Europe: anti-Semitism?
yosi
NYC Posts: 3,069
If a top European mandarin mouths off about Jews and the rest of Europe's political class acts like it's no big deal, does that make them cowards, accomplices—or just politically astute? Probably all three.
Earlier this month, Karel De Gucht, the European Union's trade commissioner and a former foreign minister of Belgium, gave an interview to a Flemish radio station in which he offered the view that the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations were sure to founder on two accounts: first, because Jews are excessively influential in the U.S; second, because they are not the sorts to be reasoned with.
"Do not underestimate the Jewish lobby on Capitol Hill," Mr. De Gucht said, dispensing with the usual fine-grained, face-saving distinction about the difference between a "Jewish" and an "Israel" lobby. "This is the best organized lobby, you shouldn't underestimate the grip it has on American politics—no matter whether it's Republicans or Democrats."
Nor was that all the commissioner had to say on the subject. "There is indeed a belief—it's difficult to describe it otherwise—among most Jews that they are right," he said. "And it's not so much whether these are religious Jews or not. Lay Jews also share the same belief that they are right. So it is not easy to have, even with moderate Jews, a rational discussion about what is actually happening in the Middle East."
Here, then, was a case not of "criticism of Israel" or "anti-Zionism," the usual sheets under which this sort of mentality hides. Mr. De Gucht's target was Jews, the objects of his opprobrium their malign political influence and crippled mental reflexes. If this isn't anti-Semitism, the term has no meaning.
But perhaps it no longer does, at least in Europe. "I regret that the comments that I made have been interpreted in a sense I did not intend," Mr. De Gucht said, by way of non-apology. "I did not mean in any possible way to cause offense or stigmatize the Jewish community. I want to make clear that anti-Semitism has no place in today's world."
The comment admits of two interpretations: (1) that it is insincere, and therefore an act of political expediency; (2) that it is sincere, and Mr. De Gucht thinks that casually bad-mouthing Jews doesn't quite reach the threshold of "anti-Semitism"—defined, as the saying has it, as hating Jews more than is strictly necessary.
I suspect the latter interpretation, which has an old European pedigree, is closer to the mark. But whatever Mr. De Gucht's motives, the more interesting phenomenon has been the European non-reaction. "No comment," says a spokesman for German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle. "Our position on anti-Semitism is very clear but we have no comments on other people's statements," says a spokesman for Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini. "High Representative [Catherine] Ashton is confident [De Gucht] didn't mean any offense, and that he apologized," says a spokeswoman for the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. "He made personal comments for which he expressed his personal regret and there is no further comment to make," says a spokesman for the European Commission.
Now imagine that Mr. De Gucht had made analogous comments about Muslims: What would have been the reaction then? Actually, it's not hard to guess. For weeks, Germany has been in an uproar over a book by Bundesbank member Thilo Sarrazin that has unflattering things to say about Muslim immigrants and what they portend for Germany's future. I have no brief for Mr. Sarrazin (who also made a somewhat cryptic comment about Jews sharing "a particular gene"). But why has Mr. Sarrazin been forced to quit the Central Bank and is now being drummed out of his Social Democratic Party at the same time that Mr. De Gucht has been given a pass?
One answer is that there are about 1.5 million Jews in the EU today, as against some 16 million Muslims, and politicians are responsive to numbers. Fair enough. The other answer is that Europe—and not just Muslim Europe—is pervasively anti-Semitic.
If that sounds over-the-top, consider that last year the Anti-Defamation League conducted a survey of European attitudes toward Jews in seven different countries. Do Jews have "too much power in the business world"? In France, 33% said this was "probably true"; in Spain it was 56%. Were Jews to some degree responsible for the global economic crisis? In Germany, 30% thought so; in Austria, 43% did. A separate 2008 Pew Survey also found that 25% of Germans, 36% of Poles and 46% of Spaniards had a "very" or "somewhat" unfavorable opinion of Jews.
As part of his defense, Mr. De Gucht insisted he was only offering his "personal point of view," and not those of the European Commission as a whole. He shouldn't be so modest. He has his constituency. It's why he remains in office. It's why Europe's future is beginning to look increasingly like Europe's past.
Earlier this month, Karel De Gucht, the European Union's trade commissioner and a former foreign minister of Belgium, gave an interview to a Flemish radio station in which he offered the view that the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations were sure to founder on two accounts: first, because Jews are excessively influential in the U.S; second, because they are not the sorts to be reasoned with.
"Do not underestimate the Jewish lobby on Capitol Hill," Mr. De Gucht said, dispensing with the usual fine-grained, face-saving distinction about the difference between a "Jewish" and an "Israel" lobby. "This is the best organized lobby, you shouldn't underestimate the grip it has on American politics—no matter whether it's Republicans or Democrats."
Nor was that all the commissioner had to say on the subject. "There is indeed a belief—it's difficult to describe it otherwise—among most Jews that they are right," he said. "And it's not so much whether these are religious Jews or not. Lay Jews also share the same belief that they are right. So it is not easy to have, even with moderate Jews, a rational discussion about what is actually happening in the Middle East."
Here, then, was a case not of "criticism of Israel" or "anti-Zionism," the usual sheets under which this sort of mentality hides. Mr. De Gucht's target was Jews, the objects of his opprobrium their malign political influence and crippled mental reflexes. If this isn't anti-Semitism, the term has no meaning.
But perhaps it no longer does, at least in Europe. "I regret that the comments that I made have been interpreted in a sense I did not intend," Mr. De Gucht said, by way of non-apology. "I did not mean in any possible way to cause offense or stigmatize the Jewish community. I want to make clear that anti-Semitism has no place in today's world."
The comment admits of two interpretations: (1) that it is insincere, and therefore an act of political expediency; (2) that it is sincere, and Mr. De Gucht thinks that casually bad-mouthing Jews doesn't quite reach the threshold of "anti-Semitism"—defined, as the saying has it, as hating Jews more than is strictly necessary.
I suspect the latter interpretation, which has an old European pedigree, is closer to the mark. But whatever Mr. De Gucht's motives, the more interesting phenomenon has been the European non-reaction. "No comment," says a spokesman for German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle. "Our position on anti-Semitism is very clear but we have no comments on other people's statements," says a spokesman for Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini. "High Representative [Catherine] Ashton is confident [De Gucht] didn't mean any offense, and that he apologized," says a spokeswoman for the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. "He made personal comments for which he expressed his personal regret and there is no further comment to make," says a spokesman for the European Commission.
Now imagine that Mr. De Gucht had made analogous comments about Muslims: What would have been the reaction then? Actually, it's not hard to guess. For weeks, Germany has been in an uproar over a book by Bundesbank member Thilo Sarrazin that has unflattering things to say about Muslim immigrants and what they portend for Germany's future. I have no brief for Mr. Sarrazin (who also made a somewhat cryptic comment about Jews sharing "a particular gene"). But why has Mr. Sarrazin been forced to quit the Central Bank and is now being drummed out of his Social Democratic Party at the same time that Mr. De Gucht has been given a pass?
One answer is that there are about 1.5 million Jews in the EU today, as against some 16 million Muslims, and politicians are responsive to numbers. Fair enough. The other answer is that Europe—and not just Muslim Europe—is pervasively anti-Semitic.
If that sounds over-the-top, consider that last year the Anti-Defamation League conducted a survey of European attitudes toward Jews in seven different countries. Do Jews have "too much power in the business world"? In France, 33% said this was "probably true"; in Spain it was 56%. Were Jews to some degree responsible for the global economic crisis? In Germany, 30% thought so; in Austria, 43% did. A separate 2008 Pew Survey also found that 25% of Germans, 36% of Poles and 46% of Spaniards had a "very" or "somewhat" unfavorable opinion of Jews.
As part of his defense, Mr. De Gucht insisted he was only offering his "personal point of view," and not those of the European Commission as a whole. He shouldn't be so modest. He has his constituency. It's why he remains in office. It's why Europe's future is beginning to look increasingly like Europe's past.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Mr. De Gucht..i dont know who this guy is,but for sure he cant speak for me,or what i think-believe. ..
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Perfectly reasonable comments in my opinion. And they have nothing to do with Anti-Semitism.
But... is this not true?
"Do not underestimate the Jewish lobby on Capitol Hill," Mr. De Gucht said, dispensing with the usual fine-grained, face-saving distinction about the difference between a "Jewish" and an "Israel" lobby. "This is the best organized lobby, you shouldn't underestimate the grip it has on American politics—no matter whether it's Republicans or Democrats."
These comments, taken out of context, were part of a longer interview about the Middle East peace process, where he also spoke of the political issues of the palestinians themselves and the hardening of Israel's stance making this process a lot more difficult.
He stereotyped - he shouldn't have. Knowing who De Gught is and how he is, this is a storm in a tea cup. On the other hand, he is a commissioner and should not be making such comments. The EU was right to distance itself from him.
The Anti-Defamation league is a fucking joke. The above questions are clearly designed to elicit a particular answer. Why not ask if Finns have too much power in the business world? Why not ask if the Welsh are to some degree responsible for the global economic crises? What were the actual questions asked in this Pew survey?
There is no anti-semitism in Europe - no more or less than in the U.S. This bullshit is just a tactic to deflect attaention from Israel's ongoing human rights abuses in the occupied territories.
If anyone's interested in an honest account of the so-called 'New Anti-Semitism' then you should read Norman Finkelstein's book 'Beyond Chutzpah: On The Misuse of Anti-Semitism and The Abuse of History'.
http://www.counterpunch.org/finkelstein09122006.html
September 12, 2006
The Dream Philosophy of Paranoids
Kill Arabs, Cry Anti-Semitism
By NORMAN FINKELSTEIN
A central thesis of my book Beyond Chutzpah is that whenever Israel faces a public relations debacle its apologists sound the alarm that a "new anti-Semitism" is upon us. So, predictably, just after Israel faced another image problem due to its murderous destruction of Lebanon, a British all-party parliamentary group led by notorious Israel-firster Denis MacShane MP (Labor) released yet another report alleging a resurgence of anti-Semitism (Report of the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry Into Antisemitism, September 2006). To judge by the witnesses (David Cesarani, Lord Janner, Oona King, Emanuele Ottolenghi, Melanie Phillips) and sources (MEMRI, Holocaust Education Trust) cited in the body of the report, much time and money could have been saved had it just been contracted out to the Israel Foreign Ministry. (The report's statement that "we received no evidence of the accusation of anti-Semitism being misused by mainstream British Jewish community organizations and leaders" perhaps speaks more to the selection of the witnesses than the reality.)
The single novelty of the report, which mostly rehashes fatuous allegations already disposed of in Beyond Chutzpah, is the new thresholds in idiocy it breaks. Consider the methodology deployed for demonstrating a new anti-Semitism. The report defines an anti-Semitic incident as any occasion "perceived" to be anti-Semitic by the "Jewish community." This is the school of thought according to which it's raining even in the absence of any precipitation because I feel it's raining. It is the dream philosophy of paranoids, especially rational paranoids, for whom alleged victimhood is politically serviceable. The report includes under the rubric of anti-Semitic incidents not just violent acts and incendiary speech but "conversations, discussions, or pronouncements made in public or private, which cross the line of acceptability," as well as "the mood and tone when Jews are discussed." The wonder is that it didn't also tabulate repressed anti-Semitic libidinal fantasies. In the category of inherently anti-Semitic pronouncements the report includes "drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis" (only comparisons of contemporary Arab policy to that of the Nazis are permissible) and "theories about Jewish or Zionist influence on American foreign policy" (even if Jewish and Zionist organizations boast about this influence).
Much of the evidence of pervasive British anti-Semitism requires real strains in credulity. * The lone item listed under the ominous subheading "The Blood Libel" is a Syrian television series "that would be possible for viewers in the UK to see if they had suitable satellite receiving equipment." It also notes the unreferenced "case of a Jewish university lecturer who was subjected to an anti-Semitic tirade from a student in the middle of a lecture and subsequently asked to explain to the university authorities why he had upset the student." Is it anti-Semitic to wonder whether this is a crock? And then the report cites the warning of the London Assembly Conservative Group that "there is a risk that in some political quarters 'views on international events can, almost subconsciously, lead to subtly different attitudes to, and levels of engagement with, different minority groups.'" The new anti-Semitism business must be going seriously awry when British conservatives start sounding like Lacan. Finally, it is anti-Semitic for student unions to advocate a boycott of Israeli goods because this "would restrict the availability of kosher food on campus." Maybe Israel can organize a "Berlin airlift" of gefilte fish.
Although claiming that, in the struggle against anti-Semitism, "none of those who gave evidence wished to see the right of free speech eroded," and "only in extreme circumstances would we advocate legal intervention," the report recommends that university authorities "take an active interest in combating acts, speeches, literature and events that cause anxiety or alarm among their Jewish students," and it registers disquiet that "classic and modern anti-Semitic works are freely available for ordering on the Amazon.com website," and that "the United States in particular has been slow to take action" in closing down "anti-Semitic internet sites." It is at moments like this that even the least patriotic of souls can take pride in being an American.
* The police data on an increase in anti-Semitic incidents in itself proves little because, as the report concedes, the spike might be due to more incidents being reported and a coarsening of British life generally, as well as the "spillover" from the Israel-Palestine conflict. In addition, there is little evidence of "organized," "politically motivated" anti-Semitic attacks; there is no evidence that perpetrators of anti-Semitic attacks were disproportionately Muslim; and most of the suspects in the incidents were adolescents. For 2005 the report cites a couple incidents that were "potentially" life-threatening. It cites no comparative data for other minorities in Britain, although tacitly acknowledging that "the level of prejudice and discrimination by Jews in Britain remains lower," a considerable understatement . On a related note, it deplores that "less than one in ten [anti-Semitic] incidents reported to the police resulted in a suspect becoming an accused" , but cites no comparative data indicating whether this ratio is aberrant.
If you would look at a list of major companies/firms that are jewish owned (or 'top managed' - ie CEO & directors), you would understand why people would think the first statement is true. Since these large companies are the main players in the global economy, statement two is just as logical, though it is phrased in such a way that one would seem to be 'blaming' jews (the jewish people) as opposed to companies.
As B said, there is no more anti-semitism in Europe than in the US. But then again.. Europe is big, made of many different countries, different nationalities/cultures, etc. What happens in one country doesn't automatically happen in the other... Sure there is anti-semitism in the world (not just 'Europe'), as there is racism towards muslims, blacks, asians, etc. Again, the jews don't have the exclusivity on this.
Is anti-semitism being confused with anti-zionism?
http://www.alternatives.ca/eng/our-orga ... in?lang=fr
Monday 7 November 2005
* Sherri Muzher:* What was your purpose in writing “Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History.”
*Norman Finkelstein:* It’s important for people to read the record of what is going on there.
* What do you consider the most effective example of the “new anti-Semitism” on American public opinion?*
There are a large number of claims circulating about rampant anti-Semitism on college campuses. When you go actually go through the records, talk to the schools, speak to the deans and so forth, all of these claims turn out to be fraudulent. There’s just no record of this so-called rampant anti-Semitism on college campuses.
The most striking example is Columbia University where there was huge hysteria, newspaper editorials, and local politicians all calling for professors at Columbia’s Middle East Center to be fired. The president eventually was forced to create an ad hoc committee to look into the charges and after all this hysteria and demands that these professors be fired, all that they could find was in one case in one instance in one day in one classroom after the invasion of Jenin in April 2002. A professor responded heatedly to a student who was defending Israeli tactics. That was it. On the other hand, they did find that pro-Israel outsiders were disrupting the classrooms of these professors, secretly video-taping their lectures and being turned, as the Columbia Report put it, into informers for the pro-Israel lobby. The real story was the harassment of professors who were critical of Israeli policy.
*What will surprise people the most when reading “Beyond Chutzpah?” *
I think they’re going to be very surprised by the fact that this whole claim of the new anti-Semitism is a complete fraud and they are going to be very surprised that Israel’s human rights record is quite abysmal. It’s the cumulative effect of going through all of the reports in all aspects of Israel’s human rights policy. It’s not looking at one case of one person who was tortured or one child who was killed, or one house that was demolished. The record is really quite horrendous. Everybody who has read it has made the comment that it’s quite shocking to see the magnitude of Israel’s human rights crimes in the Occupied Territories.
*How is the “new anti-Semitism” used to discredit legitimate criticism of Israel?*
Whenever Israel faces a public relations debacle such as the Intifada or international pressure to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict, American Jewish organizations orchestrate this extravaganza called the “new anti-Semitism.” The purpose is several-fold. First, it is to discredit any charges by claiming the person is an anti-Semite. It’s to turn Jews into the victims, so that the victims are not the Palestinians any longer. As people like Abraham Foxman of the ADL put it, the Jews are being threatened by a new holocaust. It’s a role reversal - the Jews are now the victims, not the Palestinians. So it serves the function of discrediting the people leveling the charge. It’s no longer Israel that needs to leave the Occupied Territories; it’s the Arabs who need to free themselves of the anti-Semitism.
*American Jewish organizations: Zionist or not Zionist?*
American Jewish organizations didn’t give a fig about Israel before the June 1967 War. After 1967, Israel became their cause because it was safe. Israel is now the strategic asset to the US in the Middle East and so people became pro-Israel, not because they are Zionist. It’s a politically useful position to have. The biggest mistake anyone can make about people in power is to ascribe to them ideological convictions. Ben-Gurion was a Zionist. Abba Eban was a Zionist. The early founders of the state of Israel were Zionist for sure because they were committed to ideas. Just like the Bolsheviks were clearly Communist. But once you get into power, people are interested in one thing - more power. And then they adjust their beliefs and their ideology to serve that goal.
I don’t think Alan Dershowitz cares about Israel. He never wrote about Israel before June 67. The Holocaust - he’s said: "Growing up, we never discussed the Holocaust. I don’t remember one single conversation with anyone about the Holocaust."
They don’t care about the Holocaust or Israel, they care about their careers. So, I’ve always found it perplexing as to why these people are elevated by giving them an ideology and acting as if they are acting out of conviction.
*Speaking of Alan Dershowitz, the two of you have had a very public spat. In “Beyond Chutzpah,” you debunk Dershowitz’s book “The Case for Israel” point by point. Harvard University’s response?*
There’s been no response except at some early date to exonerate him for all those charges. As far as Harvard is concerned, Alan Dershowitz has clean hands.
*You have said that you believe there is a potent insurance out there against fraudulent material being published, except when it comes to the Palestine-Israel conflict. Is this what’s coming into play here?*
I think there a couple things. That’s part of it, but another part of it is that Harvard can’t acknowledge that its senior most professor of law is a hoaxer and a plagiarist. It says something about the institution - it’s so devastating that they just can’t do it. It shines a light on them that is quite shocking. There’s the element of Israel and there’s the element of institutional protection.
*How do you respond to those who perceive “Beyond Chutzpah” as being opposed to any invocation of Holocaust memory?*
There are a lot of people who have suffered in the world. It’s time to give other people’s stories a public airing. I don’t think there’s any danger here of the Holocaust being forgotten, given the fact that the New York Times prepares a story on the Holocaust probably 5 out of every 7 days in the week. First, the only subject covered more thoroughly than the Holocaust is the weather. Second, most of what’s called the memory of the Nazi Holocaust is politically motivated. Its use and exploitation is used to immunize Israel from criticism, immunizes American Jews from criticism, and for many years, it was used as a shakedown operation to extract monies from Europe. That kind of memory we can surely do without.
But as far as remembering the Holocaust? I remember everyday. It’s my parents.
*How do you hope “Beyond Chutzpah” will affect the American Jewish community, as well as your critics in American Jewish organizations?*
Well, some people — you can’t change their minds. Once Leon Trotsky, the Russian Revolutionary, was asked: What do you do with Fascists? He said: Acquaint them with the pavement.
Some people, you’re not going to change their minds. But there are a lot of people out there who are genuinely ill informed and have decent intentions but have gotten wrong information. And it’s those kinds of people you want to reach, not the hard-core fanatics and zealots of Zion. I’m not going to try and convince them of anything. I have better things to do with my time. I’d rather watch paint dry.
*Regarding the Israeli proponents of a two-state solution like Ariel Sharon: Sincerity or lip service?*
They’re not proponents of the two-state solution, this is nonsense. There’s an international consensus on what the two-state settlement means. It’s a full Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank including East Jerusalem, and Gaza. Anything else is garbage. There are people like Sharon who don’t support a two-state settlement. They support a one state solution for Israel and a phone booth for the Palestinians.
*Did you see the application of the “new anti-Semitism” before the Gaza withdrawal?*
Well, of course. The so-called “new anti-Semitism” charade began in 2001 right after the public relations debacle Israel suffered with the Second Intifada. It’s actually been effective. News organizations’ coverage of the Middle East began to change. Everyone got nervous about “targeting Israel.” It long preceded the Gaza withdrawal.
*You discuss Israel’s Wall and the land confiscation in your book. How do you respond to those who say “land grab or not, Israel has the right to defend herself and her citizens”?*
Every state has that right. You build a wall on your own property. When I was growing up, my parents didn’t get along with their neighbors, and so they decided to build a wrought-iron fence around their property. So the first thing you have to do, at least in New York, you have to hire a surveyor and the surveyor demarcates the border. If you’re one inch into your neighbor’s property, under the law, you have to tear down the fence. Very uncomplicated.
The West Bank and Gaza, under international law, are occupied territories. Israel doesn’t have title to one half of one inch of the West Bank or Gaza or East Jerusalem. Want to build a fence? Build it on your border and protect your people. This has nothing to do with terrorism. This has nothing to do with protecting the settlements. If you want to protect the settlements, you do what Israel has done. You build electronic fences around the settlements. Kiryat Arba is very well-protected and there are no terrorist attacks.
It has to do with creating a new border.
*Do you feel there is US acquiescence to this border change?*
There’s nothing Israel can do without US support. It can’t breathe without US support. The US bankrolls everything, and it’s just silly to think that Israel can do anything without the support. There are issues about why the US supports Israel. Is it the lobby or strategic interest? Now you can quarrel about that. But what you can’t quarrel with is the notion that were it not for the US, Israel can’t do anything.
*At what point do you think the general effectiveness of this “new anti-Semitism” will fade?*
Very simple - when Israel no longer comes under public attack or when people just get tired of it, just like the Holocaust Industry. People were Holocausted out. Like the Law of Diminishing Returns, if you keep bringing up the Holocaust, people are getting more and more bored. At some point, it becomes less omnipresent in American public life. And presumably at the point they start calling Mickey Mouse and Michael Jackson anti-Semites, people are going to begin to yawn and get turned off.
* Tell me about the man you dedicated “Beyond Chutzpah” to — Musa Abu Hashhash.*
Musa grew up in the Fawwar Refugee Camp. In his youth, he was Communist and now he’s with the Israel human rights group, B’tselem. I would have to say that he is the most decent human being that I’ve ever met in my life. And I’m not a kid anymore. I’ve got about 51 years on this planet.
There’s a song that Paul Robeson used to sing called “The Purest Kind of a Guy.” The lyric went ‘I don’t know how I know but I know what I know. He’s the purest kind of a guy.’ That’s Musa.
i mean, would you disagree that most jews believe in a state of Israel and a large number of its actions? if not then I'd be happy to hear you say so, but you and I both know that's bullshit. The Gaza massacre had the support of the large majority of Israelis for example. you act as if he's saying there's a belief that jews think they are always right or some shit, as if he's saying jews are arrogant or something, but he's speaking strictly about Israel... if someone said palestinians think they are right when it comes to their right to a nationality, the end of occupation, right to return, etc, I would say you're damn fucking right
the only reason the term would ever have no meaning is because of the overuse to shield Israel from criticism
and not just Muslim Europe? what the fuck is that supposed to mean? Is it understandable if Muslim Europe is anti-Semitic but it should come as a shock to everyone that Europe in general is?
this is just another attempt to try to make it like Jews are always under attack and that a Jewish-only state is so necessary because most of the world is anti-Semitic... the political intentions of this article are so obvious it's pathetic. i'm absolutely for defending slander against any people, but this was a case of taking comments out of context and spinning them completely for political purposes.
we are complicit through our silence.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
For more indepth & specific's check out some of Michael Scheuer's view and knowledge on this subject He was formerly an intelligence officer at the Central Intelligence Agency. In his 22-year career, he served as the Chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station (aka "Alec Station"), from 1996 to 1999, the Osama bin Laden tracking unit at the Counterterrorist Center. He then worked again as Special Advisor to the Chief of the bin Laden unit from September 2001 to November 2004. He has recently come under some critism for his stance on this, but he very knowledgable in this area and well respected in the inteligence community.
8/4/92:Saratoga NY 4/6/94:Mass 9/13/98:CT
8/27/2000:Saratoga NY,10/04/2000:Montreal,Canada
04/29/03:Albany, 5/12/06:Albany NY,10/31/09:Philly,5/15/10Hartford CT
"Jewish Special Interest Group"... 'People looking out for Israel's Best interests'... 'People interested in the welfare of Jews'. Isn't that what "Jewish Lobby" means? I mean... there ARE people lobbying our policy makers who are looking out for Israel's best interests... and they ARE powerful (meaning, they have money... lots of it).
I think you may be reading way too deep on this one. Just because someone says something that is negative from a Jewish point of view, doesn't mean they are Anti-Semitic.
Hail, Hail!!!
So does the term "Christian Lobby" refer to all Christians, including those that preach hate?
Did I mention the 'lobby' looking out for ALL Jews? No.
A lobbyist is a person who tries to persuade lawmakers and policy makers to look out for the best interest of their clients... whether they be Christian coalition or Jewish interest or Israeli manufacturing or Israeli Foriegn Affairs. And it is naive to believe that these people (lobbyist) do not exist. The mere fact that there is some much money generated from our trade partnership should be proof enough.
Hail, Hail!!!
You are mixing up two completely un-related things... one being the fact that there are lobbyist in Washington trying to influence policy makers to look out for Israels' best interests. Just as there are lobbyist looking out for the best interest of Japan or Canada or China.
The other is the lunatic fringe element that has NOTHING to do with the inner workings of government, foriegn policy... or reality in general.
Trying to lump them together to make a point is like trying to make a dessert from whipped cream and tire irons. Not gonna work.
Hail, Hail!!!
Behind much criticism of Israel is a thinly veiled hatred of Jews
Emanuele Ottolenghi
The Guardian, Saturday 29 November 2003 02.43 GMT
Is there a link between the way Israel's case is presented and anti-semitism? Israel's advocates protest that behind criticisms of Israel there sometimes lurks a more sinister agenda, dangerously bordering on anti-semitism. Critics vehemently disagree. In their view, public attacks on Israel are neither misplaced nor the source of anti-Jewish sentiment: Israel's behaviour is reprehensible and so are those Jews who defend it.
Jewish defenders of Israel are then depicted by their critics as seeking an excuse to justify Israel, projecting Jewish paranoia and displaying a "typical" Jewish trait of "sticking together", even in defending the morally indefensible. Israel's advocates deserve the hostility they get, the argument goes; it is they who should engage in soul-searching.
There is no doubt that recent anti-semitism is linked to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. And it is equally without doubt that Israeli policies sometimes deserve criticism. There is nothing wrong, or even remotely anti-semitic, in disapproving of Israeli policies. Nevertheless, this debate - with its insistence that there is a distinction between anti-semitism and anti-Zionism - misses the crucial point of contention. Israel's advocates do not want to gag critics by brandishing the bogeyman of anti-semitism: rather, they are concerned about the form the criticism takes.
If Israel's critics are truly opposed to anti-semitism, they should not repeat traditional anti-semitic themes under the anti-Israel banner. When such themes - the Jewish conspiracy to rule the world, linking Jews with money and media, the hooked-nose stingy Jew, the blood libel, disparaging use of Jewish symbols, or traditional Christian anti-Jewish imagery - are used to describe Israel's actions, concern should be voiced. Labour MP Tam Dalyell decried the influence of "a Jewish cabal" on British foreign policy-making; an Italian cartoonist last year depicted the Israeli siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem as an attempt to kill Jesus "again". Is it necessary to evoke the Jewish conspiracy or depict Israelis as Christ-killers to denounce Israeli policies?
The fact that accusations of anti-semitism are dismissed as paranoia, even when anti-semitic imagery is at work, is a subterfuge. Israel deserves to be judged by the same standards adopted for others, not by the standards of utopia. Singling out Israel for an impossibly high standard not applied to any other country begs the question: why such different treatment?
Despite piqued disclaimers, some of Israel's critics use anti-semitic stereotypes. In fact, their disclaimers frequently offer a mask of respectability to otherwise socially unacceptable anti-semitism. Many equate Israel to Nazism, claiming that "yesterday's victims are today's perpetrators": last year, Louis de Bernières wrote in the Independent that "Israel has been adopting tactics which are reminiscent of the Nazis". This equation between victims and murderers denies the Holocaust. Worse still, it provides its retroactive justification: if Jews turned out to be so evil, perhaps they deserved what they got. Others speak of Zionist conspiracies to dominate the media, manipulate American foreign policy, rule the world and oppress the Arabs. By describing Israel as the root of all evil, they provide the linguistic mandate and the moral justification to destroy it. And by using anti-semitic instruments to achieve this goal, they give away their true anti-semitic face.
There is of course the open question of whether this applies to anti-Zionism. It is one thing to object to the consequences of Zionism, to suggest that the historical cost of its realisation was too high, or to claim that Jews are better off as a scattered, stateless minority. This is a serious argument, based on interests, moral claims, and an interpretation of history. But this is not anti-Zionism. To oppose Zionism in its essence and to refuse to accept its political offspring, Israel, as a legitimate entity, entails more. Zionism comprises a belief that Jews are a nation, and as such are entitled to self-determination as all other nations are.
It could be suggested that nationalism is a pernicious force. In which case one should oppose Palestinian nationalism as well. It could even be argued that though both claims are true and noble, it would have been better to pursue Jewish national rights elsewhere. But negating Zionism, by claiming that Zionism equals racism, goes further and denies the Jews the right to identify, understand and imagine themselves - and consequently behave as - a nation. Anti-Zionists deny Jews a right that they all too readily bestow on others, first of all Palestinians.
Were you outraged when Golda Meir claimed there were no Palestinians? You should be equally outraged at the insinuation that Jews are not a nation. Those who denounce Zionism sometimes explain Israel's policies as a product of its Jewish essence. In their view, not only should Israel act differently, it should cease being a Jewish state. Anti-Zionists are prepared to treat Jews equally and fight anti-semitic prejudice only if Jews give up their distinctiveness as a nation: Jews as a nation deserve no sympathy and no rights, Jews as individuals are worthy of both. Supporters of this view love Jews, but not when Jews assert their national rights. Jews condemning Israel and rejecting Zionism earn their praise. Denouncing Israel becomes a passport to full integration. Noam Chomsky and his imitators are the new heroes, their Jewish pride and identity expressed solely through their shame for Israel's existence. Zionist Jews earn no respect, sympathy or protection. It is their expression of Jewish identity through identification with Israel that is under attack.
The argument that it is Israel's behaviour, and Jewish support for it, that invite prejudice sounds hollow at best and sinister at worst. That argument means that sympathy for Jews is conditional on the political views they espouse. This is hardly an expression of tolerance. It singles Jews out. It is anti-semitism.
Zionism reversed Jewish historical passivity to persecution and asserted the Jewish right to self-determination and independent survival. This is why anti-Zionists see it as a perversion of Jewish humanism. Zionism entails the difficulty of dealing with sometimes impossible moral dilemmas, which traditional Jewish passivity in the wake of historical persecution had never faced. By negating Zionism, the anti-semite is arguing that the Jew must always be the victim, for victims do no wrong and deserve our sympathy and support.
Israel errs like all other nations: it is normal. What anti-Zionists find so obscene is that Israel is neither martyr nor saint. Their outrage refuses legitimacy to a people's national liberation movement. Israel's stubborn refusal to comply with the invitation to commit national suicide and thereby regain a supposedly lost moral ground draws condemnation. Jews now have the right to self-determination, and that is what the anti-semite dislikes so much.
· Emanuele Ottolenghi is the Leone Ginzburg Fellow in Israel Studies at the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies and the Middle East Centre at St Antony's College, Oxford
Well... I guess I need to tell my Jewish friends that I hate them. That's going to be a very difficult task... because I love them very much.
Hail, Hail!!!
...Well, I wouldn't say the settlements are the "root cause," if only because the conflict predates the settlements, but other than that I agree.
what a wonderful little label they have found to completely silence any debate on whether or not Israel might be a typical militant government, or to silence ANY criticism about Israel, even zionism.
i can get away with saying americans are idiots, not because its somewhat true, but because people here don't have the hysterical fear that motivates many in the Jewish community, in Israel especially. and whether or not that fear is used as as excuse, or is real, maybe its both, matters little. the hysteria that has carried over from the holocaust is motivating israel to treat others in the very way that they are so fearful of being treated.
very ironic. many in the jewish community see this, and are speaking out against it, rightfully so. which is why i wonder about that anit semitism label. being critical of israel or zionism does not mean one is critical of jewry, something israel propagandists would have us believe. isreal and zionism do not represent jewry as a whole, despite what they would have us believe.
Well... one of the root causes... of which there are a few.
I believe Israel has a right to exist... just not in land they are currently (military) occupying.
Hail, Hail!!!
that's from the article.
"this sort of mentality" refers to antisemitism.
True. It was the original dispossession of the Palestinians from their land by the Zionists with their intention to establish an ethnic Jewish state in Palestine that was the root cause.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
'The jewish lobby'.... it's been used many, many times with no problems and no repercussions. There is also an 'arab lobby' in the US (also a term frequently used in the media). Is this racist, just like jewish lobby is 'anti-semitic'?
Let's not read some massive anti-semitic conspiracy in this.
a jewish kid asks his dad if he can borrow $50 and the dad says "$40? what do you need $30 for??"
hahahaha
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
"The strength of the book's treatment of anti-Zionist antisemitism lies in Julius's drawing out of the implications of many arguments made by critics of Israel. For example, he makes a convincing case for the appearance of tropes of blood libels and Jewish conspiracies in much anti-Israel discourse. By defining antisemitism so narrowly as to only include outright Nazism in the category and by reflexively dismissing charges of prejudice as attempts to defend Israel, there is widespread blindness among pro-Palestinian campaigners. There is a damning lack of imagination at work here – a deliberate lack of empathy to Jewish sensitivities.
Yet the limitation of Julius's argument is that he reproduces a similar lack of imagination and empathy. For one thing, he includes people and organisations in the anti-Zionist camp who have never explicitly articulated an anti-Zionist position. Independent Jewish Voices for example, which he treats as part of Jewish anti-Zionism, contains anti-Zionists but also left Zionists and non-Zionists in its coalition. As someone who has thought through the issues carefully, Julius assumes everyone else has too and ignores the swathes of ignorant pro-Palestinian activists who simply haven't followed through the implications of their argument to their anti-Zionist telos.
More seriously, Julius also appears to assume that anti-Zionism is necessarily antisemitic. I would agree that it often is: when an end to the Jewish state is demanded in the name of Palestinian nationalism, the preference for one national movement over another is at the very least inequitable. But what about anti-Zionisms that look towards a binational state? Again, the one-state solution is often simply a figleaf for Palestinian triumphalism and such "solutions" are indefensible. However, a serious one-state solution that requires the end of both Palestinian and Jewish nationalism, while it may not be practicable, cannot be so easily dismissed. Nationalism is, after all, a recent phenomenon and eminently open to criticism. The mutual failure of imagination rears its head again here: pro-Palestinian campaigners often cannot and will not imagine a one-state solution that isn't simply a coded form of oppression of Jews; pro-Israel campaigners cannot imagine something beyond Zionism that isn't a form of genocide.
The most difficult argument that Julius's book raises is that of Jewish and Israeli implication in antisemitism. The frequent pro-Palestinian blanket dismissal of accusations of antisemitism are hateful and hurtful and Trials of the Diaspora gives many examples of this. At the same time though, there is a wider problem of how Israel and antisemitism is talked about that simply cannot be ignored. The passions that the Israel-Palestine conflict raises are so intense that people on all sides have a tendency to use hyperbolic language. Further, Godwin's law – that online discussions will always end up in Nazi comparisons – is observed throughout contemporary discourse generally and if, say, animal rights protestors will accuse vivisectionists of being Nazis then it is hardly surprising that those talking about Israel-Palestine will also make such accusations. Some Jews and Israelis do indeed misuse accusations of antisemitism – but not because they are impossibly mendacious and trying to suppress debate, but because they are human beings as flawed as anyone else."