Do Jews Owe Anything to the US Democratic Party? -- Part 2

We have shown that Roosevelt [Saint FDR, in the bon mot of Lawrence Lipton in the LA Free Press circa 1963] was a silent partner in the Shoah. Of course young people may think that that was a long time ago. But the Democrats still honor Roosevelt with yearly memorial dinners and such. 

Nevertheless,  do we have more recent evidence that the Democratic Party is hostile to Jews, maybe to the point of collaborating in  a future Holoaust? Just two years ago, the Party nominated Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib to the House of Representatives. And these two Muslim women were both elected. Of the two, Omar, a Somali immigrant to the USA, was the more blatantly Judeophobic, although Tlaib was of palestinian Arab background. 

Omar had written a few years years before that, in 2012: "Israel hypnotized the world. May Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel." 

This is not only a specimen of traditional anti-Jewish bigotry but an expression of magical thinking. Omar showed that she had a loose grip on reality. She also expressed Muslim loyalty and Muslim beliefs including the several and sundry prejudices against other religions and  nations that abound in the Quran and the Hadiths and so on. Hence, one would  think that when committee assignments were given out by the Democratic Party leadership in the House of Representatives, care would be taken to place Omar on a committee where she could do little harm. Yet instead, Omar was assigned to the highly prestigious House Foreign Affairs Committee which actually does influence the foreign relations of the United States, a committee to which first-term congressmen are not ordinarily assigned. Maybe she could have been assigned instead to the committee in charge of national parks and/or fisheries or education. Or perhaps the committee in charge of  Housing and Urban Development where maybe --not necessarily-- she might have been able to make a contribution. Instead she is dealing with issues of war and peace, or which foreign countries to befriend and which to harm or be indifferent to.

While a member of the House, Rashida Tlaib put forth a more hypocritical, subtler expression of Judeophobia. She expressed sorrow over the Shoah while claiming that the Palestinian Arabs were victims of the Shoah, whereas their leaders were among the perpetrators of the crime of genocide against the Jews.

In early 2019 when Omar and Tlaib took their seats in Congress, their views gained attention and angry criticism. After she was already a member of the House, this Islamic supremacist [she voted merely "present" on a resolution recognizing the Armenian genocide, perhaps fulfilling a commitment she had made when she met with Turkish tyrant Erdogan before entering Congress] came out with another hypocritical assault on Jews:

Ms. Omar said that pro-Israel activists were pushing “for allegiance to a foreign country” — a remark that critics in both parties said played into the anti-Semitic trope of “dual loyalty.” [NY Times 7 March 2019]

These Judeophobic remarks did elicit public unease and criticism. The Democrats running the House did prepare a resolution condemning antisemitism.  But then . . .

It started as a resolution condemning anti-Semitism. Then, anti-Muslim bias was added in. After that came white supremacy. And by the end, it cited “African-Americans, Native Americans, and other people of color, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, immigrants and others” victimized by bigotry.  [NY Times, 7 March 2019]

So a resolution originally meant to condemn Judeophobia was watered down to become a general statement against bigotry of all sorts. The message against antisemitism was lost and no acknowledgement was made that at least one of the groups that the resolution spread its protective wings over was a group, Muslims, that has been long imbued with Judeophobia, going back to the Quran, the hadiths and other medieval Islamic writings. Nor was either Rep. Omar or Rep. Tlaib mentioned by name. Thus the resolution defeated its ostensible original purpose. 

The refusal of the Democratic Party to clearly and unequivocally condemn Judeophobia/antisemitism, instead substituting a much watered down, nearly meaningless resolution, without naming its own who were complicit in promoting Judeophobia, shows that the US Democratic Party is now home to antisemites and is complicit in their doings. American Jews should not trust this morally corrupt and hypocritical party.

References

https://nypost.com/2019/03/07/house-overwhelmingly-approves-resolution-condemning-hate/

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/06/us/politics/anti-semitism-resolution.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article&region=Footer

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/07/us/politics/ilhan-omar-anti-semitism-vote.html

Do American Jews Owe Their Votes to the Democratic Party?

expanded 11-4-2018

A number of my fellow American Jews seem to think that there is a moral imperative for them to vote for the Democratic Party. This is a tragic misunderstanding. Despite its egalitarian and inclusive rhetoric over the years, presidents and other high officials belonging to the Democratic Party have inflicted or helped to inflict incalculable harm on the Jewish people. We need only go back to the period of the German National Socialists, Hitler's Nazis, which coincided with the period of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the USA to see how FDR --despite his liberal rhetoric-- helped the Hitler regime to consolidate itself. Meanwwhile FDR and his State Dept made it difficult for Jewish refugees to come to the USA in order to flee from Hitler & his Nazis. Even German Jews who legally should have been covered by the large immigration quota for Germany, were kept out on various pretexts. David Wyman made this very clear in his books and articles.

After WW2 began in late 1939, this policy was maintained even as the Nazi policy of mass murder of Jews had begun to be implemented. Likewise, after the USA entered the war in 1941 the policy continued although the Shoah was now operating in high gear. Yet FDR and his administration tried to suppress the information known to Washington intelligence agencies as early as 1942 about mass murder concentration camps, However, the administration did hold a briefing on the subject for congressional leaders of both parties, although no Jewish congressemen were invited as far as I know. These congressmen were clearly told that genocide was going on against the Jews. And they were asked to keep the subject secret. Nevertheless, one brave congressman, Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania ---a Republican by the way-- released the info to an activist for the Committee for a Jewish Army that wanted the USA to sponsor the creation of a Jewish army to fight the Nazis under Allied command.

Later in the war, as the knowledge of the ongoing tragedy. of the mass murder became more widely known, Jewish leaders such as Haim Weizmann tried to move Allied leaders, Churchill and FDR, to do something to help stop or alleviate the mass murder process. They suggested bombing the railroad tracks leading to the concentration camps and perhaps asked also that the crematoria and gas chambers be destroyed by Allied air power, which was possible by mid-1943 when the USA had control of Tunisia. Of course no such help was given. Not long after the American army took Sicily putting American air power even closer to the murder camps in Germany and Poland. This subject has been studied by Arthur Morse, Monty Penkower, William Perl, David Wyman [a non-Jew by the way], Yitshak Ben-Ami, and others. Dwight MacDonald [who called himself an independent Marxist at that time, I believe] published a weekly of sophisticated political commentary called Politics. MacDonald spread knowledge of the Shoah during the war among independent "leftist" intellectuals so the so-called New York intellectuals were aware of the ongoing tragedy and FDR's refusal to act to alleviate it.

Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits wrote in his book, Faith after the Holocaust, that Western leaders wanted the Jews to die. Is there another rational explanation for FDR's inaction?

So much for Saint FDR whom Democrats still honor with yearly dinners honoring him. Obama took part in those dinners.

Without going into detail about other Democratic presidents, jimmy carter and his national insecurity advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski were fairly obvious in their antisemitism, both in regard to Israel and domestically. Abroad Carter and Zbig helped to put the Khomeini regime in power in Iran. Domestically, after General George Brown made derogatory, antisemitic comments about American Jews, the Carter administration refused to dismiss him. Instead Carter worked to get rid of Jewish Democratic congressman Joshua Eilberg, who ironically represented a Pennsylvania congressional district partly overlapping the one Republican Hugh Scott had represented during WW2. Eilberg had called for Brown's dismissal.

Since they took over Iran, the ayatollahs' regime has regularly threatened to destroy Israel and has funded the Lebanese Hizbullah which has made war on Israel, shooting rockets at Israeli population centers in order to kill civilians. The mullahs' Iran also denies the Holocaust but says in so many words that another Shoah would be deserved by the Jews and Israel. This brings us to Iranian efforts to build an A-Bomb or H-Bomb, a very heartwarming effort no doubt meant to bring peace and harmony to the Middle East. This effort has  also been done in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty which apparently bothers very few of those who constantly refer to the notion of interanational law when it comes to vilifying Israel. In 2015 Obama announced his JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal which left plenty of loopholes for Iran to go through in order to soon get The Bomb. One loophole is the ridiculously inadequate and ineffective inspection regime. In other words, Iran can foreclose IAEA inspectors from inspecting many of the suspect nuclear development sites in Iran.

Regarding Israel, Obama favors applying apartheid against Jews keeping them out of most or all of the Judea-Samaria region, the so-called West Bank, although all that region is part of the internationally recognized Jewish National Home [San  Remo 1920, League of Nations 1922]. That is part of the meaning of UN Security Council resolution 2334 passed when Obama was a lame duck president after the election of 2016. Obama worked hard to push that resolution through with approval of all Security Council members save for the US itself which abstained, pretending to US public opinion to be neutral on the matter. Furthermore, Obama subtly derided and defamed Israel in his speeches to the UN General Assembly. Besides that, Obama refused to identify the Jewish victims in the Hypercacher supermarket as Jews or the crime as antisemitism. Instead he called them "random folks in a deli." He repeated this offense in regard to the Pittsburgh massacre of last week by refusing to identify the victims as Jews [to quote him: "We grieve for the Americans murdered in Pittsburgh"]  although he did call for a fight against antisemitism. Of course the victims in Pittsburgh were Americans. But they were murdered because they were Jews. The problem  here is that politicians and anti-Jewish, anti-Israel ideologues define the word antisemitism to suit their own political and ideological purposes,

In light of all the above, and much much more that it would be tedious to include in this short piece, it is obvious that Jews do not owe their votes to the Democratic Party. Neither do Republicans  have a perfect record regarding Jews and Israel. Look at the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations. Jews have a right and duty to evaluate candidates based on their records on life and death Jewish issues and not just on their rhetoric, and rather than on some ignorant simplistic "universal" values while not taking real facts into account [such as Franklin Forer's screed in the Atlantic]. At this time the Republicans are more sympathetic to Jews and Israel while the Democratic Party is more and more under the sway of the Muslim woman-abuser Keith Ellison and of Linda Sarsour who seems in turn  to be the favorite of wealthy and influential movers and shakers behind the scenes.

Are Blonde Arabs Still Semites? Do They Have a Right to Live in the Holy Land?

Does anybody remember that about ten years ago or more, an Arab or Iranian prof at Columbia University in New York [Prof Hamid Dabbash?] told a Jewish young woman student that she wasn't a Semite because she had green eyes? We could dismiss this claim on the grounds that the prof's argument was racist. It was racist. It also defined Semite rather narrowly in a racial, genetic sense. But the argument has to be answered on the empirical level about the relevance of green eyes because simply pointing out that the argument is racist does not make an impression on people who really don't care if it is racist or not. But who often search for something, anything, apparently factual to hold against the Jews. So in my efforts to vitiate this noxious claim by Prof Dabbash [as I recall his name] I will point out that in my own personal experience I have met more than one Arab who had green eyes. And some who had blue and gray eyes. But as you probably understand, we are dealing here with an unthinking cult or mystique --not interested in empirical facts-- that wants to see Jews as alien to the Middle East, not only to the Land of Israel. So Jews have to be put into a box of being European in appearance which some are. On the other hand . . . OK, let's try a lighter, more sarcastic approach while supplying some photographs for the sake of empirical evidence. In that light, please read what follows:

In my unwearying efforts to be politically correct, I have landed upon a hard to solve problem. We all know that according to PC, pale white, blond-haired, blue-eyed people are BAD while black folk are GOOD, and that people with skin color of shades in between are rated accordingly. But what do we do if a blond, white Arab girl slaps an olive-skinned or darker Israeli soldier? Which one is right and which one wrong? A conundrum even harder to solve is when an Arab terrorist murderer is blond and blue-eyed, like young lion Mr Ahmed Nasr Jarrar in the photo below, and the Israeli victim of murder is a swarthy Jew like Rabbi Raziel Shevahh [may his memory be a blessing], murdered by Jarrar and his accomplices in a drive by shooting . According to the standard PC rules of skin-color-based morality, the Jew would be right and the blond Arab wrong. Likewise in the case of Ahed Tamimi. 

. 

However, it does not seem to be working out that way. It seems that L'il Ahed, aka Shirley Temper, is being justified by the legions that are devoted to PC. This will no doubt happen in the Jarrar case too. Is there any Court of PC or PC Court of Appeals where we can go to complain about the violation of the standard PC rules, of the standard PC skin color rating? Please notify us when you obtain an answer. CC to the hasbara office at the foreign ministry.

[On the other hand, is it a sinister Zionist coincidence that two stalwart blond, Nordic Arabs are in trouble with the Zionist occupation forces in a one-month period?]

Ahed Tamimi of the notorious Tamimi clan whose members have been involved in many terrorist murders, including the Sbarro restaurant bombing massacre in Jerusalem in 2001.  Here  is a video of the  recent incident where she slaps a soldier. [Also here & here & here]. Note how each of the four news sources presents the video differently, in shorter or longer versions, in versions favorable or unfavorable to the claims of Ms Tamimi and her family. Here is a report of connections between Amnesty International and the Tamimis [here]. The Daily Mail considers whether there has been media bias on the Australian Broadcasting Company in favor of the Tamimi narrative [here]. Rikki Hollander of CAMERA analyzes media coverage of the Ahed Tamimi case here.




Ahmed Nasr Jarrar murderer of Rav Raziel Shevahh, זכרונו לברכה

Here is how Palestinian Media Watch labels this photo [here]:

Posted text and text on top of image: "This young lion is of that lion"

Texts below faces: "Martyr Nasr Jarrar ... Martyr Ahmed Nasr Jarrar"

[Official Fatah Facebook page, Feb. 6, 2018]

The image shows terrorist Ahmed Nasr Jarrar (left) and his father, terrorist Nasr Jarrar, who is holding an assault rifle. The father was a Hamas terrorist who planned two attacks in central Israel - a double suicide bombing in the Sheba Hospital and a truck bombing in a multi-story building - attacks that were thwarted when he was killed and other members of his terror cell were caught by Israeli soldiers in 2002. [source is PMW here]

Here below is a photo of Rabbi Raziel Shevahh זכרונו לברכה with part of his family. Note that Rav Shevahh has dark eyes and black hair, unlike his murderer, Jarrar [source here] :

New Zealand's Mercenary Motives for Its UN Vote against Israel

See UPDATING at bottom of page

In the 20th and 21st centuries, Peace is the refuge of scoundrels. It is the excuse for all sorts of aggressive diplomatic moves and sometimes it is even the excuse for military attacks. In September 1939, after Nazi Germany and the Communist Soviet Union, under Hitler and Stalin respectively had invaded Poland and while the ruins were still burning, both of these aggressor powers issued a joint statement that they were engaged in a "struggle for peace." Likewise, after the racist anti-Jewish vote at the Security Council, the White House spokesman, Ben Rhodes claimed that US abstention --effective support for the racist anti-Israel resolution, which he acknowledged-- was meant to help bring peace. Nothing new under the sun.

No doubt New Zealand would make that same claim, perhaps adding a devotion to justice. But maybe there were other motives for New Zealand's bigoted vote at the UN SC. Indeed, a New Zealand foreign policy expert explained the business advantages that New Zealand would receive on account of this mendacious pro-Arab vote. An item on the site of Radio New Zealand on 25 December 2016 tells us: 

New Zealand's role in promoting a UN Security Council resolution against Israel may have some economic payoff, a foreign policy analyst says.

The expert, one Steve Hoadley, reassures his countrymen that New Zealand will not suffer from any Israeli retaliation on account of the vote:

"New Zealand also trades with the Arab states, is about to sign a free trade agreement with the Gulf Co-operation Council. There's huge profits being made to export lamb and other dairy products, other food products to the Arab states. If there was to be a big trade payoff, the calculations would be in favour of going with the Arab and the Muslim countries."  [emphasis added]

So there is big money to be made by New Zealand in trade with Arab and Muslim countries.
OK. Make your money but don't tell us you are acting in the name of peace and justice. Nevertheless, a commentator, also on Radio New Zealand, praises his country as a "peacemaker":

A few years ago, after the successful Bougainville peace talks, New Zealand imagined a role for itself as an international peace broker. It was a nice idea that turned out to be harder than it sounded, but it marked an increased New Zealand confidence to act independently, for good purpose.This week's action is a further brave step from New Zealand. It has no obvious ulterior motives, but instead seems an attempt to simply do the right thing. [emph. added; Phil Smith, Radio New Zealand, 24 December 2016]

It seems that our two commentators contradict each other. Was the vote made for mercenary benefit or for the sake of  ''peace" and the "right thing"? Maybe they would claim for both reasons and say that there is no contradiction. But New Zealand has been selling sheep, both already butchered and live --for certain Muslim festivals that require a sheep be slaughtered on the spot-- to the Arabs for many many years, and after all a country needs a market. Even a country that is the epitome of a European colony founded far away from Europe in a land which Europeans had never seen let alone lived in until a few hundred years ago (unlike Israel, a land where Jewish roots go back thousands of years) and is now settled in its overwhelming majority by European settlers.

They say that New Zealand is very English, maybe more English than England itself is today. One thing that the New Zealanders brought with them from Europe is hypocrisy. A good European should never be without some egregious and saccharine sweet sanctimonious hypocrisy.
- - - - - - - - - - -

UPDATING
12-28-2016 New Zealand Herald (13 November 2016) reported that Kerry was in the New Zealand capital in mid-November talking with the prime minister and foreign minister. New Zealand is a strong partisan of the Arabs. For those concerned about such things New Zealand is a European, British colony. As I wrote above, it is "a country that is the epitome of a European colony founded far away from Europe in a land which Europeans had never seen let alone lived in until a few hundred years ago (unlike Israel, a land where Jewish roots go back thousands of years) and is now settled in its overwhelming majority by European settlers." The New Zealanders, who belong to a colony, have no shame criticizing Israel for building settlements. Here is what is important in the article from 13 November 2016:

One of the closed-door discussions between United States Secretary of State John Kerry and the New Zealand Government today was a potential resolution by the United Nations Security Council on a two-state solution for the Israel - Palestinian conflict. After the talks, Foreign Minister Murray McCully even raised the possibility of the US or New Zealand sponsoring a resolution.

So Kerry and the NZ foreign minister discussed sponsoring a pro-Arab resolution. This contradicts US government spokesman Mark Toner who shamefully lied when denying any US collusion in the resolution produced in the Security Council the other day.

Cash Short EU Gives Greece Ultimatum, While Donating Liberally to the PLO/PA

REVISED, LINKs ADDED 2-20&3-19&20-2012

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

On February 7, this year, the EU announced a grant of funds to the Palestinian Authority, as reported by the PLO/PA's press agency, WAFA:

The European Union and Sweden Tuesday contributed €24.7 million to the payment of the January salaries and pensions of around 84,300 Palestinian civil servants and pensioners in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, according to an EU press release.

The European Commission made €22.5 million contribution and Sweden made €2.2 million. [here]

The next day Luxembourg, an EU member state, announced a donation of 15 million euros to the UNRWA, also for the benefit of Palestinian Arabs:

". . . in order to bring aid to the Palestinian people. . . The UNRWA which carries out remarkable and still indispensable work on behalf of 5 million [sic!] Palestinian refugees, is Luxembourg's principal partner in matters of aid to the Palestinian people,"

quoth the Luxembourg development minister.

A significant point about this aid was made by UNRWA's commissioner-general, Filippo Grandi:

In these times of political and economic uncertainty, both in this region [the ME] and worldwide, Luxembourg's increasing commitment in favor of our work is welcome. [original below]

Le Luxembourg donne 15 millions d'euros à l'UNRWA pour "porter assistance au peuple palestinien" Le Luxembourg a annoncé mercredi qu'il faisait un don de 15 millions d'euros à l'Office de secours et de travaux des Nations Unies pour les "réfugiés de Palestine" au Proche-Orient (UNRWA). L'accord a été signé par la ministre luxembourgeoise du Développement Marie-Josée Jacobs et le commissaire général de l'UNRWA, Filippo Grandi. "En ces temps d'incertitude politique et économique tant dans cette région que globalement, l'engagement croissant du Luxembourg en faveur de notre travail est le bienvenu", a déclaré Grandi. "L'UNRWA, qui poursuit son travail remarquable et encore indispensable au service de 5 millions de Palestiniens réfugiés, est le principal partenaire du Luxembourg lorsqu'il s'agit deporter assistance au peuple palestinien", a affirmé la ministre Jacobs. [Guysen News, 2-8-2012]

These are times of political and economic uncertainty indeed. Greece, a fellow member of the EU, is on the verge of bankruptcy, partly of its own doing and partly due to very mistaken policies of the EU [led by Germany] since 2010 and of the International Monetary Fund [since Christine Lagarde took over] to force a severe austerity program on Greece as a supposed remedy for its economic ills, while not providing Greece with a facility for borrowing funds at reasonable rates of interest, particularly without implementing the eurobonds idea, and thereby ensuring that Greece would not be able to pay off its ever increasing sovereign debt. That is, without growth and without a way to borrow at reasonable rates Greece could neither grow economically nor pay its debts. Failure of the "rescue plan" was foreseen by some economists back in 2010.

Nevertheless, all the while, economic experts from the EU, the European Central Bank and the IMF [since Lagarde's takeover] have been making all sorts of demands on Greece. Among them Greece must cut the minimum wage by 22% [according to Natalie Savaricas, France24], cut 150,000 public sector jobs by 2015 [in a country of ca. 9 million pop.], accept a commissioner from abroad for the tax administration, and reduce public health service reimbursements for purchases of medicine, etc. Germany moreover, wanted an outside commissioner to veto Greek government policies, which the EU Commission has not yet agreed to.

Meanwhile, the PA is faring much differently.

The European Commission's contribution comes from the €155 million package of financial assistance to the recurrent expenditures of the Palestinian Authority committed for 2012, said the release.

The European Commission agreed to a request by Prime Minister Salam Fayyad to frontload €116.2 million of this package in the first five months of 2012 in order to help the Palestinian Authority meet its urgent financial needs.

The €2.2 million contribution by the Swedish Government is part of its continuous support to the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian people.

Most of the European Union's assistance to the Palestinian Authority is channeled through PEGASE, the financial mechanism launched in 2008 to support the PA Reform and Development Plan (2008-2010) and the subsequent PA Palestinian National Plan (2011-2013).

Since February 2008, €1.23 billion have been disbursed through the PEGASE Direct Financial Support programs. [here]

No mention here of austerity. No demands to reduce expenditures, let's say, on the PA's print & broadcast media which regularly spread genocidal hatred of Jews. No talk of a special commissioner to oversee tax collection. No demand by Germany for a commissioner with power to veto Palestinian Authority policies. If there is accountability to the EU for funds spent or if there is EU supervision of fund disbursement, then why are there Nazi-like propaganda and genocide incitement in Palestinian Authority institutions: TV, radio, official PA newspapers, schools, mosques, etc.?? Yet, the Greeks are held to standards and demands are made of them. But no ultimatums for Arabs. It doesn't bother anybody at the EU that many if not most of the PA's civil servants are superfluous and indeed some of them are involved in creating and spreading hate propaganda against Jews or in terrorism now or in the past. Yet Greece is to fire 150,000 civil servants.

Furthermore, after the Greek parliament followed the government in accepting the demands of the EU, ECB, and IMF, new obstacles were raised to Greece getting the needed and promised funds. And one of those holding up the funds was very conspicuously Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the Euro Zone, the EuroGroup, who also just so happens to be prime minister of Luxembourg, which was so happy to be helpful and accommodating with the Palestinian Authority by supplying additional funds to UNRWA.

Indeed, helping the PA/PLO seems to be a paramount, supreme policy of the EU. It may also be EU policy to make propaganda against Israel, considering the many millions in subsidies by the EU and member states to Arab and pro-Arab/pro-PLO/anti-Israel NGOs that carry out propaganda and agitate against Israel. We don't hear of reductions in funds for the PA and the pro-PA NGOs despite the Euro debt crisis.

Meanwhile, Greece is treated differently. Moreover, it is not the only EU country in financial trouble. Ireland and Portugal too have received EU bail out funds, while Spain and Italy are under watch for fear of financial collapse, while Belgium, France and even Germany are seen as not entirely healthy financially, as under potential threat. The EU & its member states need money. Lots of it. But there is room for funding for the Palestinian Authority --cheerfully and helpfully with few or no questions asked.

So what explains the differential treatment of the Palestinian Authority and of Greece by the EU? The PA produces little, its economy is mainly based on donations from the EU, USA, wealthy Arab states and Japan. Much of its employed work force works for the PA administration and "security" services. Its corruption is notorious. It spreads hatred and incites war and genocide through its press, TV, radio, schools, and govt-supervised mosques. Meanwhile, Catherine Ashton, the EU foreign affairs commissioner, is eager to see a PLO/PA state created, whether or not it makes peace with Israel. Why are the PA and Greece treated differently?

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

Bernard-Henri Levy BHL on the Greek debt crisis.
Executive of the German firm Bosch wants Greece out of the EU [or only out of the eurozone?]
Paul Krugman thinks the EU failed to solve the crisis, partly due to their arrogance.
Charles Wyplosz points out six mistakes of Germany's finance minister.
Sarkozy & Merkel make demands on Greece [here--see video]

Qui links are in Italian, Ici links in French:
Wolfgang Schaeuble, German finance minister, speaks out against Athens [qui]
Jacques Attali on the Eurocrisis & Germany's role [ici]
The Troika's demands on Greece as of 30 January 2012 [qui]
Athens accepts cuts [qui]
Krugman's solution, print money, among other things [qui]
Economist Charles Wyplosz criticizes German dictates to the EU & Greece [qui]
The EU wants guarantees from Greece[qui]
Economist Jose Antonio Ocampo finds fault with Schaeuble and German policy [qui]
- - - - - - - - -
3-19-2012 Catherine Ashton, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice President of the European Commission, displays --in her shallow & pedestrian manner-- her warm sympathies for the Arab cause and for the notion of an Arab state in the Land of Israel, while drawing an absurd parallel between youth in Gaza and the Jewish victims of the massacre today in Toulouse, France.
The EU & Catherine Ashton unblock another 35 million euros for the palestinian authority in an agreement with PA prime minister Salem Fayyad.
3-20-2012 Jonathan Tobin comments on Catherine Ashton's fatuous comparison of children deliberately murdered in Toulouse & Norway [by Breivik last year] with Belgian children killed in a bus accident and with Gazan children who may have died as a byproduct of wars and battles started by the Islamists in Gaza in their endeavors to murder Israeli civilians, including children.
Jonathan Neumann sees Ashton's fatuousness as allowing us a peek at the EU's real anti-Israel agenda and proving once again that the EU cannot be an "honest broker" between Jews and Arabs.
Elliott Abrams points out that despite Ashton's claim to have been misunderstood, "her remarks quite obviously drew a parallel." She did not explicitly deny --in her response to criticism-- that she sees a parallel between the accidental deaths of the Belgian children, unquestionably tragic, with the deliberate murder of Jewish children in Toulouse and Arab children in Gaza who are often used as human shields. For Abrams, this failure to explicitly deny a parallel confirms that she indeed wanted to draw a parallel, however false it may have been. She may be too stupid to understand this.
Walter Z Laqueur demonstrates the foolish illusions of the admirers of the EU and the "Arab Spring."

Mad Falsehoods by Obama's Ambassador in Brussels

UPDATED 12-11-2011

Obama and his gang of clowns armed with a vast diplomatic and military apparatus never cease to amaze. Obama's man in Brussels, capital not only of Belgium but of the slyly Judeophobic European Union --plus a goodly supply of frankly bigoted, Judeophobic Muslims-- amazed with his ignorance and bigotry. Tragically, the man is son of a Holocaust survivor but has no understanding of what happened to his father and why. I will let Omri Ceren tell the story:

Muslim Anti-Semitism Is Not Israel’s Fault

It’s Israel’s fault:

Growing global anti-Semitism is linked to Israel’s policy towards the Palestinians, the American ambassador to Belgium told stunned Jewish conference attendants in Brussels earlier this week…. [Howard] Gutman told participants he was apologizing in advance if his words are not to their liking. He then proceeded to make controversial statements about his views on Muslim anti-Semitism, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Friday. A distinction should be made between traditional anti-Semitism, which should be condemned, and Muslim hatred for Jews, which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, Gutman said. He also argued that an Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty will significantly diminish Muslim anti-Semitism.

In no particular order:

(1) As a sheer historical matter, of course, he’s demonstrably wrong.

Muslim anti-Semitism stretches back centuries. Just last week we passed the 70th anniversary of the meeting between the Mufti of Jerusalem and Hitler, where the two of them conspired to wipe out European and Middle East Jewry. The Mufti, citing Muslim dogma and history, committed to helping the Nazis fulfill their genocidal ambitions. A few decades later, then-Secretary of State John Foster Dulles was explaining to Congress why the U.S. was withholding war planes from Israel while selling them to Saudi Arabia, and he explained that Muslim states “have felt for a long time – it goes back centuries – a very particular animosity toward the Jews because they credited the assassination of Mohammed to a Jew.”

It could be Dulles just didn’t realize that Muslim anti-Semitism had only existed for a couple of decades, and that the Mufti just didn’t know he was supposed to wait for the creation of Israel to become anti-Semitic. Although given how Muslim anti-Semitism is eschatological, and involves precise roles for Jews during the end-times and reserves an explicit place for them in hell, it’s more likely he hated Jews for religious reasons and that Gutman is making things up.

[Omri Ceren's article continues here][Gutman's speech is here, though it may be taken down in the near future]. My comments on this speech below.

Gutman's falsehood participates in slaying the whole concept of the innocent civilian. If Jewish civilians outside Israel [or inside Israel, of course] are guilty for what Israel does, however far they may be from decision-making in Jerusalem, then they are not innocent civilians or, in other words, the innocent civilian does not exist.
Consider as an example, the attacks on Jews in France after the al-Durah affair of 9-30-2000. They were justified by some "leftists" in France as deserved by those French Jews since they were not sufficiently vocal in opposing Israeli policy. That's also an endorsement of thuggery, of intimidating people into taking a certain political position. It is totally opposed to the democratic liberal ethos.

As another example, consider the town of Malmo in Sweden which has a large Muslim population which has been harassing Jews for a number of years. The mayor, Ilmar Reepalu (SDP), stated that the Jews' support for Israel directly correlates to a rise in Judeophobia [antisemitism], which he went on to explain doesn't exist in Malmö]. Jews need therefore to be more critical of Israel, Reepalu argued. [thanks to Tundra Tabloids]

Now, quite often, those who deny the existence of an innocent Jewish civilian, whine and moan over Arabs in Gaza who are all innocent civilians protected --supposedly-- by the Geneva Convention IV [of course, they don't know what it says -- check article 28]. On the other hand, Islamic law denies the existence of innocent civilians, since it believes in collective guilt of the dhimmi and kufar peoples. That is why it was just to many Muslims to kill any Christian after Pope Benedict made his remarks criticizing Islam through quoting a Byzantine emperor of hundreds of years ago. Several Christians were murdered, most were not even Catholics.

So these "leftists" and Muslims have slain the innocent civilian principle. Ambassador Gutman, Obama's man in Brussels, is doing that too. We should try to get them to admit that.
- - - - - - - - -

Jonathan Tobin comments on Gutman's mad speech as well as on the rabid remarks of Obama's Secretary of Defense Panetta, threatening Israel not to take preemptive action against the genocidal ayatollahs of Iran and generally blaming Israel for everything untoward in the Middle East [here]
Ron Radosh too comments on Gutman and Panetta's verbal effusions [here]
12-5-2011 Jonathan Tobin takes apart Gutman's non-apology, non-disavowal of his offensive remarks [here].
12-11-2011 Omri Ceren defends Gutman's critics against the nasty and stupid criticism of them made by pro-Nazi [vichyite], vicious "leftists" on the "Jewish left" [here] in defense of Gutman. Ceren pays particular attention to a vicious pre-Vichyite named jjGoldberg, self-identified as a 1960s "leftist." Like cheap wine, Goldberg has turned sour over time and is now cheap vinegar חומץ בן יין. He's worse than ever.
Daniel Greenfield [Sultan Knish] comments on Gutman's offensive speech [here]
Gutman tries to wiggle out of the implications of his remarks. The actual text of the offending speech is as bad as previously reported [here]. "It is a tension and perhaps hatred largely born of and reflecting the tension between Israel, the Palestinian territories and neighboring Arab states in the Middle East over the continuing Israeli-Palestinian problem," Gutman said as quoted by Foxnews.
Abe Foxman of ADL admits that, "Anti-Semitism, indeed Muslim anti-Semitism, was alive and well before the creation of Israel. Indeed, the extreme reaction to an independent Jewish state to this day in the Muslim world is connected to anti-Jewish attitudes that persisted for centuries" [here].
12-12-2011 Omri Ceren updates what we may call the Gutman-Muslim Affair [here]

The New "Antisemitism" [Judeophobia] -- Old Wine in New Bottles

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools

The new Judeophobia is getting more attention from scholars lately. Robert Wistrich goes deeply into the subject in his new book on the history of Judeophobia. Pierre-Andre Taguieff devotes at least two books to the subject. Michele Battini recently published "The Socialism of Fools" [Il Socialismo degli Imbecilli]. Battini's book is mainly about Judeophobia --which he calls "antisemitism"-- in the 19th and 20th centuries, and especially about the Judeophobia of the "Left" and "workers movements." Battini is himself a socialist, an advocate of workers' movements, but he is bothered and troubled by the irrational implications of this hatred, which can also ruin reasonable workers' aspirations. He considers Holocaust denial a "terrible threat" to moral truth and honest historiography, etc [p xxii]. About the new Judeophobia, Battini, like others, points out that Judeophobia did not end with the Holocaust. The new Judeophobia recycles old, traditional themes of anti-Jewish hatred into the acceptable, even bien-pensant [conventional prejudice] discourse about Zionism and Israel. Battini writes:

The history of "the socialism of fools" does not end in the abyss of extermination, just as the mechanisms of falsification did not stop with the fabrication of the Protocols [of the Elders of Zion]. They renew themselves and start to move again by the manipulation of memory and the denial of historical truth.

La storia del "socialismo degli imbecilli" non si concluse nella voragine dello sterminio, cosi come i meccanismi della falsificazione non si arrestarono con la fabbricazione dei Protocolli [dei savi anziani di Sion], rinnovandosi e rimettendosi in movimento nella manipulazione della memoria e nella negazione della verita storica. [Il Socialismo degli Imbecilli (Torino: Bollati Boringhieri 2010), pp xx-xxii]

Battini argues that similar techniques are employed to advance Judeophobia nowadays as were used 100 years ago: fabrication of false documents and denial of persecution of Jews [p xxii]. At the point that I have reached in the book, he has not pointed out the similarity of themes of the new Judeophobia today with the earlier form.

My definition of the "new Judeophobia" is that it focusses on the State of Israel as the collective Jew rather than so much on Jews in Diaspora countries, although this is changing [voir ici aussi]. It depends on the old Judeophobic themes of the Jew as the malign, omnipotent oppressor; user of the blood of non-Jews in religious ceremonies [the blood libel]; the slayer of the innocent and innocuous; the Jew constantly scheming, conspiring, undermining; the Jew as alien; as liar and so on.

Battini's argument that falsification of documents to libel Jews still goes on is confirmed by the many Big Lies propounded by the PLO and its outgrowth, the Palestinian Authority which has state power in Arab towns and cities in Judea-Samaria. One hundred years ago there was the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a forgery of supposed deliberations at a meeting of Jewish elders, the Elders of Zion, who aim at world domination. It is also a plagiarism of several earlier works. The Protocols are mainly copied and somewhat reworked from a French political pamphlet by one Maurice Joly, an enemy of Napoleon III. Joly's pamphlet was quite sophisticated about politics and the tricks that politicians, especially dictators and would-be dictators use. It did not deal with Jews. Joly's sophisticated presentation of modern politics lends verisimilitude --in its altered, plagiarized form-- to the Protocols and explains their lasting, widespread appeal.

In the last 17 years since the Oslo Accords were signed, the PLO/PA has put forth a series of Big Lies, falsifications and fabrications. This is a regular strategy of the PLO/PA as well as of Hamas, the rival of the PLO/PA. These big lies are typically accepted uncritically not only by Arabs and Muslims worldwide, but by Western supporters of the PLO/PA cause. In 2002, there was the Jenin Massacre Hoax. Hundreds or thousands of Arabs were allegedly massacred by Israeli forces in Jenin in an operation --Operation Defensive Shield. Their bodies were never found. That is, no mass grave of so many bodies, numbers differing among different PLO/PA spokesmen, was ever found.

A more damaging charge perhaps was that Israeli forces had deliberately shot an Arab boy of about 12 years of age outside the Netsarim settlement in Gaza on September 30, 2000. This alleged incident, as publicized worldwide, incited mob violence against Jews worldwide. Yet the alleged incident was a deliberate hoax which an Arab cameraman loyal to the Arab anti-Israel cause passed off to the Israel correspondent of the French state TV channel, France2. The French correspondent should have known better and perhaps knowingly collaborated in the hoax. In behalf of France2 he edited, that is, doctored, the raw film footage, which had already been shot as a staged scene, into a very short film sequence. France2 broadcast throughout France, which just incidentally has a large Muslim population, and to overseas cable customers, a doctored segment of a filmed hoax. France2 then offered the fabricated document to many other TV news agencies free of charge. Many accepted and broadcast the short, doctored film segment. Others, such as CNN to its credit, did not. The product, the fabricated film segment, fits the old theme of the anti-Jewish blood libel, which goes back to the Middle Ages. Like earlier instances of the blood libel, the al-Durah hoax incited violence against Jews, in France first of all. It encouraged Judeophobia worldwide and stimulated and "justified" Arab terrorists taking part in the so-called Second Intifada.

Two of the earliest instances of the blood libel go back to medieval England. These two cases were William of Norwich and Hugh of Lincoln. Both were boys about 9 to 12 years of age, curiously about the same age as Muhammad al-Durah at the time of the alleged incident on 30 September 2000. The parallels are striking. They were all boys before or just at puberty, innocent and innocuous. But the full film of the 30 September 2000 incident shows that young al-Durah did not die at that time and place. The frames of film coming after his alleged death as shown on France2's doctored segment, show al-Durah moving his hand and looking around --after death. Further, what seems to be blood spurting from a wound to his stomach on the short doctored segment, turns out later in the original film to be a red rag that the boy moves from his stomach to his thigh, after death.

Another theme of the old Judeophobia of 100 years ago is that the Jews are alien. Whereas in 1900 as in 1800, Jews were often held to be alien to Europe, corrupt Asiatics, inferior Orientals, the current anti-Zionist Judeophobia holds that Jews are alien to the Land of Israel. Moreover, Jews are insinuated to be "white" or "the whitest of the white colonizers," "true Europeans" [it is insinuated] and so on, whereas around 1900 Jews were often explicitly held to be swarthy, that is, not quite white, non-European, and thereby Oriental and corrupt, etc. See our discussion of George DuMaurier's novel, Trilby in this regard. Of course both Jews and Arabs present a broad range of skin colors and shades. No presumed Arab skin color prevented Arab leaders from being welcomed in Nazi Germany as honored allies in WW2.

Conspiracy theories are commonplace in Arab society and Arab intellectual life. Conspiracy theories about Jews are especially welcome in Arab culture. Thus, the Protocols too have found a warm home in the Arab world through several Arabic translations. The Protocols are the Jewish conspiracy par excellence. On the other hand, Carlo Panella points out that belief in Jewish conspiracies against Islam go back to the early days of the religion of Muhammad [in his book, Il "complotto ebraico," L'antisemitismo islamico da Maometto a Bin Laden [Torino: Lindau 2005].

Meanwhile, in Western countries, Establishment writers like Stephen Walt & John Mearsheimer spread the conspiracy theory of Jewish control of American policy. Both Walt & Mearsheimer, just by the way, have been State Dept consultants. At any rate, their argument comes close to that of "ultra-right wing" Judeophobes who rant about a "Zionist Occupied Government." Other "leftists" and "liberals" like walt-mearsheimer take up a claim that was once sole property of the "ultra-rightists" and neo-Nazis.

Another old theme revived in the 21st century is that Jews are always lying. Not Arabs or Westerners but Jews. The early Christian Church Fathers believed that Jews had falsified their own Scriptures to excise prophecies clearly identifying Jesus as the Jewish messiah. The Muslims claimed that both Jews and Christians had falsified their respective holy writings in order to deviate from Islam, the true religion, and to hide Muhammad's role, etc. Nowadays, prestigious "news" services like BBC insinuate that Israel is always lying, especially in order to cover up its alleged crimes. Consider the BBC's snide "reporting" today on the Turkel Commission Report on the Turkish armada, that is, the Mavi Marmara incident. This incident was clearly shown in videos made at the time. It was clear that Israeli soldiers were attacked when they came down onto the deck of the Mavi Marmara by Turkish jihadists of the IHH. See several earlier posts on this affair on Emet m'Tsiyon from June 2010.

Nothing new under the sun. Today's anti-Zionism is a false anti-imperialism [see Battini, pp 196-197]. It is old wine in new bottles.

- - - - - - - -
NOTE: Battini calls his book "The Socialism of Fools." This term was first used by the German socialist August Bebel in the late 19th century to describe the Judeophobia/antisemitism of his time, led by the journalist Wilhelm Marr, among others. More recently, we coined the phrase: Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools. This phrase was meant to be a paraphrase of Bebel's remark.
- - - - - - - -
UPDATING 1-26-2011 Fiamma Nirenstein writes about a new book by Pierluigi Battista who, she says, has the courage to call anti-Zionism antisemitism [qui]. The book is Lettera a un amico antisionista. She also mentions Robin Shepherd who wrote: A state beyond the pale, Bruce Bawer, who takes up the theme in his While Europe slept, Neill Lochery with Why blame Israel?, and among the Italians Angelo Pezzana and Magdi Allam. She goes to mention those whom she calls great names of politics and journalism, like José Maria Aznar and Giuliano Ferrara. I would add Giulio Meotti who has a new book out on Israeli victims of Arab terrorism.

More on Apartheid -- Arab-Muslim Religious Apartheid in Egypt

UPDATING 10-1-2010 &1-12-2011

Responsible Arab & Muslim bodies advocate religious apartheid. Of course, the dhimma system which began as a means for the Arab-Muslim conquerors to oppress, economically exploit and humiliate native subject peoples in their new empire always had aspects of apartheid, although based more on religion and nationality than on skin color and biological race. In order to accommodate modern times and modern medical science, the Muslim apartheid system has been updated.

"The Union of Egyptian Physicians has recently announced [2008] that transplants between persons of 'divergent creeds or nationalities' should be forbidden, the transgressors punished. This decision not only surpasses the Parliament [of Egypt] (where a new law on this matter is still under discussion) but it especially signals an aggravation of the tense relations between Egyptian Christians and Muslims." [Corriere della Sera, 20 August 2008]

Il Sindicato dei Medici egiziani ha da poco annunciato [2008] che trapianti tra persone di "diverso credo o nazionalita" vanno proibiti. [Corriere della Sera, 20 Agosto 2008]

The idea for this ban came from the Muslim Brotherhood who control the Physicians Union, according to Nabil el-Gindi, a doctor. He adds that the Islamist physicians "say that it is needed to avoid the organ trade, that rich Christians now buy them [organs] for two pounds [Egyptian pounds] from poor Muslims."

I have not ascertained whether this decision by the physicians union was written into law or if some similar bill became law. However, this is how the majority of Egyptian physicians think, this is how the Muslim Brotherhood thinks. And some people in Washington and London are eager to negotiate with the Hamas which is the Palestinian Arab affiliate of the Muslim Brotherhood. Many in DC and London are eager to have the MB allowed to take over the Egyptian govt since it probably has majority support in Egypt. Then the anti-democratic MB could be dealt with as a democratically elected governing party because it could probably win a majority vote.

El-Gindi informs us that in Egyptian hospitals and medical schools, Coptic Christians, the purest native Egyptians, are discriminated against. He reports that some of the best Coptic physicians leave the country, forced to emigrate. One of them, Magdi Yacoub, is a world famous cardiologist, now living in London.

Jimmy Carter has not noticed this situation. Or if he has, he has been quiet about it. Of course, neither the well-funded "human rights" and civil rights bodies, like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, nor the UN's so-called "human rights council", is interested in the openly avowed support for apartheid by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, nor in the regular oppression and humiliation undergone by Copts, native Egyptian Christians, in Egypt. Only Israel can do wrong. Only Israel is to be accused.

These "human rights" and "civil rights" bodies are manipulative instruments trying to influence and manipulate public opinion. They can rightly be called Judeophobic or antisemitic.

UPDATING 10-1-2010
As of early 2010, Egypt had not yet passed a law on transplants. What is significant is the attitude of Egyptian physicians themselves who favor banning transplants between persons of different religions or nationalities. Bear in mind that Muhammad Atta's family were Egyptian physicians and Dr al-Zawahiri, Ben Laden's second in command [or perhaps top commander of al-Qa`ida, if Ben Laden is indeed dead, as some believe] is an Egyptian physician.

Here is another report:

The Egyptian Medical Association, through its spokesman on August 18 [2008], denied that a bill in the Egyptian parliament would discriminate between Christians and Muslims by prohibiting organ transplants between members of the two faiths. The Association supports the controversial measure. “This is all to protect poor Muslims from rich Christians who buy their organs and vice versa,” explained Hamdi Al Sayed – the director of the Medical Association. Under the bill, physicians who violate the proposed law would face retribution.

Al Sayed denied any sectarianism in the proposed law saying that “if some Copts are angered by the law then why is it that Muslims are not.” Even so, Al Sayed said that under the draft law, it’s not possible for a Coptic Christian to donate organs to a Muslim and vice versa simply because donations have been restricted to family members up to the fourth degree. Al Sayed continued “…it is degrading for both religions if lets say, a poor Christian has to sell his kidney to a rich Muslim, or a poor Muslim has to sell his kidney to a rich Christian. It is not right for either religion and that is why we made this law so we can stop organ trafficking.” Finally, Al Sayed continued, “It is not about trying to promote differences between religions but it’s just to minimize the trade of organs as much as we can.”

Speaking for Coptic Christians, Bishop Marcos said “We all have the same Egyptian blood, but if the reason for the measure is to end organ trafficking, we reject it because it may also occur between believers of the same religion.” For Bishop Marcos, the Association’s decision is “very grave” since it can lead to prohibiting blood donation between Christians and Muslims [here]

More links
in English [here&here&here]

in Italian [qui & qui (citato della Repubblica)]
1-12-2011 Aftermath of Alexandria massacre on New Years Eve [here]

The British, Judeophobia & Anti-Zionism -- Lewis Feuer

Anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools.

Writing about George Orwell's typically socialist or Marxist approach to Judeophobia as a problem, Lewis Feuer refers to the attitude of other British intellectuals and identifies the likely purposes and/or results of anti-Zionism.

In his quest for rationality, Orwell, like so many Englishmen --Shaw, Webb, Wells, Russell-- tended to belittle the importance of anti-semitism. As far as Orwell could see, "anti-semitism is only one manifestation of nationalism," that can be cured only when the larger disease of nationalism is cured. Long before nationalism, however, became a historic force, in mediaeval Europe, anti-semitism was endemic, and always its manifestations linked first to the relative defencelessness of the Jews, and second, to the sense, as Charles de Gaulle put it, that the Jews were an elite people, gifted inordinately with intellectual abilities. Anti-semitism has thus always been a concomitant of anti-intellectual and populist movements. And anti-Zionism, as the current form of anti-semitism, aims precisely to restore the Jews to such a state of defencelessness.

Lewis Feuer wrote this in 1984 in Survey, a Journal of East & West Studies [Summer 1984; p 163]. He wrote it long before Judeophobia in its "anti-Zionist" guise became a highly emotional fashion among a variegated set of publics: BBC TV editors, editors of ostensibly "liberal" British newspapers like the Guardian and the strongly pro-capitalist Financial Times, not to mention assorted Communist and Communist-Trotskyist sects, Arab and other Muslim jihadists, British opportunists and race haters like George Galloway, and so on.

Feuer rightly points out that for many of the respected "leftists" and "socialists" in Britain --and not only there-- the problems of the Jews were secondary and would be solved by the coming of a socialist messianic age, the renewed Golden Age of Man, as some viewed a socialist society. In other words, socialism would solve all the problems of the Jews, so they argued. Intelligent people would be much more skeptical about a socialist Golden Age today. Anyhow, before we get to True Socialism, we could all be dead. That was especially true for the Jews of Orwell's time. About a third or more of the Jews in the world were murdered in Orwell's own lifetime. True Socialism did not come soon enough to save their lives, let alone their honor and their rights.

Today, we see that many self-styled socialists could not care less about the rights of Jews, or are indeed hostile to them. Some, like Ken Livingstone, openly mock Jews and scorn their human rights and dignity. Lest we forget, Livingstone, the mayor of London for several years, was long a Trotskyist and became notorious after the 9-11 mass murder for inviting Yusuf Qaradhawi, a notorious Muslim hate preacher, to London. But is Feuer right in calling Judeophobia, whether or not in its anti-Zionist form, a populist movement? He gives part of the answer to that question himself, whether or not he recognized that. General De Gaulle, later President De Gaulle, was hardly a "populist" nor was he anti-intellectual, but he was Judeophobic. Of course De Gaulle's remark after the Six Day War that the Jews were an "elite and domineering people" could be said to play to the masses of non-Jews as an instrumental tactic or strategy for influencing French public opinion. Maybe De Gaulle wanted to play up to the Arabs with that remark. It was indeed followed by a ban on Israeli military purchases. For those who don't know it, France was Israel's major weapons supplier before the Six Day War. Israel won the war with French fighter aircraft, etc. Probably many people don't know it because they believe that the United States was always supporting Israel and furnishing it with weapons. Indeed, this has been one of the commonplace Big Lies about Israel told by the "leftists" of the last 43 years. France was much more supportive of Israel up to the Six Day War than was the United States.

So the fact that De Gaulle made his Judeophobic remark after the Six Day War was not only a signal of an approaching French switch to a pro-Arab policy but a use of Judeophobia, a stimulation, encouragement, incitement of Judeophobia made by an elitist politician backed by big money interests in his own country. On that Feuer was wrong.

Then Feuer refers to the Judeophobia of the Middle Ages. It was not simply "populist" nor "anti-intellectual." After all, very intellectual Christian theologians loathed or hated Jews on religious grounds. And when some of the non-Jewish poor attacked Jews for real or supposed Jewish wealth, was it solely a mood of resentment of those wealthier whereas the pogrom mobs seldom attacked the rich of their own religion or ethnic group? What may have happened is that poor folk, who often and commonly resent those wealthier or more prosperous than themselves [not always nor at all times and places], may have especially resented the fact that Jews who --they were taught-- were religiously evil, Christkillers or whatnot, were able to obtain wealth. After all, if those people religiously defined as evil [Jews], could obtain wealth or any respectable social standing, then that was an injustice. An injustice which sometimes required violence to redress. Possibly the devil's work, a conspiracy, etc. Of course, this is theoretical and I am open to discussion about it.

What is most sinister today, it seems, is that members of elites use psychological warfare techniques, propaganda tricks that really go beyond mere propaganda, in order to produce hatred of Jews among their masses, especially the lower-middle brow masses, not to mention among the mass of ill-educated academics, truly nutty professors, and so on. One way to keep the population in line and to get them to follow the will of the elite, what C Wright Mills called the Power Elite, is to use all sorts of tricks from the arsenal of psychological warfare. That goes on all the time and in many places.

But Feuer was right to say that anti-Zionism is "the current form of anti-semitism." And in a time when "anti-imperialism" is supposed to be taken for granted as the right way to think, the right position for all decent and right-thinking folk, anti-semitism [Judeophobia] has to take on the coloring of anti-imperialism. A principle of psywar is to seemingly accept the values and basic beliefs of those one wants to persuade or bring around to another way of thinking. The basic beliefs and values of the target audience are the platform for moving to new beliefs --perhaps added on to the old, not necessarily replacing them-- desired by the psywar practitioner.

Feuer's conclusion that anti-Zionism means to restore Jews to their state of defenselessness, as in the Middle Ages, is insightful. Certainly, weakening Israel would have that effect and would likely lead to renewed persecution of Jews in many parts of the world.

The "New" Anti-Zionism and the "Old" Antisemitism/Judeophobia

UPDATING with illustration 7-16 & 7-18 & 7-21-2008

The "new" anti-Zionism is not fundamentally different from the "old" antisemitism/Judeophobia. This is particularly true in the themes and claims made by today's and yesteryear's Judeophobes. Then, before World War One, the Jews were held as not being true Europeans, which meant true French, German, Anglo-Saxon, Nordic, Polish, Russian, Rumanian, etc. Rather, 100 years ago, Jews were explicitly viewed as Orientals. Now --presto changeo, hocus pocus-- Jews are held as not being true Middle Easterners, not being "authentic" inhabitants of "palestine" [a geographic notion alien to the Arabs, by the way].

The Euro-Judeophobe around 1900, perhaps someone like George DuMaurier, author of the Judeophobic novel Trilby [the villain is a swarthy Polish Jew], at least had his history right. The Jews in Europe [albeit not a pure race] did not originate in Europe but were on the whole descended from migrants, refugees, slaves captured in the Roman-Jewish wars, etc., although they had been in Europe since Roman times whereas Jewish migration to Europe from Israel and elsewhere in the Middle East continued through the Middle Ages [Cecil Roth, Simon Schwarzfuchs]. Maybe the migrants in the Middle Ages were getting away from the Arabs. Another Judeophobic novelist was the immensely popular John Buchan and his 39 Steps concealing a Jewish conspiracy. Buchan was later rewarded by nomination as governor-general of Canada. In Thackeray's Vanity Fair, one of the characters least loved by the author is a girl from the West Indies, half Jewish and half Black.

DuMaurier was also an illustrator for the British weekly Punch. This is his own depiction of what Svengali, his Jewish villain, and Trilby, the pure white maiden, looked like to DuMaurier himself. Note the contrast betweenTrilby's pale whiteness and Svengali's darkness, which is further intensified by his placement in the shadows. Curiously, many Judeophobic cartoons in the Arab press show Jews looking much like Svengali. [See A. Stav, Peace, The Arabian Caricature, 2000][picture source: Mystic Bourgeoisie] Can today's anti-Zionists deduce from this picture that Jews were considered "Europeans" just like everybody else?

Today's Judeophobes in their "anti-Zionist" guise get even their history wrong, sometimes claiming --in so many words-- that the Israelis are really true Europeans, the truest of Europeans --thus, the whitest of the white, the most Nordic of the Nordics, as it were-- and the most guilty, therefore, of colonialism, imperialism, racism, apartheid, etc. Here, the geographically alien nature of the Jew has been transposed from Europe to the Middle East, while --in addition-- specifically European/Western sins have been unloaded from the Europeans and laden onto the Jews. These claims are probably made more often by insinuation than by direct assertion. Yet, they are commonly expressed in the most politically correct Euro company.

Today, as then, highly prestigious spirits in the UK, Germany, Portugal, Norway, etc., Nobel-prize winning novelists and the like, suspect a Jewish conspiracy behind whatever displeases them throughout the world, and they compulsively identify Israel with the Nazis. This is in order to recover their sense of moral superiority to the Jews, temporarily tarnished by knowledge of the Holocaust. Before and during the Vichy regime in France, pacifists and socialists, as well as Rightists of the Maurras stripe, wanted peace with Hitler, with the Nazis, and then collaborated in the Vichy regime and persecution of Jews. On this see, inter alia, a recent book by Simon Epstein, Un Paradoxe français. As far back as the 19th century, the German socialist August Bebel, described antisemitism as "the socialism of fools." Today, anti-Zionism is the anti-imperialism of fools, albeit a Nobel prize winner is not so foolish as to be unable to count the prize money awarded to him.

To conclude, would it be unfair to the Arabs to mention the plentiful evidence from DNA studies of Jews, Sefardim, Ashkenazim, Mizrahim [Oriental Jews] and comparisons with other Middle Eastern and Mediterranean peoples??

- - - - - - - - - - - -
Bibliog
Brian Cheyette,"Neither Black nor White: The Figure of 'the Jew' in Imperial British Literature," in L Nochlin & T Garb, eds., The Jew in the Text (London 1995); also see writings here by Linda Nochlin, Tamar Garb, Kathleen Adler, etc.
Montagu Frank Modder, The Jew in the Literature of England (Philadelphia: JPS 1939, 1960), pp 300-301.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
Coming: Jews caught up in the Armenian genocide, Jews in Hebron, Jerusalem and the Land of Israel, peace follies, propaganda, etc.