One Day in My Family’s Polish Town

Every Yom HaShoah I try to write something from my family's own history as an illustration of wider themes. The material below, that happened almost 70 years ago to the day, is from my manuscript, Children of Dolhinov.

By Barry Rubin

Before dawn of Monday, March 28, 1942, German SS and Einsatzgruppe B units accompanied by a Latvian police detachment boarded a convoy of vehicles. Before dawn, they surrounded the town of Dolhinov, Poland.

The town awoke to the sound of stamping boots, barked commands, the wails of children, and sobs of women. The Kazovitz family hid, but David, the baby, was crying and his mother feared the noise would give the hiding place. So she ran to a Christian neighbor, handed over her fur coat and promised if the woman would conceal her she’d bring a gold watch afterward. The woman refused; the Germans killed the mother and baby.

Meanwhile, the rest of the family hid undisturbed. When night fell and the Germans left, Yankel Furman, stepfather of the Kazovitz family, returned, knocked on the door and let them out. They crawled from the basement to find few of their friends remained alive. Later, the Christian woman showed up at the Kazovitz’s house claiming she had helped and demanding the watch. A single misjudgment about a person’s character cost your life.

Chana Brunstein might have had the easiest time that day. She was cooking when a German soldier entered. He should have forced her out to line up with the other Jews but instead—Humane? Hungry? Lazy?—he merely asked her for some eggs and left. Esfira Dimenshtein and her family were saved because a friendly Polish policeman named Maslovsky had warned them the Germans were coming the next day. They made a big hole in their grandmother’s barn and stayed there until it was all over.

While most of the Kaplan family hid in a tunnel, his 82-year-old grandmother, Rhoda Kaplan, could take no more and stayed seated in the parlor.  Her son, Gendel thought his status as a craftsman might protect her, When the police entered, he handed them his document and said as a relative his mother was also protected. They returned the document, nodded seriously, then shot her dead right in front of him.

One woman, driven mad by fear, ran from her shelter and was caught by the Germans. They promised that if she showed them her family’s hideout they would let the Jews there go free. Out of her mind, she did so. The Germans promptly murdered her entire family then killed her, too.

Some Poles turned their neighbors, looting their possessions; others risked their lives to help. Still others locked themselves in, trembling at their own fate thinking, as one Polish survivor told me, “that we might be next.”

Surrounded by armed police, the Jews who had been caught were marched down the street to the market square, where many had worked. They were ordered to sit and wait. Some fell prostrate onto the ground and wept. Many prayed. Most hoped it was just some re-registration, minor humiliation, or even the execution of a small number who would be selected from the group.

A few ran for it, and were shot down. Two men made a break for it and got pretty far. A submachine gun opened up on them, they fell down. But, when the shooting stopped, one got up and took off again. Police fire brought him down, too. None of those who ran escaped.

Gdalia Levin whispered to Boris Kozinitz, “Take a good look at the trees and the houses; you shall not see them again. These will stay after we are gone. The world will keep on existing but many Jews will not be in it."  

One man, however, was given a choice. A German officer pulled aside Lipkind, a member of the Jewish council, and told him, "You, as an elder must see all your community being killed and we will kill you last." In response, Lipkind charged a Polish policeman named Komolka, hit him in the face and then went back to his place among the others. The officer asked Komolka if he wanted Lipkind punished. The policeman replied, "No, there's no need, he'll be shot soon anyway."

Esther Dokshitsky was among those marched to the square. She saw a mother holding a screaming baby. One of the Germans grabbed the baby, said, “We’re not going to waste a bullet on this one,” and smashed its head onto an electrical pole, then dropped the dead child on the ground.

The German commander read the names of men, technicians and professionals, who they still needed. Esther’s father and uncle were on the list. Since his own two daughters and wife were safely in hiding, the uncle grabbed his sister and her two children claiming them as his. A policeman escorted them away as their own father watched them, grateful no doubt that although he would die that day they would not

Then the soldiers and police opened up with rifles and machineguns and mowed down hundreds of people. They fell in place. Others were forced into two warehouses on which gasoline was poured and set alight. Having been used so long to store hay the buildings went up fast.

 Anyone trying to escape was machine-gunned. The screams of those burned were terrible, the cries of those who tried to escape were cut short by the bullets. At 6 PM it was quitting time, and the murders stopped. Any Jew caught after that was left completely alone, as if the Germans were indifferent to their continued existence.

               One of the few survivors was Ringa, a first-grade teacher at the Zionist school who, along with her own four-year-old son, was the last alive of in her family. When she saw Esther, one of her students, also still alive, she was astonished. She hugged and kissed Esther, and with tears in her eyes, said to her: “Remember how I taught you about Israel. But we didn’t have the opportunity to go there.” A few days later, she and her little boy were murdered, too.   

             Others, however, did make it to Israel eventually, where they and their descendants would get to be called Nazis and oppressors by the descendants of those who had murdered and oppressed them or who had stood by and done nothing. In fact, one ex-SS man even had a poem published in leading world newspapers about what terrible people they are and how their fear of genocide is just a lie and an illusion.  

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

Being an Israeli and a Jew in 2012: Let's Face Reality Without Illusion, Shrug, and Move Forward

By Barry Rubin

It is the year 2012, which seems to be going by very fast and is already one-fourth finished. People are walking around with smart phones and all sorts of electronic devices undreamed of not long ago. There has been what is called an “Arab Spring” stoking fantasies about instant democracy. An African-American was elected president of the United States, and that was after his party’s nomination, and thus probably the White House, almost went to a woman!

Times have changed.

Yet the hysterical hatred for Israel in the Arabic-speaking world and among Muslims in general has only increased; the philosophy of rejectionism is as strong or even stronger than ever.  Indeed, it is no longer safe, and certainly isn’t comfortable, for Jews in much of Europe and even, for those who support Israel, on American college campuses.

-----------------------

We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 28,929. Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
-----------------------

Two examples of how the lynch mobs are out in force in places where formerly they were least present.

In previously moderate Tunisia, now under Muslim Brotherhood rule, thousands of Salafists paraded, chanting to kill the Jews in order to enter paradise. The new Tunisian constitution contains a provision that the country could never recognize Israel. Almost a half-century ago, Tunisia’s then leader was the first Arab politician to call for recognizing Israel. We’re still waiting.

In Morocco, perhaps the overall most moderate country in the Arabic-speaking world, a meeting of the Mediterranean Parliamentary Union was held. Israel, which has a parliamentary system and is on the Mediterranean (I can see the sea from my roof), is a member of this group. Consequently one Israeli attended the meeting. The result was a riot in which thousands of Moroccans assaulted the building and the leader of the ruling Islamist party complained at how the country's soil had been tainted.

I won’t bother citing a thousand other examples. But with the triumph of revolutionary Islamists and the throwing down the memory hole of decades of disastrous Arab anti-Israel policies--forgetting all of the lessons of earlier decades--the Arabic-speaking world is becoming more radical on this issue. It is now joined by Turkey and Iran.

They hate us; they despise us; they want to kill us.

Yawn.

In this situation there is a strong temptation for Westerners to say that if only Israel didn’t exist (radical version) or if it made huge concessions (liberal version) then all of the problems in the Middle East would go away and all the region’s conflicts with the West would go away, too.

And in this situation there is a strong temptation for Western Jews to say that if only Israel made more concessions on territory or tore down the settlements there would be peace; hate would turn into love or at least benign indifference, and all the problems of the Jews would go away.

And in this situation there is a total temptation for Western leftists—including a disproportionate number of Jews among them—that if only Israel disappeared or made huge concessions then socialist utopia would come speedily in our time.

In fact, for the first time in history we are seeing a concerted, well-funded campaign to destroy the base of support for Israel among American Jews. It is rather ironic that this is happening in 2012.

After all, Israel withdrew from the Sinai Peninsula, southern Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, and parts of the West Bank. Since 1993, Israel has not established a single new settlement nor expanded the geographic size of existing settlements. Israeli governments offered (twelve years ago!) to accept a Palestinian state in all of the Gaza Strip, almost all of the West Bank, and in much of east Jerusalem.

And so on.

Now we are told by the highly publicized and very smug that if only there is an economic boycott of settlements, Israel will be saved.

We are not told that if only there is a willingness among Arabs and Muslims to make peace, plus the total defeat of the revolutionary Islamists, peace is far more likely to be achieved.

That real solution has two differences from the first one:

--There is literally nothing we can do, no concession or risk we can take, that would bring about that outcome.

--Thus, we do not have the power in our hands to resolve this conflict. We can stand up, sit down, walk by the way, or return to the 1967 borders and it won’t matter.

About 25 years ago, I was convulsed with laughter when covering a Palestine National Council meeting in Algeria while watching a young American Jewish Peace Now kid try to explain to a group of Fatah guys that they really did just want a state of their own to live alongside Israel. They kept explaining to him that this wasn’t the way they thought at all. They wanted “all of Palestine from the river to the sea.”

This well-meaning boob thought he knew better than the Palestinians what was their actual political stance.

It is not comforting to acknowledge that there simply isn’t going to be any formal peace agreement or end of the conflict. I won’t say “never” but I’m pretty sure for the next 30 to 50 years, and somewhat less certain for the rest of this century.   

But, of course, in time antisemitism in Europe went away—oops! It didn’t, but you know what I mean.

Does saying these things make me “right-wing”? Not at all. It is also the consensus position of the great majority of left-of-center Israelis and it should be the position of liberal Jews in other countries. The whole point is that this is not a matter of our will or preference or program but something that is being forced upon us.

Sure, I want a two-state solution, but not as a launching pad for the next round of would-be genocide. I want the ideal solution of peace and good neighborhood but I don’t expect that is going to happen. Not my fault; not our fault.  

Let’s face reality, stop blaming ourselves, and get on with our lives. Let us improve Israel's society, economy, and culture. Of course, let’s also defend ourselves. Let us try to preserve as much as possible of the rapidly disappearing Jewish people. And if you want to boycott someone, why not start with those who insist on remaining our enemies and who would like to murder us?

Makes sense to me. 

PS: In this sermon Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch says all these things in a very articulate and persuasive manner. You can also read my more detailed assessment of the blame-Israel-pretending-to-support-it-while-trying to subvert-its-existence crowd and those innocent and well-meaning people fooled by them.

A different version of this article was published in the Jerusalem Post. Please read and link to my version above.    

     

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

France: Here Comes the Whitewash

By Barry Rubin

The murders in Toulouse should be a wake-up call for France and all of Europe. True, the assaults on Jews and French soldiers were three individual terror attacks perpetrated supposedly by a single individual. The more information that emerges, however, the clearer it becomes that this terrorist was well connected to a bigger al-Qaida network. 


Even more important, these shootings are among dozens of antisemitic incidents that happen daily in France and throughout Europe. A big story like the Toulouse attack can draw attention to a broader, dangerous political and social trend.

Or it can be treated as an isolated incident. Nothing to see here; move along; go back to sleep. Al-Qaida terrorists don't pull up in front of Jewish schools to murder teachers and students every day, right?

In the past, the mass media could be expected to present a debate on how to interpret this event but now all too often they give a monopoly to the whitewashers and the apologists. 



-----------------------
We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 28,929. Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
-----------------------

Phase one is to present any terrorist as a right-wing, neo-Nazi, or opponent of left-wing policies. If the terrorist is a Muslim, however, his own explanations—citing dominant interpretations of Islam and the goal of furthering an Islamist revolution—are ignored. Instead, he or they are presented as confused, psychologically disturbed individuals; victims of discrimination; or, in short, anything other than ideologically motivated revolutionaries.

Perhaps the leading “professional” apologist for France in this context is Justin Vaisse.  In an article in Foreign Policy, The "New Normal" in France?, he claims that Mohamed Merah, the Toulouse terrorist, is sort of a sad sack character who is merely seeking to take his fate into his own hands and to emerge as the defender of oppressed Muslims in France. In other words, he’s sort of a combination of self-help fanatic and crime-fighting superhero.

As for France itself, antisemitism is supposedly declining. There’s no problem and few major attacks on Jews. Everything is just fine. No need to make changes; no need to demand that Muslims teach tolerance and fight against extremists in their own ranks; no need to provide more protection for Jewish institutions. And no need for a real soul-searching about the constant demonization of Israel in the French media and, at times, schools.

Is this disgusting? Yes and it's also dangerous. The subhead on the article tells us the Toulouse attack is merely "a banal and fading version of extremism." To a Jewish ear, the word "banal" recalls the famous Hannah Arendt line about the "banality of evil" in the Holocaust, while the word "fading" means the problem is going away. 

It so happens that I have met Monsieur Vaisse and discussed these issues with him. At that time he was an advisor on Islam in the French government. Vaisse had just written a book saying that there was no real political problem regarding Muslims in France. The book was quickly translated into English and published by a prestigious Washington research center.

According to Vaisse, the entire difficulty lay with economic and social issues. The problem was that Muslims were poor and badly treated. If this were fixed then there would be no radicalism, Islamism, or terrorism.

I asked him: Accepting your premise for the moment, why should we possibly believe that France can solve the economic and social problems involved? There aren’t good jobs; there is no prospect of better housing and higher living standards. Government regulations discourage entrepreneurship. So in the context of your worldview, isn’t the prospect for more radicalization and violence?

He simply gave no serious answer. And this, I should add, was before the current international economic crash and the Paris riots.

But there’s more. A colleague asked Vaisse what sources he used in composing his study. Only French-language sources, he replied. My astonished colleague said that nothing could be understood without looking also at the Arabic material that French Muslims were writing and reading. In fact, this person added, there was an Arabic-language bookstore within five minutes’ walk of Vaisse’s office and we could go there right now and see the radical, antisemitic child-raising manuals being sold there. These books, my colleague added, weren’t just sitting on the shelves they were being bought and used.

Vaisse showed zero interest in this point.

For Vaisse, revolutionary Islamism is simply not a factor of any importance. While he correctly points out that many French Muslim activists aren't personally pious in their behavior (drinking alcohol, for example), this is besides the point. Islamism becomes a form of ethnic nationalism for them, justifying anti-Jewish and general anti-French actions.

In addition, this is no transient "second-generation" phenomenon. For over time, the radicalism is passed on to the third generation through Islamic schools, mosques, and indoctrination at home. In effect, France and other countries are turning themselves into permanently unstable bi-national states.   

Incidentally, in the Netherlands—in contrast to France—Jewish groups successfully protested the sale of these child-raising manuals telling parents to teach their kids that Jews were evil and should be extirpated. The Dutch government responded by ordering little strips of white paper be glued over the offending passages. My host then showed me, with a flick of his finger, how easily these paste-overs could be removed and the sections calling for the killing of Jews be read.

Now consider this point. I am unaware of a single incident in Europe or North America when a non-Muslim attacked Muslims with guns or bombs in an attempt to kill the maximum number possible. Probably, you could find a couple of such cases but it won’t be easy and they won’t be many. It is the Jews who are being targeted as a group by many levels of violence and intimidation. This is a secret to nobody except Western governments, “experts,” and much of the mass media.

I have listened in France to discussions among Jews over what parts of their cities were still safe to live in and which were too dangerous. The key factor is whether you are wealthy enough to move away from the threats. I’ve heard Jewish parents discussing their kids' traumatic experiences in the public schools. 

French Jews are either leaving France or at least buying homes in Israel. Aside from reports in mostly Jewish media, I know about this because I hear more French being spoken in Tel Aviv streets. My real estate agent friend has a growing number of French clients, some of whom leave their families in Israel and commute to work in France. These people know what’s actually going on in France and other countries.  

Der Speigel interviews, Daniel Ben-Simon, an expert who explains there are, "hundreds of anti-Semitic incidents" a year, committed mainly by Arab immigrants. Indeed, the teacher and his two children murdered in Toulouse were French Jews who had emigrated to Israel until he had been persuaded to return to France to work in the school.   

So while we will be told to listen to Vaisse and such people, these reassuring lies have nothing to do with reality.  

This is not just a matter of misinformation. Such falsehoods encourage governments and institutions not to prepare, not to change their ways, not to learn from bloody experience, to continue denying the very existence of an antisemitic problem. And that means there will occasionally be more such tragedies but also hundreds of incitements to antisemitism, blood libels against Israel, assaults, threats, and other acts of anti-Jewish hatred that you will never hear about. 

Hiding the truth only ensures that the problem grows and the tragedies are repeated. And unfortunately that is precisely what's happening.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

A version of this article is published in the Jerusalem Post. The version here is better. Please read and link to my version here. 

  

The True Perpetrators of The Antisemitic Attacks in Toulouse and Throughout the World

By Barry Rubin

What a tragic, evil joke. A drive-by shooter in the beautiful, almost magical, city of Toulouse, France, murders three Jewish children and a teacher in front of their school. Various VIPs issue statements about how terrible is this deed, how unspeakable.

And yet at that very moment, the next round of murders, the next slanderous and inciting antisemitic lies are being perpetrated by respectable people and institutions. There is no real soul-searching, no true effort to do better, no serious examination about how the anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hysteria is paving the way to murder and potentially genocide.

Here are three examples of such deeds in nominally democratic countries—not Iran, not Syria, not Pakistan, where such things are even more intense—but in supposedly rational places.

-----------------------

We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 28,915. Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

-----------------------

1. The Turkish editor

Meet Mahir Zeynalov, an editor at Today’s Zaman, a Turkish Islamic newspaper that is supposedly moderate. Meet the modern art of tweeting. Here is Zeynalov’s response to the murders:

Mahir Zeynalov ‏ @MahirZeynalov

Gunmen attack Jewish school in France, vandals attack Jewish cemetery in Poland, Jews burn mosques and Quran in Tunisia. What's wrong?

There are two ways to read this tweet. The more outrageous is this: How can it be wrong for gunmen to murder Jewish children or vandals attack a Jewish cemetery in Poland if Jews are burning mosques and Qurans in Tunisia. One act balances the other.

The other interpretation is this: What a world in which there is so much hatred! Gunmen murder Jewish children, vandals attack a Jewish cemetery, and Jews desecrate mosques and Muslim holy books.

Yet the second interpretation is almost as inciting to violence as the first. We know from many experiences—including Afghanistan right now—that anyone who burns or does anything to a Koran would set off massive riots and bloody killings. And as for burning a mosque, such a deed might well result in the massacre of every Jew living in Tunisia.

Tunisian Jews today are a couple of thousand terrified people who would run in the other direction if they saw a Koran in front of them lest they be accused of looking at it funny. What Zeyanlov has done is called a “blood libel,” a lie that might lead to the murder of Jews.

Now if some Muslim were to take seriously Zeyanlov’s tweet he would feel justified in murdering Jews, say children standing in front of their school.

2.  The Dutch cartoonist...

Read the entire article by clicking here

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

Why No Peace? Because the PA Tells Its People that Murdering Israeli Civilians Makes You a Hero

By Barry Rubin

The trouble with the Palestinian Authority (PA) is that while in the Western mass media it is virtually always portrayed as moderate the PA simply doesn’t act that way. Its contrary behavior involves not keeping its commitments, daily incitement to kill Israelis and destroy Israel in its institutions, and refusal to negotiate seriously.

Above all, it means refusing to make peace in the context of a two-state solution. Among other things, it rejects the idea off a peace treaty ending the conflict--a pretty remarkable stance--or resettling its people within the state of Palestine but insisting many should go to Israel to live--a pretty remarkable stance for what's supposed to be a nationalist movement.

But then there are the symbolic things that persuade Israelis not to trust the PA with their future fate, even if Israel must deal with the PA and even save it from being overthrown by Hamas.

To put it in one sentence; there is nothing the PA won’t do in terms of justifying the murder of Israelis as a heroic deed that should be considered. Here is a case so extreme—publicized by the praiseworthy Palestinian Media Watch (PMW)  that it should reverberate internationally, making people understand the true reason why this conflict cannot be settled. Oh, and it immediately follows PMW's revelation that the highest-ranking, PA-appointed Palestinian Muslim cleric called for genocide against the Jews. 

Now, twice in one week, a PA television host praised Hakim Awad, the murderer of the Fogel family who, last March, carried out the bloody slaughter of an unarmed father, mother, and three children (11 years, 4 years, and 2 months, respectively) in their home. The program held him up as a good role model for Palestinians.

There are hundreds of such events--you can visit the PMW site to read about them and see them on video--yet the Western mass media, not to mention governments, never take this incitement seriously even though it violates many agreements made by the PA.

What do you think their effect is going to be? 

To read the entire article click here

Well, At Least Ahmadinejad Can't Use That Excuse!

headline:


"At Paris trial, designer John Galliano blames drugs, booze for anti-Jewish rant."

The Mysterious Haters: Who Could the Antisemites Possibly Be?

By Barry Rubin

When I spoke at Canadian campuses last year I had some good experiences. But in certain universities the meetings were conducted like secret conclaves of the French Resistance during the German occupation. My hosts were clearly fearful, invitations were only issued to those they knew, and there were no signs or publicity. Indeed, at two of Canada's leading universities previously, pro-Israel Jewish students had been assaulted by mobs.

Yet Canada is among the world leaders in Political Correctness. In no country is there more concern that someone's feelings will be hurt due to some kind of slur. There are even special courts where those who say or write the wrong thing--presumably against non-whites or Muslims--can be tried without too much emphasis on legal procedure.

Now the figures for "hate crimes" in Canada have been issued and guess what? Like the FBI's statistics for the United States, the number one victims of hate crimes are...Jews. Indeed, 71 percent of the hate crimes in the religion category are against Jews. The Jewish proportion of Canada's population? Around 1 percent. That's 71 percent of the hate crimes on a religious basis against 1 percent of the population.

For Canada, 54 per cent of the crimes were motivated by race or ethnicity, 29 per cent by religion and 13 per cent by sexual orientation

Makes you think, right?

Apparently not. Because the report is vague about just who might be attacking Jews and why these numbers have tended to rise. Skin-heads? Neo-Nazis? Russian peasant pogroms? Crusaders? The Klu Klux Klan? Peronists? Anti-Dreyfusards? Know-Nothings? Knights of the Camellia? Republicans? Tea-Partiers?

Because if we don't know who did it, then how can the situation be improved? Was it Anglicans? Bahai? Catholics? Dunkers? Episcopalians (oh, wait, they're the same thing as Anglicans), Franciscan monks or Fire-worshippers? Greek Orthodox? Hawaiian traditionalists? Idolotors or Illerati or Inuit? Jacobites? Kansans? Lutherans?

Ok, I give up. No sense going any further in the alphabet, is there?

Meanwhile, in Jerusalem, Jews are stopped from prayer at the Western Wall by rock-throwing, um, non-skinheads. And Yale University has shut down the Yale Institute for the Study of Antisemitism, despite the program's holding a large number of events and a major conference. Seems they didn't focus enough on all antisemitism coming from neo-Nazi skinheads?

So just keep repeating to yourself: The main problem of the Western world is Islam-o-phobia.

Antisemitism: It's Back Big Time and Nobody in Power (Really) Cares

By Barry Rubin

A reliable source in Finland reports that the speaker of parliament, Ben Zyskowicz, was attacked by a man shouting antisemitic slogans in Helsinki, June 1. He is a popular politician and the only Jewish member of parliament.  Zyskowicz refused to press charges saying that going to court in such matters is futile.

This event in a relatively small, far-away country about which people know little will not make international news. But it isn't an isolated incident.

Reports from Holland say that Jewish funeral processions--and in some cases Christian ones--are being heckled by Muslim bystanders yelling, "Jews!" Is this a mistake on their part or is "Jew" becoming a wider designated curse to be uttered more generally? Western "peaceniks" and "humanitarians" are joining a Gaza flotilla whose organizers chant approvingly about the seventh-century genocide of Jews in the Arabian penninsula and pledge to repeat it, and for the benefit of a terrorist group (Hamas) that is actively and openly working on implementing a new genocide against Jews.


Politicians fly to expensive hotels to hold conferences on "tolerance" and "anti-hatred." Big public relations' campaigns are held on these topics. But all this has nothing to do with reality. Extremist groups and ideologies--including Islamism--along with endless incitement against Jews and Israel, including in the most "respectable" media, are creating an atmosphere where antisemitism is permissible, even fashionable.

True, the U.S. government is boycotting the ten-year- celebration of the UN's antiracism conference in Durban that turned into an antisemitism conference. Even the Obama Administration characterized this as including "ugly displays of intolerance and anti-Semitism." But when the UN sponsors antisemitism might that suggest this is a rather big problem

Absolutely zero is being done about this at a time when, otherwise, the smallest accusations of religious or racial bigotry provoke hysteria. And those building this hatred, often by lies and hatred directed at Israel, claim they are innocent by manipulating definitions of antisemitism.

In Belgium, a sociologist conducted a poll that showed that half of Muslim students are antisemitic. The response? He has been taken to court by Muslims accused of a "hate crime."

Even in the United States, according to FBI statistics, attacks on Jews far exceed those on Muslims. Many of the attacks are staged by Muslims. Yet even Jewish groups like the Anti-Defamation League ignores the systematic inculcation of antisemitism in many mosques and Muslim schools. And here's the latest from Ireland. And the United Kingdom.

It would be excessively alarmist to say that this is a return to the 1933 and 1945. Rather, it is a return in a new form to the period between around 1000 and 1933. And that's bad enough.

Note: the reference in paragraph 2 about a small, far-away country of which people know little is to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's remark when sacrificing Czechoslovakia in 1938.

Two Helen Thomas Farces: What She Says and How She's Ridiculed

By Barry Rubin

It's amazing how bad the public discussion of issues is nowadays. Here's a tiny example. Helen Thomas was fired for her anti-Jewish statements and was recently interviewed in Playboy where she made more such remarks that are--correctly--being interpreted as antisemitic.

But why does Thomas hate Israel so much, a hatred that spills over into antisemitism? I haven't seen a single person who's gotten it right. She's no neo-Nazi or nut case. Thomas is of Lebanese descent, albeit Christian, and basically views herself on this issue at least as an Arab.  The important factor is not her eccentricity but her typicality.

What Thomas is doing, then, and has done for many years, is to express ideas common in the Arabic-speaking world which are becoming increasingly common in the West. That's why she's significant and that's where she's coming from. Her blend of anti-Zionism and antisemitism--using traditional anti-Jewish themes, sometimes applied to Israel and at times to all Jews--is just like what exists in a high percentage of households in the Arabic-speaking and Muslim-majority worlds.

We're not talking about a funny old lady but about a worldview held by millions of people in a lot of countries, by revolutionary Islamists and terrorists, and by a growing number of people on Western college campuses and in elite circles. This is not some joke but rather a "craziness" that kills and shapes the fate of whole nations and continents.

Anti-Jewish Insanity in the Middle East Transcends All Previous Limits

By Barry Rubin

After more than 30 years working professionally on Middle East history and politics, I can still be astonished by things that happen in the region. Yet, precisely as William Shakespeare wrote in his play about Cleopatra:

"Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale/Her infinite variety:"

Well, not exactly "infinite variety." It's just more of the same, to an infinite extreme. Who would have thought, say 20 year ago, that the Arabic-speaking world's obsession with demonizing Jews might go even further than where it was at that time?

For one thing, in the 1990s, history seemed to be moving toward moderation; for another thing, who could believe it could become even more intense.

But just at the moment when for the first time in all of history Americans are told that (some) Jews  object to the use of the term "blood libel" by someone falsely accused of murder, the same people are ignoring thousands of blood libels generated daily in the Middle East, many with fatal consequences.  

And now this, as reported by MEMRI:

Wael Ramadhan: "The [Roman] war against Cleopatra was Jewish in essence, and history repeats itself. The Romans had no territorial aspirations in Egypt in those days, and this is ignored by history and by many historians. The Romans were at war with the Parthians and the remnants of the Persian Empire, but they had no intention of waging war against Egypt."

Ramadhan has just made a television series on the Romans and Cleopatra.

There is a humorous side to all of this, but hatred and demonization of Jews is also a mania poisoning the Arab world (not to mention Iran and some other Muslim-majority) and blocking progress in dealing with all of its problems.

This plague has reached epidemic proportions, it shapes policy, prevents peace, paralyzes research and education, and unhinges religion. While an absurd debate rages in America about whether a non-Jew is allowed to use the phrase "blood libel" (something that no Jew has ever hitherto objected to in world history), they are ignoring huge numbers of actual, serious, deadly blood libels.

A sea of blood libels....And they will produce a sea of blood.

A Study: Who Has the Jewish Problem: Huffington Post or Sarah Palin?

By Barry Rubin

An examination of the Huffington Post, a leading news site, and Sarah Palin for evidence of antisemitic associations. The results?

Two  people who belong to a group to which Palin also belongs (but have no direct connection with her) make antisemitic statements.

Scores of people who write articles on the Huffington Post--which is never criticized or examined by the mass media on this issue--do so.  None of them have been barred from writing because of these statements nor have they been answered by other authors for making these statements. And this doesn't take into account the anti-Jewish remarks seen often in the feedback remarks.

And here for a bonus here are some examples of other Huffington Post civility in which, for example, an author with serious mass media credentials--a former Washington Post sports' writer and Seinfeld co-producer--explains how President George W. Bush is worse than Hitler. And I'm not joking. Imagine if someone said the equivalent during the last two years. See also more on the Huffington Post here.

Calls for violence and examples of antisemitism come from both the left and the right. The difference is that the former are excused or ignored, the latter are highlighted and condemned. Let's document and criticize both sides when they say such things.

FBI Hate Crimes Report for 2009 Shows--Anti-Jewish Attacks Nine Times More Common Than Anti-Muslim Ones

Please be subscriber 17,928 (and daily reader 19,928). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com [Note: For those following this closely we have raised our daily reader figure due to a consistent readership rise on the GLORIA site.]


We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

If anyone tells you that the United States is a nest of Islamophobia and that's a huge problem that must be atoned for by all sorts of measures, just give them the official FBI hate crime statistics. The numbers are now out for 2009 and can be seen here.

The number of antisemitic attacks on Jews in America is almost nine times higher than there are attacks against Muslims.

From 2008 to 2009 the number of anti-Muslim attacks rose by one percent. During the same time period, the number of attacks on Jews went up by six percent, an increase six times greater.

So despite thousands of terrorist attacks, the arrests of would-be Islamist terrorists, the killings of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan by Islamist radicals, America has proved remarkably immune from actively hating or trying to hurt Muslims in the country.

In the main chart, the number of religious attacks is given as 1,303. Of these, 931 were against Jews and 107 against Muslims. Of the remainder,  51 were against Catholics, 38 against Protestants, 109 were against other religions, 57 against more than one religion, and 10 against atheists or agnostics. That "other religions" category is confusing. If that means Sikhs, Hindus, and Buddhists face as many attacks as do Muslims that would suggest a very big problem that isn't being addressed.

Of course, there are still 3199 racially motivated hate crimes (against African-Americans, 2284); 777 ethnically inspired ones (483 against Hispanics); and 1223 against homosexuals.

Note however that in proportional terms a Jew is two to three times more likely to suffer some kind of hate crime than an African-American. The difference is that the overall intensity of individual incidents against African-Americans is more severe but this statistic still gives a sense of the situation. (Note)

Here's what's interesting.

Which mass media outlets will report how much the numbers differ from the perceptions that many of them have worked so hard to promote?

How many mainstream publications will carefully avoid pointing out who the real main victims of hate crimes are in today's America? Note how many mass media outlets cover this story while avoiding the facts laid out above.

Is anyone going to do some soul-searching or change their behavior regarding the bashing of Jews and Israel, especially on campuses?

Will people in academia, media, and government sing the praises of America as a remarkably tolerant society when it comes to religion?

UPDATE: I am told that the CNN coverage explained none of the above points, focused on hate crimes against homosexuals, and blamed an upsurge in "fundamentalist" Christianity for these attacks.

[Note: African-Americans are roughly four to six times more numerous in the American population but suffer only a bit more than twice as many hate crimes.]

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

As Virulent Antisemitism Grows, Jewish and Government Institutions Refuse to Name the Real Cause

Please be subscriber 17,910 (and daily reader 19,910.). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com [Note: For those following this closely we have raised our daily reader figure due to a consistent readership rise on the GLORIA site.]

We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

At a time when antisemitism is at the highest point in the West and the world generally since 1945, the battle against it faces a terrible obstacle.

To a very large extent, the driving force of this hatred is revolutionary Islamism, whether it be in the form of attitudes promoted by many Muslim immigrants to the West, or from anti-Israel propaganda generated by Islamist groups and their (usually) leftist allies in the West (directly or indirectly), or from Iran or Arabic-language media in the Middle East.

The information in the above paragraph should not be surprising. Yet large sectors of Western society are in denial about these realities. To speak of it would require them to do something. Criticism of the left can be portrayed as right-wing. Criticism of powerful sectors in academia, media, and intellectual life can be costly to one’s career. Criticism of insane slanders of Israel can be portrayed as cynically branding all criticism of Israel as antisemitic. And criticism of radical Islamists can be portrayed as some kind of “racist” bigotry.

I wrote “can be portrayed” but, of course, the correct phrase should be: is so portrayed on a daily basis.

Nobody wants to be portrayed as racist or bigoted; most people in academia, media, and intellectual life view being called “right-wing” as an equally horrifying assault; and the kind of people who could fight this battle are usually also engaged in building their careers.

Checkmate. Reality distorted. People shut up. Problem grows like a fertilized weed.

And, of course, that is the goal of the anti-Israel often anti-Jewish strategy that creates such responses to silence correction, complaint, or criticism.

Part of the problem also lies with Jewish history and attitudes that make it hard to acknowledge that the leading cause of antisemitism and main danger to the Jewish people today is not neo-Nazis and Skinheads but comes from revolutionary Islamism and the far left. Fascism is no longer a powerful political ideology; the Russian czar fell a long time ago. It is time to acknowledge the environment of the twenty-first century rather than being obsessed with the previous ones.

An example of this kind of problem is demonstrated by the behavior of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which is (supposed to be) the main defense organization fighting antisemitism in the United States and the world. Recently, ADL head Abe Foxman found the time to bash controversial television and radio commentator Glenn Beck for what was in fact a carefully worded, perfectly unobjectionable account of George Soros. Soros is funder of many anti-Israel groups and has contributed to the current problems described above.

But Beck is a safe target, albeit a totally innocent one when it comes to antisemitism. Many American Jews, who are overwhelmingly liberal, are suspicious of him because he is conservative although he is outspokenly pro-Jewish and pro-Israel. That combination of characteristics is rather common in the changed atmosphere of the current era.

Where, however, is the ADL when it comes to Islamist hatred of Jews? Well, pretty much nowhere. This is made apparent in a new study, “An Analysis of the Anti-Defamation League’s Press Release Archive as a Measure of the Organization’s Priorities,” by Eliyahu ben Avraam. I know the researchers and consider them to be very accurate, conscientious, and—by the way—liberal.

Of 3841 ADL press releases produced over the last 15 years, only `1.4 percent focuses on Islamic extremism and 1.3 percent on Arab antisemitism (or hatred of Jews, if you prefer). Even given this limited scope, most of these were issued in the 1990s (almost half of these in 1996 alone) and less than a dozen have been produced in the nine years since September 11, 2001.

And what proportion of the releases has highlighted traditional, right-wing antisemitism from Nazis and Christian extremists? Answer: 43.5 percent.

About five percent have dealt with terrorism in all of its forms, both domestic and international so some of these also touched on Islamist groups.

Regarding materials on Israel and the Middle East, of 737 press releases issued, a total of three deal with Islamist-based material: Jan ’01: “ADL Calls on PA and Islamic Leaders to Condemn Perversion of Religious Symbols;”Apr ’01: “ADL denounces claim by Muslim leaders that Pokeman game is "Jewish Conspiracy;"” Nov ’01: “ADL Says Anti-Semitic and Anti-American Reports in Arab and Muslim Media "Foment Anger And Hate.")

This is at a time of rampant hatred for Jews being preached in sermons, written about in newspapers, purveyed by several governments, and motivating war and terrorism on Israel. Yet practically none of the ADL releasesdeal with Islamist ideology, according to the study.

Of course, this is not a question of the ADL alone. It is apparent, for example, that the European Union is desperate to avoid naming the real sources of antisemitism in its member states, going so are as suppressing one study that it had commissioned when that research came up with the “wrong” answer and pointed to Islamist extremism.

This statistical analysis of the ADLs activities is an accurate reflection of the fear of many Jewish institutions and the disinterest of all too many governmental and liberal or social democratic forces throughout the West really dealing with this issue except in the most vague, feel-good, and historically-oriented terms.

By the way, here are two little stories that signify the insanity loose, though both pertain to Western supporters of terrorist and Islamist groups--the most insidious danger--rather than Islamism directly.

In the first, Dutch newspapers (reminiscent of the blood libel carried by a top Swedish newspaper not long ago) gave uncritical publicity to an interview with a Dutch filmmaker claiming he personally witnessed former Israeli Prime Minister shoot and kill two Palestinian children in Lebanon. Sharon was hundreds of miles away at the time and internal contradictions--none of them pointed out in the original stories--showed the accusation was nonsense. Perhaps the claim was inspired by the award given to a British newspaper cartoon showing Sharon eating Palestinian children.

Meanwhile, in Canada, a rabbi who merely wrote a letter to the president of York University complaining about an invitation to speak being given to George Galloway, a former recipient of Saddam Hussein's largesse who is an outspoken supporter of Hamas, among other things, the university president threatened to file a criminal complaint against the rabbi. The university administration has never done such things on past occasions when, for example, Natan Sharansky's talk on campus was disrupted.

These two incidents don't go to the direct actions and propaganda by revolutionary Islamist groups, but they are the kind of spin-off happening that is spreading antisemitism, supporting terrorist groups, and undermining Western democracy.

If you don't talk about the real sources of this new antisemitism, action against it is impossible and the problem will only grow bigger and bloodier. And since the same forces that target the Jews also are working to destroy Western interests and Western democracy that's everybody's problem.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

The Hour of the Hanging Judges: Demonizing Israel and Pretending It Is Ordinary Criticism

By Barry Rubin

This is getting to be a pretty common kind of story. The mayor of Frankfurt invites an intellectual whose family left Germany in 1932 to speak on the anniversary of Kristallnacht. The problem is that this man, Alfred Grosser, is a ferocious critic of Israel.

Incidentally, while this has not been reported in the media I have it from an impeccable source that Grosser converted to Catholicism during World War Two when this was made a precondition for his being hidden in a monastery. I will leave the psychoanalysis on how this decision affects his judgment to analyze it but I think this has a serious effect on his behavior today.    
Grosser claims the Gaza Strip is a concentration camp (possibly true, but if so it is a concentration camp owned and run by Hamas); calls for ending Israel as a Jewish state; urges Germany to be more critical of Israel; and blames Israeli policies (rather than the deliberate lies about them) as being responsible for increasing antisemitism (isn’t that what George Soros said?)

All of this is interpreted by the Christian Science Monitor, and many others, as merely rejecting:

“…the notion that criticism of Israel is synonymous with anti-Semitism. If Germans want to criticize the blockade of Gaza or treatment of Palestinians, they should be able to without guilt, many say.”

This is the usual absurd response.

But one can criticize Israel’s “blockade” of Gaza (I won’t explain here why it is needed and, no doubt, the people who criticize it have never read these reasons) without calling it a “concentration camp,” which implies deliberate mass murder.

But it is possible to criticize Israel without calling for its extinction—since that is, in fact, what abolishing the existence of a Jewish state means.

But one can say that Israeli policy is an element in growing antisemitism while also listing other elements, including the lying demonization of Israel so prevalent today. Of course, one would then have to talk about all the concessions and risks Israel has taken on behalf of peace in the last twenty years.

And when someone systematically uses such exaggeration, obsessively promotes such hatred, seeks such extreme solutions, sympathizes with those using violence to murder Jews, and leaves out so many facts…it is possible to speak of antisemitism as an element in that overall approach, isn't it?

At times, I reflect, one hears echoes in such rhetoric and activity of a brave, new slogan: Kill the Jews! They really deserve it this time!

Often, however, this kind of talk is actually a result of naiveté and ignorance. This is equally true for Jews who say such things. Being Jewish doesn’t make them experts on Israel. But there is also a strong element of opportunism in taking such highly rewarded positions. No Jew need ever starve since he can always make a career bashing Israel.

Yet there is also a remarkable detachment from the facts on the ground.

In an interview, Grosser explains:

"The Palestinians are despised, are occupied and I think that the majority of Israel's citizens despise Palestinians….The central theme of my book [is] that any human being should be respected….As a Jewish boy in a Frankfurt school, I was despised, and even beaten. I can't understand how Jews can scorn others.”

But does this have anything much to do with the way Israelis think and behave? Israelis don’t “despise” Palestinians in the way Grosser means. Nor are Palestinian (Israeli Arab) students set on and beaten in school or insulted in the streets. On the contrary, such an idea wouldn't even occur to any Israeli but the tiniest minority of most extreme people, who are themselves pretty despised by other Israelis.

What is happening here is that Grosser (and many others) imagine how Israelis behave, then attribute that behavior to them. Often, this means imagining that Israelis behave like Nazis, even though there is no evidence that this is true.

Obviously, there is a decades-long war between them and most Israelis don’t love Palestinians (though a remarkable percentage goes out of their way to seek peace and conciliation). Yet compared to other countries at war with each other, Israelis sentiments are definitely at the lowest part of the spectrum concerning hatred or despising.

Anyone can easily ascertain that there is no despising or hating being taught in Israeli media—TV, radio, newspapers, films—or in schools, or in government statements or in the armed forces. Such statements can be found from individuals or at the political extremes, sometimes by radical rabbis, yet it is far less common than the level of despising in a country like Germany against immigrants there or racism in America, or many other such cases. And when incidents of hatred do appear they are widely and officially denounced.

Of course, people like Grosser never consider the behavior of the other side, the relentless, official hatred and despising of Israel (and often Jews) which appears in almost all the media, all the statements of politicians, all the sermons.

Speaking of Gaza as a "concentration camp" this is an appropriate place to mention how the relentlessly anti-Israel Sydney Morning Herald in Australia pubished an article about how wonderful the Hamas regime is in Gaza and extolling its new luxury prison. But buried in it is the following passage about a prison there that the author just let slide by:

"[Prison director Naser] Suleiman is quick to absolve his own institution of such practices. `'We do not practice any torture here,'' he says. `That takes place at the interrogation centre, before people are convicted.'''

Moreover, the one-sided focus on Israel worsens real oppression, hatred, and bloodshed by giving the terrorists and extremists an excuse. The above-mentioned article's author actually blames any mistreatment in Hamas prisons on Israel:

"Just as Hamas struggles to keep order in this restive strip of land of 1.5 million people, Mr Suleiman is trying to do the same inside Gaza's prisons. And just as Israel's blockade of Gaza stunts economic growth and curtails the ambitions of everyday Gazans, it also impairs Mr Suleiman's ability to operate prisons."

Talking about how the terrible nature of the opposition (in Hamas's case, openly antisemitic and preaching genocide against Jews; practicing terrorism; deliberately targeting civilians, etc.) isn't intended to excuse any shortcomings in Israel, but one has to have some way to measure the potential level of hatred and despising going on.

If your enemy is intent on using civilians as human shields and massacring all of yours, this sometimes requires different measures for self-defense. And if the other side is projecting 90 percent hate and Israel 5 percent—the numbers are somewhat arbitrary but also reasonable—that conveys something important. It's funny that Israel is accused of "excessive force" but not credited for its proportionately low level of hatred.

When, for example, two Israeli reservists lose their way on the West Bank and are torn apart (literally) by a Palestinian mob and there is not a single case of retaliation or incitement to violence among Israelis that tells something. Now multiply that by ten thousand incidents.

Western media, academics, and activists often act as if even a single incident by a single Israeli (even if denounced by other Israelis and punished) somehow “proves” that Israel is demonic and worthy of execution. Even the deity only demanded that ten good people out of many hundreds need be found to spare wicked Sodom and Gomorrah. Israel’s critics reverse the equation and think finding ten bad ones condemns seven million others.

Of course this doesn’t mean Israel is perfect but that’s precisely the point: it is unreasonable to expect perfection and once that standard is jettisoned Israel’s record can be seen to be remarkably good given the conditions it has faced or even how other democracies have responded to far lower levels of threat.

Come to think of it, when it comes to being “despised” and “scorned,” Israel and Israelis aren’t the perpetrators, they are on the receiving end.

You, Too, Zahi? If Egypt's "Greatest" Archaeologist Believes Antisemitic Conspiracy Theories What Hope Is There For Anyone?

Please be subscriber 9,592
And do remember that this blog and the GLORIA Center exists on your tax-free contributions. Please inquire on how to make a donation.

By Barry Rubin

In an era when Islamophobia has become a sin punishable by death or mere career ruination—depending on who’s doing the punishing—it is remarkably hard to get people to understand how widespread is antisemitism in the Arabic-speaking world and in the Muslim-majority world in general. One always wants to believe that there are many exceptions, which is why I find the case of Zahi Hawass so discouraging.

I’ve often seen Hawass on television shows about ancient Egypt or antiquities’ smuggling. He is secretary-general of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities and gave President Barack Obama a tour of the Pyramids when the president visited Cairo in June 2009. I presume that Hawass was an honored guest when Obama gave his famous speech in Cairo, which included a discussion of antisemitism.

But here he is four months earlier on official Egyptian television, which gives his remarks the air of government endorsement. And note how what the interviewer says reinforces the idea that these are official positions. Presumably, Obama's speech didn’t change his mind. The irony here is palpable: One of Obama's main hosts had just shown that his views are poisoned by an extreme form of systematic antisemitism that no one can pretend was merely dislike for Israel.

If one thinks of the conflict as merely a normal one over boundaries or the need for confidence-building measures understanding this profound hatred coming from one side--and not matched at all by the Israeli world view--makes a real resolution of the issue extraordinarily
The translation is by MEMRI:

Zahi Hawass: "For 18 centuries, [the Jews] were dispersed throughout the world. They went to America and took control of its economy. They have a plan. Although they are few in number, they control the entire world."

Interviewer: "With regard to Israel and Zionism we are talking about 7 or 8 million. How is it possible that these 7 or 8 million have taken control of the entire world, and have convinced the world of their cause, while we, over one billion Muslims, cannot convince the world of our cause? How would you explain this from a historical perspective?"

Zahi Hawass: "The reason is that they are always united over a single view. They always move together, even if in the wrong direction. We, on the other hand, are divided. If even two Arab countries could be in agreement, our voice would be stronger. Look at the control they have over America and the media."

Interviewer: "So in your opinion, the secret lies in unity?"

Zahi Hawass: "Yes. It was unity that gave them this power..."

Note that his main theme is precisely the main theme of historical antisemitism (Jews control the world nd use this power for their own benefit, thus they are the humanity of humanity and should be--what?--wiped out?). His secondary theme—Jews always working together—is that of the Russian text I analyzed as typical of how antisemitism so often passes unnoticed in the West.

Of course, regarding Israel the Arabic-speaking world has been about as united as anyone can be over as long a period as anyone could imagine on this issue. Hawass is dead wrong from the standpoint of historical accuracy on both sides of the equation. Or perhaps the obvious implication is that Egypt should end its peace with Israel and join in a war to exterminate that country?

Equally, regarding alleged Jewish control of the media, given coverage of Israel, this charge must be seen as amusing as well as sinister.

As a bonus, note the third theme which is so essential in Arab nationalism: Arab unity is the key to success. Even in 2010, after about 60 years of experience regarding both the failure and disaster of this idea, it is still tremendously powerful in shaping thinking in the region.

That these notions can be taken for granted by a man who is seen as a great scholar in a country which has been at peace with Israel for over two decades is very telling. But then not long ago Egypt's candidate to be the world's cultural "czar" (head of UNESCO) said that he would burn Israeli-authored books found in any library he supervised.

To put it another way, if Hawass and official Egyptian television can be openly antisemitic in this way (and, of course, this characterizes their attitude toward Israel) what hope can there be for more than a handful of others in that vast Arabic-speaking area to think otherwise?

Optional notes: I would have made the title: Et tu, Zahi? As in Julius Caesar's words to Brutus when he was assassinated (at least according to legend) but worried that some readers wouldn't get it. Not you, of course but some of the others.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His new edited books include Lebanon: Liberation, Conflict and Crisis; Guide to Islamist Movements; Conflict and Insurgency in the Middle East; and The Muslim Brotherhood. To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.

What George Orwell Can Teach Us About Contemporary Antisemitism

[Please subscribe not only for contemporary political analyis but also for insights about the lessons of history for our resent day.] 

By Barry Rubin

In 1945, George Orwell wrote a long article entitled “Antisemitism in Britain.” Like many other English writers, in his younger years Orwell had himself been an antisemite. In his novel on Burma, written in the 1920s, for example, he had written that the only ones who had profited from the British Empire had been Jews and Scotsmen, another group he disliked.

It is interesting to note that in his article for the Contemporary Jewish Record he doesn’t mention his own past antisemitism. Later, though, he regretted this and became a firm opponent of antisemitism, an issue he wrote about regularly in World War Two.

England was a strange mix of tolerance and intolerance in earlier years. Orwell wrote that all the Jews he knew when he was younger “were people who were ashamed of being Jews, or at any rate preferred not to talk about their ancestry.” While “The Jew who grew up in Whitechapel [a working class area] took it for granted that he would be assaulted” or at least insulted if he entered any Christian area. He notes also though, that things considered formerly acceptable in literature and elsewhere were no longer so.

Orwell noted that anti-Semitism had been driven underground by the war and that the authorities and media went out of their way to avoid offending Jews in order to establish their credentials as not being antisemites. He recounts how, for example, a man he knew as an antisemite and former fascist was eager to attend a ceremony in a synagogue on behalf of the Jews being persecuted in Poland.

Two-thirds of a century later, Orwell’s article has some interesting things to tell us in an era when antisemitism is reviving throughout the world. Sometimes, the word “Zionist” or “Israeli” is substituted for the word “Jew.” But the tip-off is that the accusations continue to be basically the same ones: allegedly hating and deliberately oppressing non-Jews, greed, conspiracy, mysterious power, irrational behavior, and the goal of world conquest.

The first point Orwell’s article reminds us of is that no Jew really has a good sense of the extent of antisemitism at any given place or time. This is so simply because anti-Semitic attitudes and remarks will or won’t be expressed mainly behind his back. My personal experience bears this out: overwhelmingly, the main expressions of antisemitism I experienced personally did not come from direct expressions but from words I overheard accidentally in nearby conversations or things non-Jewish friends told me about.

In this context, Orwell begins the article with seven cases of antisemitic thinking he witnessed personally during World War Two, coming from a wide variety of classes and educational levels of English people. They include: a desire to avoid Jews, Jews getting extra goods as merchants under rationing, Jews getting extra goods as customers, Jews as pushy and selfish, Jews as cowardly and greedy or as lazy and intellectual.

A second thread relevant to today in common among these anecdotes is that Jews are mainly responsible for their own sufferings. This ploy neatly ensures not only that mistreatment doesn’t matter but that it actually counts as proof of the Jews’ own misdeeds.

Another theme is the need of antisemitism to camouflage itself. Notes Orwell, “Above a certain intellectual level people are ashamed of being antisemitic and are careful to draw a distinction between `antisemitism’ and `disliking Jews.’” Today the same role is played by the effort to make a distinction between the systematic hatred and slander of Israel and its supporters, and antisemitism. There always has to be some rationale for why it is an acceptable slur or hatred.

Here, too, Orwell pointed out that this hatred is not easily combated. “To attempt to counter them with facts and statistics is useless.” He views antisemitism as an emotional choice not shaped by rationality. Of course, there might be more hope affecting those who are not so determined in their views.

Of special note is the coinciding of antisemitism with an era of history where a wider conflict focuses on an anti-Jewish aspect. He writes that World War Two “has encouraged the growth of antisemitism and even, in the eyes of many ordinary people, given some justification for it” because it can be portrayed as “a Jewish war.”

Today, too, there is a war that frightens many in the West that can be called a “Jewish war,” in that if it were not for Israel’s existence one might believe there wouldn’t be international terrorism or a threat from radical Islamism.

Conspiracy theories are also a mainstay of antisemitism. In 1942, for example, when a near-by bomb frightened people into a stampede near a London shelter and more than 100 people were killed, the rumor quickly spread that “the Jews were responsible.”

One thing that has changed generally is that in Orwell’s day most antisemitism was from the right--though he cites antisemitic statements from a Communist fellow traveler and a Labour party leader, too--in reaction to the perceived leftism of Jews:

“Antisemitism,” Orwell wrote, “is rationalized by saying that the Jew is a person who spreads disaffection and weakens national morale….There is some superficial justification for this….The disaffected intelligentsia inevitably included a large number of Jews. With some plausibility it can be said that the Jews are the enemies of our native culture and our national morale.”

Today, while this kind of thing still exists, the main thrust (certainly publicly) of antisemitism comes from the left. It is incontrovertible that antisemitism in the United Kingdom today is higher than at any point since World War Two began. Jews are targeted because of being allegedly too conservative, too religious, too nationalistic. If antisemitism isn’t now acceptable in much of British life it certainly is close, albeit with at times the word “Zionist” merely being substituted for “Jew.”

In a lot of English Jewish behavior and in American Jewish intellectual circles there is an obvious undercurrent of fear lest they be thought not sufficiently “progressive” and thus become or be seen as part of the old enemy on the right, either collectively or individually.

To assess this factor, in watching conservatives today I applied a test. How do they deal with the fact that so many Jews were on the left, among their greatest enemies? Would they again resort to antisemitic explanations?

To my relief, with few exceptions, they’ve largely adopted a different explanation: that the leftist Jews were not embodying the Jews true nature but were acting against their own people’s real interests. If they were traitors to anything, it was not to America or Britain but to their own people.

Antisemitism is still seen as a shameful thing and thus it must be disguised by rationalizations, which today focus on Israel and those who support it. At the same time, though, it draws on all the traditional images and themes and is much more common than is thought.

Orwell reminds us that things haven’t changed all that much. But perhaps it would be correct to say that they seemed to have changed for a long period after the fall of the Third Reich but that this era has proven merely temporary.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books. To see or subscribe to his blog, Rubin Reports.