential component of global
leadership. And that is the watershed event of this young century.
States
act in concert because of perceived shared interests. If Israel and Saudi
Arabia combine to attack Iran’s nuclear installations it will be due to their
shared interest in preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear arsenal. But that
concerted action will not make them allies.
Alliances
are based on the perceived longevity of the shared interests, and that
perception is based on the credibility of international actors.
Until
Obama became president, the consensus view of the US foreign policy
establishment and of both major parties was that the US had a permanent
interest in being the hegemonic power in the Middle East. US hegemony ensured
three permanent US national security interests: preventing enemy regimes and
terror groups from acquiring the means to cause catastrophic harm; ensuring the
smooth flow of petroleum products through the Persian Gulf and the Suez Canal;
and demonstrating the credibility of American power by ensuring the security of
US allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia. The third interest was an essential
foundation of US deterrence of the Soviets during the Cold War, and of the
Chinese over the past decade.
Regardless
of who was in the White House, for the better part of 70 years, every US
government has upheld these interests. This consistency built US credibility,
which in turn enabled the US to throw its weight around.
Obama
departed from this foreign policy consensus in an irrevocable manner last week.
In so doing, he destroyed US credibility.
It
doesn’t matter who succeeds Obama. If a conservative internationalist in the
mold of Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan is elected in 2016,
Obama’s legacy will make it impossible for him to rebuild the US alliance
structure. US allies will be willing to buy US military platforms – although
not exclusively.
They
will be willing to act in a concerted manner with the US on a temporary basis
to advance specific goals.
But
they will not be willing to make any long term commitments based on US security
guarantees.
They
will not be willing to place their strategic eggs in the US basket.
Obama
has taught the world that the same US that elected Truman and formed NATO, and
elected George H.W. Bush and threw Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, can elect a
man who betrays US allies and US interests to advance a radical ideology
predicated on a rejection of the morality of American power. Any US ally is now
on notice that US promises – even if based on US interests – are not reliable.
American commitments can expire the next time America elects a radical to the
White House.
Americans
uninterested in surrendering their role as global leader to the likes of
Tehran’s ayatollahs, Russia’s KGB state and Mao’s successors, must take
immediate steps mitigate the damage Obama is causing. Congress could step in to
clip his radical wings.
If
enough Democrats can be convinced to break ranks with Obama and the Democratic
Party’s donors, Congress can pass veto-proof additional sanctions against Iran.
These sanctions can only be credible with America’s spurned allies if they do
not contain any presidential waiver that would empower Obama to ignore the law.
They
can also take action to limit Obama’s ability to blackmail Israel, a step that
is critical to the US’s ability to rebuild its international credibility.
For
everyone from Anwar Sadat to South American democrats, for the past 45 years,
America’s alliance with Israel was a central anchor of American strategic
credibility. The sight of America standing with the Jewish state, in the face
of a sea of Arab hatred, is what convinced doubters worldwide that America
could be trusted.
America’s
appalling betrayal of Jerusalem under Obama likewise is the straw that has
broken the back of American strategic credibility from Taipei to Santiago. If
Congress is interested in rectifying or limiting the damage, it could likewise
remove the presidential waiver that enables Obama to continue to finance the
PLO despite its involvement in terrorism and continued commitment to Israel’s
destruction. Congress could also remove the presidential waiver from the law
requiring the State Department to move the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem.
Finally, Congress can update its anti-boycott laws to cover new anti-Israel
boycotts and economic sanctions against the Jewish state and Jewish-owned
Israeli companies.
These
steps will not fully restore America’s credibility.
After
all, the twice-elected president of the United States has dispatched his
secretary of state to threaten and deceive US allies while surrendering to US
foes. It is now an indisputable fact that the US government may use its power
to undermine its own interests and friends worldwide.
What
these congressional steps can do, however, is send a message to US allies and
adversaries alike that Obama’s radical actions do not represent the wishes of
the American people and will not go unanswered by their representatives in
Congress.
Conflict can be managed. By Ophir Falk. Ynet News, November 14, 2013.
Falk:
Every
Israeli would like to wake up tomorrow morning and hear that the century-old
conflict with the Palestinians is over; that the leaders have reached a viable
agreement on the outstanding issues and now we can all live happily ever after.
That is
not going to happen.
The
core issues are currently irreconcilable. This basic truth can be ostracized by
overly optimistic or pathetic politicians, but at the end of the day – it is
what it is. Israel has made concessions and is willing to make more, but no
Israeli leader, (unless he’s under criminal investigation), will be willing to
withdraw to pre-1967 borders.
Such
borders were long ago depicted by legendary Labor Foreign Minister Abba Eban as
the “borders of Auschwitz,” and the topography has yet to change. Neither has
the demography. Israel’s prime minister will not divide his nation’s capital
and will insist that Israel be recognized as the Jewish state by its partners
to peace.
Concurrently,
the current Palestinian president will not detract from his demand for the
return of refugees and isn’t even willing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state
alongside a Palestinian one.
In
fact, even if the Palestinian leader would be willing to compromise, he lacks
the legitimacy to do so. He is a persona non grata in Hamas-held Gaza and
almost a decade has passed since he was elected in Ramallah. Abbas may
represent his political party, but not his people. That weakness, binds him to
a “no-budge position” on all the core issues.
Despite
political stalemate, Israelis and many Palestinians want peace and quiet. The
politicians need to facilitate that.
The
conflict cannot be resolved at this time, but it can be managed. Many
international disagreements and border disputes are being managed peacefully,
and have been for decades. There are border disputes between Spain and Morocco,
the United Kingdom and Ireland, France and Italy, China and India, Russia and
Japan, Singapore and Malaysia, the Netherlands and Germany, Ukraine and Russia
and many more. There are even seven different territorial disputes between
Canada and the United States, which share the longest non-militarized border in
the world.
Israel
and its Palestinian neighbors can also manage their conflict by agreeing on
agreeable issues and agreeing to disagree on issues that are currently
unsolvable. A stable economic environment and a sustainable security situation
are in the common interest of both sides. It is especially important for the
Palestinians, and they would be wise to act accordingly. The imbalance of power
between Israel and the Palestinians and economic comparisons with neighboring
Syria, Jordan and Egypt make that observation crystal clear.
The
earth will not quake if the status quo continues in Jerusalem and if Jews and
Palestinians are permitted to continue living where they live.
Israel Increasingly Courting China as an Ally. By Dan Levin. New York Times, November 12, 2013.
It’s not a third intifada. By Ron Ben-Yishai. Ynet News, November 14, 2013.
Kerry, give it a rest. By Alex Fishman. Ynet News, November 10, 2013.
