It is common cause that anti - semitism has, once again, become an issue in Europe and Scandinavia and is alleged to be the agenda of certain Universities and their representative groups in Western Countries. Certain Muslim countries have been anti - semitic since about the time of the second world war, but the resurgence in the Western world is relatively new and it is growing apace. It is important in the modern day revival of of anti - semitism to look at the definitions of anti semitism before proceeding. The Encyclopedia Britanica’s definition of anti - semitism is, “Hostility or discrimination against Jews as a religious and a racial group”. The online free Fairfax dictionary simply defines it as, "Hostility or prejudice against Jews". Generally speaking prejudice is accepted as being, an opinion formed beforehand, especially an unfavorable one, based on inadequate facts, reason or actual experience.INTRODUCTION: Evolution of anti - semitism.
The former Chief Rabbi of the British Commonwealth, Lord Jonathan Sacks stated that anti - semitism has gone through a number of phases. Initially in the Roman era the Jews were just considered different like anyone else who was “different” and discriminated against on that basis. The basis of anti- semitism was thus political.
RELIGIOUS AND RACIAL ANTI - SEMITISM
Anti - semitism, according to Sacks, very soon became religious. This was as a result of, inter alia, over a millennium and a half years of vilification of Jews as being the personification of the devil and the killers of Christ. There were Saint Augustine, the Crusades and the blood libel against the Jews in the eleventh Century. Anti - semitism on the basis of religion culminated in the Inquisition and pogroms throughout Europe especially Russia. The mantra, in some
countries, was if you changed your religion to Christianity then you would no longer be discriminated against.
Anti -semitism never the less continued on a religious basis but gradually assumed a racial overtone in the nineteenth century, particularly in Germany, where the term anti -semitism was coined. Now regardless of whether you regarded yourself a Jew or not if the authorities deemed you were one you went to the concentration camps. (It is fair to say that the holocaust where six million jews were slaughtered was the major impetus in the carrying out of the Balfour declaration and the establishment of Israel as a nation. That and the fact that no country was really open to accepting the millions of holocaust survivors).
Lord Sacks believes that anti - semitism now takes the form of attacking Israel. The latter assumption has been sharply challenged. This understandably results in the argument that just criticizing Israel’s Government could be considered anti - semitic.
ISRAEL AS A NATION STATE
After the UNO establishment of Israel certain Arab countries changed their justification to their opposition to Israel’s existence. This after several unsuccessful military attempts to wipe the nation off the face of the earth. The narrative was changed to while they had nothing against the Jews it was the Zionists that they hated.This culminated in the 1975 General Assembly resolution equating Zionism with racism and comparing it to South African apartheid.
While certain Muslim countries, like Iran, still unashamedly want to wipe Israel of the face of the earth there is a change in the opposition to Israel relating it to their treatment of the Palestinians and the failure of the latter to gain independent nation status. The criticism of Israeli behavior likens it to the Nazis treatment of the Jews and or to apartheid South Africa. This critique has also found support among certain groups and individuals who had previously not publicly been opposed to Jews or Israel.
It is in this current mileu that there is open anti - semitism in Europe and Scandinavia on a scale that has lead to an increase of European immigration or Aliyah to Israel by 26% in the year 2013 as reported by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Human Rights. In France alone the increase was 49% in 2013 over a nine month period. (International Business Times November 26, 2013). The number of anti semitic incidents in France have skyrocketed by 83% in 2013. These have been ascribed to Muslim extremism.EUROPEAN AGENCY FOR HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT ON ANTI-SEMITISM
The European Union Agency for Fundamental Human Rights released a 80 page report on the perceptions on close to 6,000 self identified jews, regardless of whether these jews regarded themselves as such by cultural, religious, ethnic or Zionistic criteria. The countries surveyed were Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Rumania, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
The survey was conducted under a rigid protocol and the results did not include Rumania as there were too few responses from that country to make an appropriate assessment of their perceptions. It must be pointed out here or now, in spite of the growing problem of anti - semitism, none of the respective governments condone any of the behavior reported and are taking vigorous steps, including legislation, to curtail it.
The very fact that the European Union have conducted this investigation is evidence itself of the gravity in which they view this negative trend and in their comments on the survey they are clear in their condemnation and make suggestions to improve the status quo. On the other hand there is a growth of extremism, that even finds representation in European Parliaments, reflecting the mood of the ugly naked anti-Semitism that is mushrooming in Europe.
Results
The essence of the report reflects that one third of the respondents “did not feel safe” living as jews in Europe and were considering immigrating to Israel The feelings were strongest in France, Hungary and Belgium. A total of 76% believed that anti-semitism was on the rise in Europe and 90% maintained that they had met fellow citizens that felt that Jews were not regarded as nationals of their own countries. One third also considered that there were acts of anti- semitism in the media, internet, political life, graffiti, desecration or vandalism of cemeteries or buildings and open expressions of hostility.
The agency notes that one is generally reliant on the number of incidents of harassment, vandalism or violence towards Jews from media reports. The survey reflected that 21% had a personal experience of verbal incidents, harassment or physical attack within the previous 12 months. Yet they had only reported about one in 5 to the police or other body in the past 5 years. Half reported serious physical harm or threats or acts of vandalism.
One of two victims of the aforementioned behavior stated they avoided certain events and areas as a result of this discrimination. These included Jewish events or sites. One of the comments made was “Our religious places are under systematic police surveillance. This shows that the the threats are real and the Government takes them seriously”. An elderly Swedish Jew stated that, “We try to avoid certain areas where we know anti-semitism takes place, e.g. immigrant neighborhoods with a Muslim majority". Almost half of those being surveyed were worried about being harassed or verbally insulted and more than a third feared a physical attack in the next 6 months.
The situations where discrimination were said to happen were often work related as in 30% of the incidents. Those Jews discriminated against showed a positive attitude to the authorities, such as police, courts, landlords and doctors. As noted above the victims did not believe much good would come out of them reporting the incidents. About half were also not aware of legislation that made this discrimination illegal.
The respondents noted that the following statements were heard either all the time or frequently; Israelis behave like Nazis towards the Palestinians, (48%), Jews have too much power, (38%), Jews exploit holocaust victimhood for their own purposes, (37%) and Jews are responsible for the current economic crisis, (21%).
The Middle East Arab - Israeli conflict impacted on those surveyed. Over two thirds felt their safety was impaired as a result of this conflict. Anti - Semitism incidents increased markedly for example in 2010 at the time of the GAZA invasion. An Italian respondent commented that, “Anti - semitism due to prejudices against Israel is increasing by identifying Jewish people with what is going on in Israel. This is more dangerous than the traditional extreme right wing anti - semitism, because it is less visible but more deceitful and pervasive.”
An interesting perception related to who those surveyed as to who were the perpetrators of harassment, violence or discrimination in the past 5 years - 50% said Muslim Extremists, 40% with extreme right wing views and over 50% with extreme left wing views. Obviosly some respondents named more than one group
Comment:
The European agency report gives some numeric perspective to a situation where previously one had relied on anecdotal reports of anti - semitism. In Nazi Germany, where race was used as a criterion for anti - semitism the perpetrator decided who he would make the victim, regardless of whether she was a Jew who had converted, was irreligious and totally assimilated. Similarly in Europe today no Jew is asked his or her opinion on the Israeli - Palestinian - Arab conflict, it is assumed that he supports the action.
This data would be supportive of Rabbi Sack’s contention that modern day anti - semitism takes the form of being anti - Israel or as a result of Israel's existence.
A hotly debated issue at the moment is whether the proposed academic boycott of Israel reflects the world wide reawakening of anti -semitism as manifested in Europe or is just a legitimate political action to attempt to change Israel’s policy towards the Palestinian territories. The boycott supporters have also likened Israel’s action to those of the Nazis and or apartheid South Africa.ACADEMIC BOYCOTT OF ISRAEL.
One of the problems in this debate is that some protagonists of Israel maintain that any criticism of Israel is anti - semitic. Jon Stewart of The Daily Show viewed some rabid attacks on Netanyahu in the Knesset and opined apparently it is only not anti - semitic if you disagree with Israeli Government’s position in Israel. (Jay. H. Ell, in the interests of disclosure, has often blogged attacking Netanyahu’s policies on the Palestine issue and obviously does not believe his position is anti - semitic). Obviously criticism of Israeli policies does not equate to anti - semitism as otherwise half the Israelis themselves would be classified as anti - semites.
The issue is thus whether the boycott of Israeli Academics is legitimate political expression because the behavior of the Israelis is equivalent, as is argued, to the Nazis and apartheid South Africa and/or is so egregious so as to single it out.
The Academic Boycott was mooted in Ramallah in 2004 by Palestinian academics who stated that Israeli cultural and educational institutions should be boycotted unless they could prove that they were not complicit in maintaining Israel’s occupation of Palestine. The boycott was extended to Israeli academics as well. The attempts to effect this boycott has had a very bumpy road but this does not decide whether or not the boycott movements are anti - semitic or merely exerting legitimate political pressure. The boycott has found supporters in South Africa, Australia, Canada and some European Institutions but has had its main areas of action in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. (To fully discuss the efforts and the responses of this campaign would take another blog and is not really pertinent to this discussion).
THE PALESTINIANS
Firstly, one has to recognize that there are three groups of Palestinians in the area - 1.5 million in Israel itself, 3.0 million in Jordan and 4.5 million in the Occupied Territories.
If the standards are equal rights in all those areas, Jordan fails miserably. The Palestinians represent over half the population in Jordan and have no rights or franchise in that country. The Palestinians represent a sizable minority in Israel of 20% of the population. They enjoy the same rights as every Israeli citizen, have members of the Knesset, been appointed as judges and other high positions and some serve in the Israeli Defense Force. It is also interesting to note that no Palestinian freedom fighter/ terrorist whether having killed Israelis or not, has ever been executed. The question immediately arises as to if Palestinians are the issue why aren't Jordan's academics boycotted as well?
The Occupied Territories are "self governing" however they are completely dependent economically and movement on the Israelis. The creation of a physical wall around the territories has limited movement even more but the Israelis defend their decision in saying that suicide bombings in Israel have virtually stopped as a result. Also there are stringent check points where confrontation often takes place and Palestinians are restricted in their movements.
ISRAEL AND PALESTINIAN TERRITORIES ARE AT WAR
It is fair to say that Israel and the Palestinian Territories are in a war like state and it is in this frame of reference that the atrocities have to be evaluated. Hamas conducts raids, attacks settlements, sends suicide bombers and fires rockets into Israel and neither Hamas or Abbas have recognized the right of Israel to exist. Innocents die and there is not a family in Israel that has not lost a close relative either in one of the wars or in a terrorist attack.
The Israeli reprisal raids, for example and their bulldozing of homes and institutions has raised criticism both in and without Israel. Jay H. Ell has read heart rending accounts by Israeli soldiers sickened by the actions taken to wipe out terrorist nests. They are said to be collective punishments. War is ugly. Palestinians live in appalling conditions at the best of times and suffer because of the situation. Similarly Israel are said to exacerbate the tension by creating settlements in areas that it is generally accepted would be given to the Palestinians in a settlement.
There have been a decades long battle between Israel and Palestine Territories and several attempts to resolve the issue - the last one being in 2002 arbitrated by President Clinton. According to Clinton, Israel’s Barak conceded to virtually all Arafat’s demands and Arafat reneged and unleashed the second Intifada.
THE BASIS FOR THE BOYCOTT
The onus is on the boycotters as to why with all the inequities, violence and wars at present they have singled out Israel alone for this humiliating treatment?
The questions that arise: What singles out Israel, of all countries at war to merit this attention and for their academics to be boycotted? How does one put Israel in a situation comparative to nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa? Because of the alleged Israeli Government behavior, do the academic and cultural institutions merit this treatment? Interestingly much of the opposition to Netanyahu comes from them. Are there similar situations in the world which are the same or worse and should therefore merit a similar response? Is the collateral damage in Israeli reprisals to attacks far worse than any other? If the answer to these questions are in the negative Israel is being singled out and discriminated against and the only reason for that can be anti -semitism.
COMPARISON
To compare the wholesale murder of six million Jews in the gas chambers having relegated them to sub human beings with the alleged excesses that occur in the Israeli - Palestinian war situation where the Israelis are responding to attacks and murder of their citizens is obscene. Are the Israelis piling the Palestinians in occupied territories into trains and taking them to labor camps to incinerate them? They are not even executing those that have murdered Israeli citizens. This is not a reasonable comparison.
The South African analogy shows a woeful ignorance of apartheid and its legislation. Here people were living and working in a country when the regime unilaterally declared them foreigners who needed papers to now become itinerant laborers. They were declared citizens of another country where in most instances the "country" had not even been created. Then those that were legitimately in "white South Africa" were forced to live in ghettos, denied the vote, not allowed to use the facilities open to whites, only allowed menial jobs, discriminated and brutalized by the legal system and given inferior education for example. They were also afforded with no representation in government. There is no evidence whatsoever that is what Israel is doing in Israel or the Palestinian territories.
In Israel itself the Palestinians have full rights and it would be unreasonable, (or is it?), to expect that the Palestinians of the Territories be allowed to become Israeli citizens and therefore take over the State of Israel. At present the Palestinians in the territories govern themselves and are in a position to be negotiating their future. As Abbas said he wished that the Arab world had accepted the UNO two state solution in 1948 instead of descending upon Israel. Again to compare Israel’s actions to apartheid South Africa implies that the Palestinians in the territories are really citizens of Israel and Israel should hand over the country to those who in fact declared war on them. This is not a reasonable request. No other country has ever been asked to do this.
The very fact that the tendenitious terms of holocaust and apartheid are used shows bias. When the Muslims were being murdered in Bosnia and as is now happening in the Sudan the more genteel term "ethnic cleansing" is used. However Israel who is not attempting to wipe out the Palestinians are Nazi Germany.
There are examples to day, even with drone attacks, and since time immemorial of collateral damage in wars. Britain was merciless, following on their own experiences, in bombing civilian Germany. The Palestine objective is just to cause collateral damage. Let us just take one modern day example: China has been in an ongoing war with Tibet. China has been brutal in what can be only categorized as an imperial war. To the best of Jay H. Ell’s knowledge this situation that is far worse than the Israeli situation but has not resulted in a boycott of Chinese academics. This has to be indictive of prejudice and discrimination towards Israel.
So on the basis of the facts Israel is being uniquely discriminated against and what other reason can that be other than that it is the Jewish Israeli State. Taken with what is going on with European naked anti - semitism, it can only be interpreted as part of the new anti -semitism.
THE FUTURE
This does not take any criticism away from the Netanyahu - Liebermann axis. Israel is in the power situation and they need to make the moves. They have to appreciate that the Palestinians are victims of history. A great start would be to recognize that the settlements have to be negotiable or at least provide acceptable land swaps and see that no new ones created. Also a tough line needs to be taken on those extremists that are exacerbating and escalating tension between Israel and the Middle East. If Netanyahu expects the Palestinians to curb their extremists he has to take the tough decsions to do likewise. The current peace talks are under way and as complicated and as difficult as they might be Israel has to hang in there.
Netanyahu must not rely on the fact that the Israeli cause is so popular in the USA. In the USA anything that he does or demands will be supported. This is false security as his electorate want to be able to sleep at night. The fact that the American Congress are backing his every move and are unconditionally supporting him does not resolve the day to day situation in Israel.
One can only hope that the current settlement talks will finally lead to a workable compromise.
If and when a settlement is arrived at presumably the boycott on Israeli academics will be lifted.
No comments:
Post a Comment